U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–481 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–576 

PRESERVING PUBLIC SAFETY AND NETWORK 

RELIABILITY IN THE IP TRANSITION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 

TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 5, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

JOHN E. WALSH, Montana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

JOHN E. WALSH, Montana 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking 

Member 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire, 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 5, 2014 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 2 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 36 

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 38 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 40 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 42 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 43 

Statement of Senator Booker .................................................................................. 48 

WITNESSES

Henning Schulzrinne, Chief Technology Officer, Federal Communications 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Jonathan Banks, Senior Vice President, Law and Policy, United States 

Telecom Association (USTelecom) ....................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney, Public Knowledge ....................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Colette D. Honorable, President, National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC) .................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Gigi Smith, President, Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials 

(APCO) International ........................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Henning Schulzrinne by: 

Hon. Mark Pryor ............................................................................................... 53 

Hon. Cory Booker ............................................................................................. 54 

Response to written question submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to Jonathan 

Banks .................................................................................................................... 54 

(1) 

PRESERVING PUBLIC SAFETY AND NETWORK 

RELIABILITY IN THE IP TRANSITION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND

THE INTERNET, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m. in Room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Pryor, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Well, we will call the hearing to order. Thank 

you for coming to the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet, the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

So I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and 

we will have a number of colleagues coming and going this morning. We have a number of other hearings and markups, et cetera, 

going on, some action on the floor as well. So some of our colleagues will be coming and going. 

So let me just say good morning to everyone, and welcome to today’s hearing. We are here today to discuss the public safety and 

network reliability aspects of the ongoing evolution of our Nation’s 

communications networks. 

Today, the Nation’s voice networks are in the midst of multiple 

transitions that promise to change how we communicate. First, the 

transmission infrastructure that carries our voice communication is 

moving away from reliance on copper to fiber optics. Next, the socalled ‘‘circuit-switched protocols’’ that have long underpinned traditional telephone service are transitioning to newer Internet protocols, or IP systems. And finally, many Americans are choosing to 

substitute wireless service for traditional wired voice communications. 

However, there may be challenges that consumers, carriers, and 

the public safety officials face as our networks increasingly rely on 

all-IP technology and fiber optic infrastructure. For example, in my 

state, Arkansas recently suffered a severe tornado. Tragically, we 

lost 18 Arkansans in that, and significant property damage as well. 

Thirty-six thousand homes lost power. 

I have heard nothing but very positive things from the Arkansas 

Department of Emergency Management and the Governor’s office 

2 

about how our local telephone companies reacted during and immediately after the storm. I would expect those companies in Arkansas and others around the country to continue their commitment 

to public safety, no matter the technology used to transmit phone 

calls over our networks. 

Consumers have come to trust the reliability and resiliency of the 

old copper telephone network. They cannot afford to wait for a disaster to strike to find out that there are gaps in our communications networks in an all-IP world. So I want to be sure that we are 

exploring the public safety implications of these transitions and 

asking the right questions proactively, but also, I do want to stress 

that the IP transition presents an important opportunity for consumers and communication providers. 

New technologies bring potential of new services and possibilities 

to make our networks even more efficient and to bring down costs 

for consumers. Rather than be an impediment to this progress, it 

is my intention to explore this transition in a thorough manner to 

identify any challenges, discuss their implications in depth, and 

work toward solutions in advance to mitigate any negative impacts. 

So I want to recognize the efforts by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T, and other carriers who are working with 

the Commission to carefully and deliberately explore the implications of the IP transition through the FCC’s transition trials. Ultimately, it is my hope that through these trials, all stakeholders can 

work together to proactively address any issues revealed in the 

trials, protect consumers, and preserve public safety. But I also expect Congress to maintain close oversight over this process. A transition of this magnitude deserves nothing less. 

And again, I want to thank you all again for being here, and I 

want to hear your perspective on this important discussion. I look 

forward to your testimony, and I want to turn it over to the Ranking Member, Senator Wicker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Chairman Pryor. 

This hearing deals with preserving public safety and network reliability in the IP transition. This hearing is—it certainly hits home 

not only for Arkansans, but for Mississippians, who experienced 

devastating storms this year also. 

In late April, tornados ravaged communities in Mississippi and 

Arkansas, taking innocent lives and causing extensive damage. Despite the devastation, we can be thankful for the technology that 

provided critical information ahead of time, alerting people to take 

shelter and saving hundreds of our fellow citizens. The swift action 

of our weather forecasters, local officials, and first responders validated the importance of technology and communication when disaster strikes. 

The modernization of our Nation’s communications network, 

from legacy copper line telephone infrastructure to high-speed fiber 

and wireless broadband, is expected to maximize the benefits of IP 

broadband networks to all Americans. These networks will provide 

far more capable and efficient voice services, allow faster and more 

robust data transfers, deliver 21st century education and health 

3 

services, and enhance public safety communications, like Next Generation 911. 

There will be a host of issues raised when we discuss IP transition, but nothing is more important than ensuring a seamless transition for our first responders and the citizens they serve and protect. The capacity for this technology to protect citizens not only 

must be preserved, but also improved by this exciting new transition. 

The FCC has moved the ball forward in constructive ways, authorizing voluntary IP transition trials. These trials will test and 

analyze the impact of moving away from legacy communication networks, particularly in regard to public safety. The Commission held 

a public IP transition workshop in April that focused on the transition’s effects on critical public safety, emergency response, and national security functions. 

I would like to welcome the FCC’s Chief Technology Officer, who 

provided important technical expertise to the workshop and is here 

today to do the same. I welcome the rest of our witnesses, who represent a cross-section of key stakeholders, including State and public safety officials, consumers, broadband providers themselves, 

who have invested significant capital and resources to deploy modern infrastructure. 

I am glad we are all here today. The hearing will be brief. We 

are going to let you start talking. 

Ensuring a smooth path for public safety must be an ‘‘all hands 

on deck’’ effort with Congress, the FCC, and stakeholders working 

together to scrutinize the IP transition’s impact on emergency communications in this country. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this important 

hearing. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Senator Wicker, and I want to thank 

you and your staff for being flexible because, as you all know, we 

have moved the time here from 10 a.m., to 9:30 a.m., to 9:15 a.m., 

to try to accommodate Senators’ schedules, and so thank you all for 

doing that. 

We are also going to make a slight change when it comes to you 

all’s opening statement. Mr. Schulzrinne has a presentation, which 

will take 5 minutes. I think we are asking everybody else to limit 

their remarks to 3 minutes, if we can. 

So let me go ahead and introduce the whole panel. Then I will 

recognize Mr. Schulzrinne. 

Mr. Henning Schulzrinne, Chief Technology Officer at Federal 

Communications Commission, will be our first witness. 

Then we will have Jonathan Banks, Senior Vice President, Law 

and Policy, USTelecom. 

Then we will have Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney, Public 

Knowledge. 

And then we will have Colette Honorable. She is the Chair of the 

Board and President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and she is also Chairman of the State of Arkansas’s State Public Service Commission. 

And Ms. Gigi Smith, President of APCO International. 

So, Mr. Schulzrinne, let me recognize you for your presentation. 

Thank you. 

4 

STATEMENT OF HENNING SCHULZRINNE, 

CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. Thank you, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and members of the Subcommittee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide some technical context regarding the technology transitions 

that you referred to and, in particular, public safety. My name is 

Henning Schulzrinne, and I am the Chief Technology Officer for 

the Federal Communications Commission. As CTO, I am pleased to 

discuss the technical foundation for today’s topic but will respectfully decline comment on any policy-related matters. 

The transition to communication networks based on Internet protocols, short IP, offers an opportunity to improve emergency communications unprecedented since the conversion from analogue to 

digital systems in the 1970s and 1980s. However, these very same 

changes also pose new challenges to performance, reliability, and 

sustainability of emergency communication systems. 

As you hinted at, about 70 percent of all 911 calls originate on 

a mobile phone today. And of the 79 million residential landline 

connections in the United States, 34 million are now interconnected 

Voice over IP, as opposed to TDM. 

We can also no longer take for granted that all households have 

a TV, a landline phone with a central office battery back-up, or 

even a battery-powered transistor radio. Or that, say, a college student will be watching TV when the emergency alert tone sounds 

to seek shelter. 

The transition to IP is multifaceted and encompasses three layers. At the application layer, voice, video, and text services are enabled by new Internet application layer protocols, instead of the old 

Signaling System No. 7. At the transport layer, IP offers an application-neutral mechanism that replaces the old-time division multiplexing foundation. The physical layer, dominated by copper loops, 

is integrating fiber, wireless, coax, and satellite into a unified 

whole. 

However, even as the transition is taking place, we should not 

forget that large parts of the voice network are still using the same 

TDM technology and hardware developed and deployed, in some 

cases, 30 or 40 years ago, in particular for public safety, so-called 

CAMA trunks originally developed for operator services. Unfortunately, CAMA trunks have played a role in two large-scale outages 

of 911 systems in the last few years. 

Spare parts, investment, and expertise needed to maintain these 

legacy networks are becoming scarce. Yet, as FCC Chairman 

Wheeler has stated, public safety is one of the core values that 

must be sustained during the Nation’s transition to all-IP networks. 

Two technical challenges that will need to be addressed in this 

transition are back-up power and emergency location. No longer 

will we have access to back-up power provided by the central office, 

as it has been the case for many years, but there are also new technical opportunities to leverage in-system power through user exchangeable batteries—for example, batteries that look similar to 

what you might have as back-up on your cell phone—or energy-effiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:12 Feb 26, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\93481.TXT JACKIE
5 

cient network termination devices that will make it possible to sustain uninterrupted communication for both voice and, increasingly 

important, for Internet services, even if commercial power should 

be disrupted. 

The second topic, location technology, such as GPS, has been 

very successful, along with network-based triangulation, to locate 

callers for outdoor 911 calls. Unfortunately, both technologies have 

limitations that make them less than suited when people cut the 

cord and use wireless calls to call 911. They are either not accurate 

enough, or they do not function at all. For example, GPS generally 

does not work well indoors. 

However, fortunately, the transition to IP-based and networkbased technologies is also spurring new investments in technologies 

that, while not originally designed for location determination such 

as in-building communication infrastructure, allows us to greatly 

improve the reliability and availability of location information. For 

example, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth beacons, and distributed antennae systems could be used to locate callers inside buildings. 

To succeed in meeting the challenges and leverage the opportunities, all stakeholders must work together to ensure that every 911 

call receives the appropriate response, that every American is 

alerted when danger is imminent, whether they use old technology 

or new technology. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schulzrinne follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENNING SCHULZRINNE, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Introduction 

Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide an overview of the 

technology transitions associated with migration to Internet Protocol (‘‘IP’’) as well 

as the challenges and opportunities confronting us as we move forward through 

these transitions. 

As you know, what we commonly refer to as the ‘‘IP transition’’ is not a single 

transition, but consists of multiple transitions all happening at the same time. 

The elements of these technology transitions are a key concern of the Commission, 

with public safety as one of the fundamental values that need to be protected during 

the transition. 

We are witnessing simultaneous transitions in three technology layers, with intertwining impacts: 

1. At the application layer, voice services based on Time-Division Multiplexing 

(TDM) are rapidly moving to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP). This transition is occurring whether the network is wireless, where the technology is 

known as VoLTE, or for cable, fiber and copper networks. Technologically, the 

protocols used for these services are very similar. 

2. At the network transport layer, TDM circuits served as the content-neutral 

conveyor of information. Internet Protocol packets are now replacing these circuits. 

3. Finally, our core access networks were dominated by copper telephone wires, 

but are becoming much more diverse at the physical layer, with fiber, coaxial 

cable, wireless, and satellite added to the technology mix. 

A much more diverse technological environment offers opportunities for advancing 

consumer welfare and public safety. For example, we can now bring IP connectivity 

to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), the centers that handle the Nation’s 911 

calls, in many more ways than we were able to do before. But it also offers challenges in the sense that the technology is both more complicated and lacks some 

of the features that we previously relied upon as part of our public safety infrastructure. 

6 

1 CDC, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview 

Survey, July–December 2012; at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201 

306.pdf. 2See sources cited in FCC Acts To Help Emergency Responders Locate Wireless 911 Callers, 

February 21, 2014; at http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-acts-help-emergency-responders-locatewireless-911-callers 

Let me turn to some of the challenges that I believe we face going forward. The 

challenges are related in multiple ways and also have a generational component. 

Much of the legacy technology that underlies our existing telecommunication voice 

infrastructure was designed and built in the 1970s and 1980s. This infrastructure 

is rapidly aging, and we are also seeing generational turnover of the individuals 

that have designed, built and maintained that infrastructure. 

Moreover, in the last few years, PSAPs and emergency management offices have 

had to deal with an increasing set of challenges, many induced by the technology 

changes described earlier. Some of these challenges include: 

• Combatting Telephony Denial of Service (TDOS) attacks, where criminals try 

to extort money from employees of hospitals, schools and PSAPs, and, if that 

fails, barrage the organization with phone calls, typically with spoofed caller ID 

and originating abroad. These phone calls then prevent incoming calls from 

reaching the business line of PSAPs, for example. 

• Delivering robust and reliable emergency alerts, such as Wireless Emergency 

Alerts (WEA) sent to mobile phones. These alerts provide crucial warnings to 

deal with imminent threats to life and property, e.g., tornado warnings advising 

to ‘‘seek shelter now’’, but the alert systems are less well-suited to provide more 

extensive information or to support post-disaster recovery. Public safety officials 

seeking to provide more information to the public are often forced to improvise 

using cobbled-together technologies such as blogs, e-mail lists, and Twitter. 

• Preventing outages of critical communications networks. VoIP-based systems 

and centralized ALI databases can support a large number of PSAPs with a 

very small number of servers. However, recent outages have illustrated that 

there is a risk of increased impact when these systems fail. Designing and testing such systems carefully to avoid single points of failure and to recover quickly remains an open challenge. 

• Leveraging new technologies and services. For example, many Americans now 

expect to be able to reach public safety by text, not just voice call. People with 

hearing or speech disabilities cannot readily use voice 911; victims or witnesses 

of domestic abuse may fear that a voice call will place them in danger. While 

the four major national cellular operators have voluntarily agreed to make textto-911 available nationwide earlier last month, relatively few PSAPs are ready 

to receive text messages. 

• Even for traditional mobile voice 911 calls, determining the caller’s location has 

become more challenging. As mandated by Commission rules, wireless providers 

need to deliver the caller’s geographic location to the PSAP within specified accuracy bounds. However, the requirements were drafted when wireless phones 

were largely used while driving or outdoors. As has been reported extensively,1

an increasing number of consumers no longer have traditional residential 

landlines. Also, emergency calls may be placed from work places, using the caller’s own mobile device rather than a desk phone. It is estimated 2 that about 

70 percent of all emergency calls are now originating on mobile phones, and 56 

percent of those mobile calls are placed from indoor locations. The most common 

high-accuracy technology, GPS, generally does not work indoors due to signal 

attenuation, except in light-duty (wood frame) construction. Thus, new location 

technologies are needed. I will discuss some of the options later on. 

Household Habits and Communication Resources are Changing 

For many decades, emergency communication professionals could safely assume 

that households had a common set of communication resources: a landline phone, 

with the central office able to power the phone over the copper line to the home 

when commercial power to the home was disrupted; a television with an antenna, 

tuned to a relatively small number of local stations; and a transistor radio supporting both AM and FM, with the capability to run on battery power. 

Newer households look very different: most likely, they won’t have a landline 

phone and, if they do, the cable or fiber-to-the-home VoIP service is likely to only 

provide a few hours of standby service on a local battery if there is a power disruption. Today’s houses may also not have a television or use it much less frequently, 

7 

relying on a laptop or tablet for watching video. Thus, Emergency Alert System 

(EAS) alerts broadcast via radio and television may not reach such households. The 

Internet, whether delivered via a home Wi-Fi network to a tablet or home PC or 

via a mobile wireless network to a smartphone, is often the primary means of keeping up with news and communicating with family and friends. These technologies 

may also rely on battery back-up options than are time-limited. For example, a 

smartphone battery may only sustain device operation for eight to 12 hours. 

Emergency communication, in particular, has not always kept up with these 

changes. Many communities have set up automated ‘‘reverse 911’’ systems, but 

these typically only reach landlines. The Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system 

can only transmit 90 characters and cannot contain web links; thus, messages generally advise recipients to tune to local media—using a television set or radio that 

the household may not have. Communities seeking to convey information to their 

constituents often use commodity services, such as community mailing lists, Twitter 

feeds, Facebook pages, or local web pages to convey emergency-related information. 

The development of IP-based networks may create opportunities to improve emergency communications. For example, agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could provide common, cloud-hosted emergency management systems to communities. Since Internet advertising is typically localized, the 

potential exists to provide emergency alerts via ad delivery networks that would 

complement EAS or Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS) alerts without requiring communities to make expensive technological upgrades. 

Indirect 911 

Currently, the most common way to reach the PSAP is by a human-initiated voice 

call. However, in the IP environment, other home safety devices, e.g., network-connected smoke detectors, may provide alternative means of reaching emergency assistance. Currently, many alert monitoring services rely on operators in call centers 

to contact PSAPs. With NG911, there are opportunities for such monitoring services 

to convey much more information to the PSAP, but common standards and operational procedures are needed. 

Technology Opportunities in all-IP networks 

One of the most promising opportunities for IP-based emergency management networks is the ability to separate the provision of technology services from answering 

calls. Thus, instead of each PSAP or county provisioning their own NG911 services, 

they can share communication services, while deciding separately what the most efficient PSAP size is. 

If emergency calls provide more information, it may also be much easier to 

prioritize calls, and recognize calls or messages that are reporting a known emergency, as often happens for fires or accidents. 

Indoor Location 

Probably the most immediate challenge for emergency calls is to maintain the location accuracy that has existed for 9–1–1 landline calls since the 1980s. As I noted 

earlier, as consumers have dropped landlines in favor of mobile devices, this capability is no longer assured. As the Commission recently acknowledged, people are 

making more wireless calls to 911 from indoors, and these calls are more difficult 

to locate. There are, however, new and promising indoor location technologies 

emerging. And the Commission is currently looking at new rules that would improve 

indoor location accuracy. 

Conclusion 

The technology transitions offer both unprecedented opportunities and challenges 

to emergency communication. As I have tried to illustrate, emergency services can 

leverage the new technologies to improve efficiency and effectiveness. I look forward 

to exploring many of these issues along with others to see how we can use the technology opportunities, not just those offered by classical emergency response and 

alerting technologies, but also by consumer technologies to make everybody safer, 

make public safety more efficient, and ensure networks are responsive to both the 

cultural and technology changes that our citizenry is undergoing. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Mr. Banks? 

8 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BANKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

LAW AND POLICY, UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION 

(USTELECOM) 

Mr. BANKS. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Pryor, 

Ranking Member Wicker, and the members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Jonathan Banks, and I am the Senior Vice President 

for Law and Policy at USTelecom. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

USTelecom represents broadband companies, ranging from some 

of the largest companies in the U.S. to some of the smallest cooperatives and family owned telecom providers in rural America. 

They serve some of the most rural areas in the country, as well as 

the most urban, and use a broad range of technologies, including 

broadband and Internet protocol, to do so. 

To begin, I would like to note the recent tragedy caused by an 

extremely powerful tornado touching down in Arkansas, north of 

Little Rock, in late April. The tornado caused substantial loss of 

life and damage. Communication services were affected, with poles 

blown down, cables severed, facilities damaged, and cell towers destroyed. 

One local carrier, Windstream, was somehow able to keep a 

switch up and running in a building that lost its walls to the tornado’s winds and suffered substantial rain damage. This storm illustrates that no network is or can be 100 percent reliable, but a 

well-coordinated response in Arkansas got networks up and running relatively quickly. 

Careful preparation for emergencies can make a huge difference 

in the effect that disasters have on communications networks and 

the customers they serve. Our industry has long participated in 

emergency readiness planning with Government partners, and we 

will continue to do so. 

The transition to modern broadband networks and IP services 

promises enormous benefits to our country. The FCC’s National 

Broadband Plan says that building these networks is the great infrastructure challenge of our time. The communications industry is 

stepping up to the plate, investing about $685 billion over the last 

decade in infrastructure, with about $70 billion of that being invested just last year. 

We agree that as we navigate through this transition, that there 

are key values that cannot be left behind. FCC Chairman Wheeler 

describes these values as making up a network compact between 

communications providers and the public. Network reliability and 

public safety are essential elements of this compact, and they are 

key values of our industry. 

Our industry has a long history of working with Federal and 

State governments, public utility commissions, the public safety 

community, and industry standards bodies on these issues. We 

have been working with these partners to understand the transition to broadband and IP services for well over a decade. I provide 

a brief summary of some of these efforts in my written testimony. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate our commitment to working 

with this committee and our full range of partners to ensure that 

the promise of broadband connectivity and the power of IP services 

9 

1 National Broadband Plan at XI. 

deliver to consumers the safe and secure networks and robust capabilities that will empower them for the 21st century. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Banks follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BANKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LAW AND

POLICY, UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION (USTELECOM) 

Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. My name is Jon 

Banks, and I serve as Senior Vice President of Law and Policy at the United States 

Telecom Association. USTelecom represents innovative broadband companies ranging from some of the largest companies in the U.S. economy to some of the smallest 

cooperatives and family-owned telecom providers in rural America. Our members 

offer a wide range of communications services on both a fixed and mobile basis, and 

the overwhelming majority of them offer advanced broadband services including 

voice, video, and data. They serve some of the most rural areas in the country as 

well as the most urban and use a broad range of technologies, including Internet 

Protocol, to do so. The customers that rely on our networks include consumers, businesses large and small, and government entities at the local, state, and Federal levels. Of particular importance given the topic of this hearing, they include first responders and Public Safety Answering Points. 

Our industry has long recognized that a safe and secure communications network 

is vital to public safety and to our Nation’s prosperity. We have spent decades building and maintaining that network and working with the public safety community 

and our government partners to ensure that first responders and other officials can 

communicate during natural or man-made disasters, and that consumers can call 

for help during an emergency. From the 1960s and 1970s when 911 services began 

to be provided through the deployment of upgraded E911 services and Next Generation 911, we have worked to deliver reliable service. Our member companies’ commitment to providing highly reliable service to our customers throughout the country and to working with the public safety community, our government partners, and 

industry standards bodies remains undiminished as the country moves to newer, 

more modern communications networks. In fact, the transition to these newer, more 

modern broadband networks holds great promise for improved emergency communications and services as well as more robust and reliable networks. 

Much has changed since the early days of making 911 a reality. Over the last decade, communications companies have been investment leaders in our country, putting over $671 billion dollars to work in building and upgrading communications infrastructure. The wireline industry alone invested $278 billion over this period, accounting for about 41 percent of total investment, with the remainder made up by 

investments in wireless and cable infrastructure. And this level of investment is 

continuing. USTelecom estimates that investment in broadband and IP communications infrastructure very likely exceeded $70 billion in 2013, surpassing the average 

level of investment of about $66 billion annually over the last decade. 

The result of this continuing huge investment is that consumers and businesses 

today have multiple new broadband networks available to them that are far more 

robust than the old telephone network. Building these broadband networks—fixed 

and mobile—is the great infrastructure challenge of our time. As the National 

Broadband Plan notes, meeting this challenge can produce enormous benefits: 

Broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness and a better way of life. It is enabling entire new industries and unlocking 

vast new possibilities for existing ones. It is changing how we educate children, 

deliver health care, manage energy, ensure public safety, engage government, 

and access, organize and disseminate knowledge.1

By continuing to invest on this massive scale, the industry has made great strides 

in meeting this infrastructure challenge. Today, over 99 percent of Americans have 

access to broadband service at the FCC defined capacity of 4 Mbps downstream and 

1 Mbps upstream. Ninety-two percent of the population has access to robust 

wireline infrastructure with 88 percent of the population having access to two or 

more wired networks. Ninety-nine percent have access to mobile service and 90 percent have access to 4 or more separate mobile networks. Our members are working 

to build and operate Gigabit and fiber-to-the home networks in urban and rural 

10 

2 Id. at 59. 

areas across the country. Cable systems are upgrading their networks to provide 

faster service. Fast LTE mobile networks are also growing quickly, providing more 

alternatives for consumers. 

Removing obstacles to broadband deployment will help drive this process, and the 

White House has engaged industry on examining barriers to deployment across federally owned and managed land. Another way to incent additional investment would 

be to remove outdated regulations on traditional phone companies. These regulations ‘‘require certain carriers to maintain POTS [plain old telephone service]—a requirement that is not sustainable—and lead to investments in assets that could be 

stranded,’’ and divert investment away from new networks and new services.2

Ensuring that broadband and mobile networks reach everywhere throughout our 

country is a goal we must continually strive to meet. In the most rural areas of our 

country, this will require governmental support because there is no private business 

case that can support building and operating broadband networks in these areas. 

The FCC’s universal service program can play an essential role here, as can state 

programs that support communications infrastructure. Our industry continues to 

work to ensure that universal service programs continue to support the delivery of 

robust communications services in high cost areas of our country in the most efficient and effective way possible. 

One result of all this investment in newer, more modern technologies is consumers have been choosing newer broadband and mobile technologies because they 

offer a plethora of options that were not previously available to meet consumers’ 

communications needs. USTelecom projects that, by the end of this year, only onequarter of the households in the country will continue to be served by traditional 

phone service. In some states this number may be as low as 15 percent of households remaining on that traditional network. By the end of this year, about 45 percent of households will have chosen to drop traditional phone service entirely, choosing instead to rely on mobile service for their voice needs, both inside and outside 

the home. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in many states over 50 percent of households have already cut the cord and chosen to rely on mobile service. 

The remaining 30 percent of households will have chosen from among a range of 

newer Voice over Internet Protocol services, often delivered by cable companies, for 

their voice needs at home. Of course, many households will choose to have both 

wireless and wired options available for calling. About 89 percent of households 

have at least one wireless phone, allowing multiple options for communications. 

Only about 9 percent of households are dependent solely on a wired option for calling. 

This transition to broadband networks and IP services is well underway today as 

consumers and businesses continue to make choices among a range of competitive 

communications options. The transition to broadband and IP services is not an ‘‘if’’ 

phenomenon—much of it has happened—but a question of how to best manage the 

transition. And, in particular, how to ensure that public safety and network reliability are preserved and that we leverage the unique capabilities of broadband and 

IP to deliver 21st century public safety services. For example, making the added 

functionality of next generation 911 available to allow pictures and video to be delivered to PSAPs and first responders could significantly improve public safety. Our 

industry looks forward to working with the public safety community and governmental entities to make NG911 a reality. And for consumers, voice communication 

is obviously not the only functionality that the IP transition enables. For example, 

when it comes to public safety and health care benefits, more and more senior citizens, people with disabilities, and medical patients living in rural America are benefiting from technologies such as home health monitoring and other health-related 

applications. 

Fortunately, the communications industry has seen other important technology 

transitions all the way through that can provide models for ensuring the IP transition leaves no one behind. In 2002, for example, the transition from analog to digital 

mobile service was well underway from a consumer perspective. That year, the FCC 

concluded that its mandate that carriers continue to provide an analog signal in addition to a digital signal was no longer necessary to achieve national coverage and 

incent competition. Further, the FCC found that the analog mandate was imposing 

unnecessary costs on carriers and hindering the efficient use of spectrum. Thus, the 

FCC scheduled an end for the analog mandate setting February 18, 2008, as the 

date at which carriers could move to providing solely digital service. In the interim 

period, the FCC worked with carriers and specific populations that could have been 

adversely affected by the transition to ensure that no one was left behind. 

11 

3 Id. at XIV. 

Planning for the transition to IP networks has been going on within communications companies for quite some time and with our government partners as well. 

Much of this planning has focused on network safety and security issues. For example, the President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee 

(NSTAC), which provides the President with a unique source of national security 

and emergency preparedness communications policy expertise from leaders in the 

communications industry, has been examining and reporting on security and reliability issues involved in the transition to IP and broadband networks since at least 

1999. In 2005, the NSTAC noted that the convergence of wireless, wireline, and 

Internet Protocol (IP) networks is causing a shift in the way that governments and 

critical infrastructures will meet their needs for national security and emergency 

preparedness communications today and in the future. The NSTAC has examined 

a broad range of infrastructure, security and operational vulnerabilities stemming 

from network convergence and its task forces have provided recommendations to 

mitigate the vulnerabilities. USTelecom and its members have been an integral part 

of NSTAC and will continue to work within the Committee to ensure that public 

safety remains a priority during the IP Transition. 

Our members also continue to work closely with the Department of Homeland Security through, for example, the Communications Sector Coordination Council and 

the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, on network security and 

reliability issues and the transition to IP networks. A concise review of some of 

these activities can be found in the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory 

Council’s 2013 Annual Report. 

In addition, USTelecom has long been active with the FCC in this area. Chairman 

Wheeler has often mentioned the importance of public safety and security to the 

compact between providers of voice service and their customers and the need for the 

FCC to ensure that key values like these are properly imported into the IP and 

broadband world. We agree. In response to Congress’s directive that the agency develop a National Broadband Plan that would ‘‘ensure that all people of the United 

States have access to broadband capability,’’ the FCC put together an extremely valuable roadmap to an IP and broadband future. The Plan explains that ‘‘broadband 

can bolster efforts to improve public safety and homeland security by allowing first 

responders to send and receive video and data, by ensuring all Americans can access 

emergency services and improving the way Americans are notified about emergencies.’’ 3 We remain committed to working with the FCC on the implementation 

of these recommendations. 

The FCC’s Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council 

(CSRIC) has played, and will continue to play, an important role in planning for 

a seamless transition. CSRIC working groups comprised of knowledgeable industry 

participants have produced a broad range of reports and recommendations covering 

key topics on emergency preparedness, network reliability and network security. 

The FCC recently convened a new CSRIC industry working group to examine and 

report on the powering of customer premises equipment such as telephone handsets 

given the growing consumer preference for VoIP service. VoIP networks generally 

do not benefit from network powering available through traditional phone networks, 

instead relying on commercial power and battery back-up. The working group intends to recommend outreach and communications strategies for increasing consumer awareness of back-up power needs and developing best practices for powering 

consumer devices during commercial power failures. 

Finally, a number of standards-setting bodies are also engaged in planning for the 

IP transition. Indeed, the transition ties together much of the work done by one of 

our industry’s leading standards bodies, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, or ATIS. Specific to the subject of this hearing, for example, ATIS has 

convened a task force to examine the IP transition’s potential effect on important 

public safety applications such as alarm circuits to local fire and police departments 

and circuits that monitor railroad crossings. 

USTelecom and our members believe that our Nation’s 21st century networks 

should provide 21st century public safety solutions. We look forward to working 

with this subcommittee, our full range of governmental partners including the 

White House, the Federal Communications Commission, Department of Commerce, 

Department of Homeland Security, state and local governments and public utility 

commissions, the public safety community (including APCO and NENA), and industry standards bodies to ensure that the promise of broadband connectivity and the 

power of IP services deliver to consumers the safe and secure networks and robust 

capabilities that will empower them for the 21st century. 

12 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Griffin? 

STATEMENT OF JODIE GRIFFIN, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, 

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE 

Ms. GRIFFIN. Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

My name is Jodie Griffin, and I am a Senior Staff Attorney at 

Public Knowledge, an organization that advocates for the public’s 

access to knowledge and open communications platforms. 

The phone network transition presents tremendous potential advantages for our Nation, but we need to make sure these transitions result in a meaningful step forward for every person who depends on the network. Americans trust the protections of the phone 

network. We conduct our business and personal communications, 

assuming that the phone network will just work because it always 

has. 

During emergencies, we can call for help from police, firefighters, 

and hospitals. In the rare instance that any part of the system 

breaks down, local, State, and Federal authorities intervene as if 

our lives depend on it, because they do. 

In January, in a unanimous bipartisan vote, the Federal Communications Commission recognized that our phone network policies 

must serve certain basic, enduring values: public safety and national security, universal access, competition, and consumer protection. Our policies in the network transition must serve all of these 

values. 

This hearing focuses on public safety and reliability, but a conversation about these values will always entail the rest of the network compact. After all, when you need to make an emergency call, 

what you really need is a reliable network to make that call. A person can’t call 911 if she doesn’t have phone service in the first 

place, and if she lives in a rural area, she may waste precious time 

trying to get connected. 

New technologies have great promise, but they don’t always meet 

the critical needs for a reliable telecommunications network. We 

have already seen reports of wireless carriers providing insufficient 

location data to public safety answering points, or in the event of 

a power outage, fiber-based services will require battery back-up, 

unlike traditional self-powered copper lines, and wireless services 

will be useless if the cell towers also lose power. 

Public safety services and reliability are so firmly ingrained in 

our network now, many consumers may simply assume new technologies will give them the same guarantees they have in the existing network. If, for example, a customer doesn’t realize his fiberbased service needs battery back-up until the power has already 

gone out, he can’t prepare for a prolonged outage. 

It is critical to ensure the FCC has the authority it needs to preserve the network compact and serve its fundamental values. In 

light of the recent Net Neutrality ruling from the D.C. Circuit, policymakers must make sure the FCC can implement rules to require 

carriers to complete calls and provide basic service, even after the 

network has moved to IP, or wireless or fiber infrastructure. 

13 

To be clear, no one is suggesting we should hold back on technology. The question is how to make this technology work for all 

of the 300 million people who rely on our network every day. The 

underlying technology may be changing, but the essential services 

and consumers’ expectations for them remain the same, and our 

national policies must reflect that fact. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jodie Griffin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JODIE GRIFFIN, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, 

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss the IP transition, public safety, and network reliability. My name is Jodie Griffin and I am a Senior Staff Attorney at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit public interest organization that promotes the public’s access to information and culture through open, competitive, universally accessible, 

and affordable communications networks. 

Introduction 

The transition of our wireline networks to Internet Protocol (IP)-based services is 

a tremendous opportunity for our nation, but we must make sure the transition results in an actual upgrade in technology without a downgrade in the services upon 

which Americans depend. We are now in the midst of the transition: carriers are 

already actively moving their networks from the traditional Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) protocol to IP-based technology, and from copper infrastructure to 

wireless service or fiber. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has responded to these technological shifts by collecting public comments, initiating a series of trials, and beginning the process of forming a new framework to handle the 

policy questions raised by these transitions. 

In the network transition, the stakes are high, and it is critical for policymakers 

to ensure that everyone continues to have access to a reliable network for personal, 

business, and emergency communications. In addition to bringing new opportunities, the phone network transition presents risks, including concerns the new networks will lack important features that consumers have counted on for decades. 

This means policymakers at all levels of government must ensure the transition is 

handled responsibly and everyday Americans are better off as a result of the transition. 

The phone network in the U.S. has quietly and reliably provided benefits to the 

American public for over 100 years. These benefits have become so firmly ingrained 

in the U.S. economy, public safety systems, and personal communications that users 

take for granted the policies that make them possible. These benefits were not a 

happy accident—they were the result of deliberate communications policies that demanded a telecommunications network that served its users first and foremost. 

One of the things we’ve come to love about our phone network is the ability to 

conduct our business and personal communications as if we can always trust that 

the network will just work—because it will. We can choose the type of phone we 

use. When the power goes out during a natural disaster, our phones—and the central offices that service them—will keep working. In times of emergency, we can always call for aid from police, firefighters, and medical teams. When someone calls 

a friend that call will always go through—regardless of which carriers the two users 

subscribe to or where they each live. When the bill comes for that call, the user can 

rest assured that there will be no fraudulent charges and the carrier will not have 

‘‘traded’’ her to another carrier without her permission. If a user changes phone 

companies, she can keep her phone number. We know that we can benefit from the 

innovations and features built on the phone network because it is an open platform: 

innovations like the Internet, new handsets, calling cards, and collect calls all arose 

because of the network’s openness. And in the rare instance that any part of this 

system breaks down, we know that there are government authorities at the local, 

state, and Federal levels equipped to fix the problem and protect users’ interests. 

Every single one of these benefits is the result of deliberate policy choices that 

served specific basic values. Our phone network became the unparalleled success we 

know today because our policymakers valued five fundamental principles: (1) service 

to all Americans; (2) competition and interconnection; (3) consumer protection; (4) 

14 

1See Jodie Griffin and Harold Feld, Five Fundamentals for the Phone Network Transition, 

Public Knowledge (July 2013). 2 Universal Service Monitoring Report, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, at 41, Table 3.1 

(Oct. 2013), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/CommonlCarrier/Reports/FCCStatelLink/Monitor/2013lMonitoringlReport.pdf. 3 Anna-Maria Kovacs, Telecommunications Competition: The Infrastructure-Investment Race, 

Internet Innovation Alliance (Oct. 2013), http://internetinnovation.org/images/misclcontent/ 

study-telecommunications-competition-09072013.pdf. 4Letter from Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney, Public Knowledge, et al. to Julie A. Veach, 

Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC (May 12, 2014), available at http://www.public 

knowledge.org/assets/uploads/blog/14.05.12lCopperlLetter.pdf. 5To that end, the Public Safety and Economic Security Communications Act is an important 

step forward in protecting rural customers relying on a dependable phone network. See Public 

Safety and Economic Security Communications Act of 2014, S. 2125, 113th Cong. (2014), available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2125/text. 

network reliability; and (5) public safety.1 These values are no less relevant and, 

if anything, are even more important as we begin the transition to the next iteration 

of our Nation’s communications networks. 

As we move forward in the network transition, we cannot step back from the basic 

commitments that have protected consumers and promoted affordable communications service for decades. We must ensure the next generation of our communications networks are a true step forward for everyone and no one is left worse off as 

a result of the transition. 

Basic Voice Service is Still Important 

Even as we move to new technologies that bring exciting new opportunities for 

customers to access the Internet and other IP-based services, it is important to remember that basic voice service is still vital to public safety as well as the day-today personal and business communications of millions of people across the Nation. 

This means our national policies should be shaped with a mind toward preserving 

the protections and benefits people currently rely on while encouraging new opportunities for better or more efficient service. 

It is important to note that 96 percent of U.S. residents subscribe to some kind 

of telephone service.2 Of those, over 100 million people rely on traditional copper 

POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service). 5 percent of the country relies exclusively on 

POTS—that’s 15 million people who rely solely on traditional phone service.3 Which, 

incidentally, means the remaining 85 million people subscribing to POTS do so despite also having a mobile phone or other voice product. We can safely assume those 

85 million people do not simply enjoy writing two checks each month. Rather, traditional phone service must offer those users something that newer technologies currently do not. 

Unfortunately, we are already seeing complaints arise across the country that indicate the network compact may start fraying at the edges if policymakers don’t step 

in to protect consumers. As Public Knowledge, The Utility Reform Network, and 

several other state consumer advocates and public interest groups have noted, reports have surfaced across the country indicating carriers are forcing customers off 

of traditional copper-based phone service.4 Complaints from customers in California, 

Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and the District of Columbia have stated 

that they are being involuntarily moved to fiber or IP-based service (or some combination thereof), even if those new technologies fail to serve all of the users’ needs 

or will be more expensive. What’s more, this may only be the tip of the iceberg. 

After all, in deregulated states where the utilities commissions have no authority 

over quality of service or pricing for basic service, state-level authorities may not 

be able to even collect data from customer complaints. 

We have also already seen complaints from rural residents experiencing degraded 

service due to rural call completion problems. As I will discuss below, the IP transition can create unexpected problems in rural customers’ service even without any 

parties necessarily acting in bad faith. This is exactly why the FCC must continue 

to have authority to handle unanticipated problems and ensure customers continue 

to have reliable service.5 Finally, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau recently found that the average rate for basic voice service in urban areas is $20.46, indicating that even basic service is not as inexpensive as some may have assumed. 

Added together, these issues raise the serious question of whether all customers 

are indeed moving to new services out of a genuine desire to change, or if at least 

some have been moved off the copper network due to service degradation, increased 

fees, or through no choice of their own at all. If a carrier is letting its copper network degrade or is telling customers they must move to fiber or wireless service in 

violation of its common carrier obligations, can we really call that a fair market 

choice on the part of the customer? And even in the cases where the customer has 

15 

6See Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13–5, AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding 

Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition, GN Docket No. 12–353, Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10–90, Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10– 

51, Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03–123, Numbering Policies for Modern Communications, WC Docket No. 13–97, Order, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Report and Order, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Proposal for Ongoing Data Initiative at ¶¶ 37–69 (rel. Jan. 31, 2014). 7The FCC is also working with surer authority in this area compared to other aspects of the 

PSTN transition, based on the Next Generation 911 Act. See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112–96 (2012), Title VI, Subtitle E. 8See What You Need to Know About Text-to-911, FCC (May 23, 2014), https://www.fcc.gov/ 

text-to-911. 9Letter from Danita L. Crombach, CALNENA, to Mignon Clyburn, Chairwoman, FCC 

(Aug. 12, 2013), http://www.calnena.org/communications/To-FCC–08–12–2013/CALNENALetter-to-FCC–081213.pdf. 10 AT&T Wireless Home Phone & Internet, http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/att/ 

wireless-home-phone-and-internet-black.html (last visited June 2, 2014). 

a meaningful choice to move to services using newer technologies, it is hard to accept the notion that customer actually wants the new service to have less reliability, 

more expensive power backup options, or less accurate 911 location data. When it 

comes to network reliability and public safety, these are not compromises we should 

be asking customers to make. 

The Network’s Fundamental Values 

This past January, the FCC, unanimously and with bipartisan support, recognized 

the fundamental network compact that has successfully guided communications policy for decades.6 That compact preserves certain enduring values that ensure our 

communications networks will remain the envy of the world as we move into IPbased services and new physical infrastructure. 

The policies that guide the network transition should serve certain proven fundamental values and continue to protect consumers and encourage innovation. These 

fundamental values—public safety and national security, universal access, competition, and consumer protection—capture the basic principles that made our phone 

network a resounding success and can do the same for the next generation of communications technology. 

Public Safety and National Security 

It is unquestioned that when someone calls 911, that person needs to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that she will be connected in one second. Everyday Americans rely on 911 daily to call for help in time of need. The FCC has already begun 

to look to the future of public safety requirements with the Next Generation 911 

transition.7 This conversation, however, is also best situated in the broader context 

of the overall PSTN transition, both to evaluate the effect of 911 proposals on other 

aspects of the network, and to anticipate the impact of non-911 proposals on our 

emergency communications systems. 

The network transition can bring with it new opportunities to expand emergency 

services. For example, the recent deployment of text-to-911 capabilities in certain 

areas can help people seek emergency aid when placing a voice call is not feasible.8

However, we cannot simply assume that new technologies will continue to support 

the 911 features people rely on after the transition. In particular, as customers increasingly place 911 calls on wireless devices, policymakers should ensure carriers 

provide emergency responders with detailed and accurate location data. The California Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association has reported a recent significant decrease in the percentage of wireless 911 calls delivering more detailed Phase II location data to public safety answering points (PSAPs).9 If PSAPs 

do not receive adequate location data from carriers, they cannot find callers asking 

for help unless the caller can describe her own location, which may be difficult in 

certain emergency situations and places an extra burden on anyone who has a communication disability or additional language barrier. Elsewhere, AT&T’s Wireless 

Home Phone product—marketed as a replacement for traditional landline phone 

service—tells customers in the fine print they will be required to give 911 operators 

their address, rather than have their location information transmitted to PSAPs 

automatically.10 But it doesn’t have to be this way. The technology transitions offer 

opportunities to integrate multiple location technologies to give more specific locaVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:12 Feb 26, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93481.TXT JACKIE
16 

11See Henning Schulzrinne, Public Safety Communications in a Time of Transition, FCC 

(Apr. 17, 2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/docs/2014-PublicSafetyWorkshop.pdf. 12See Jodie Griffin, The Phone Network Transition: Lessons from Fire Island, Public Knowledge (Mar. 7, 2014), http://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/the-phone-network-transition-lessons-from-fire-island. 13 47 C.F.R. § 20.3. 14 47 U.S.C. § 251(e). 15See Julie Veach, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Protecting Consumers in the Transition from Copper Networks, FCC Blog (May 7, 2014), http://www.fcc.gov/blog/protecting-consumers-transition-copper-networks. 

tion information and to find more efficient ways to notify emergency services when 

help is needed.11

Public safety rules must ensure emergency services like 911 and geolocation technologies continue to help first responders offer emergency care, regardless of whether the network the customer uses is wireless or wireline, copper or fiber. The conversion to an all-IP network offers an opportunity to further facilitate emergency 

communications, and that opportunity must not be squandered. This also includes 

ensuring that the thousands of alarm systems and alarm system standards that rely 

on access to a ‘‘telephone line’’ are not disrupted by the transition, as we have seen 

them be disrupted by the attempted transition to Voice Link in Fire Island, New 

York.12

When the traditional architecture of the PSTN no longer exists, it is crucial that 

consumers are able to contact emergency services when they need it most. The moments in which the public relies upon emergency services like 911 are literally lifeor-death, and it is crucial that policymakers implement rules that maintain the public safety components of the phone network. To its credit, the FCC has already 

begun the process of creating a framework for Next Generation 911 services, but 

these issues must also be considered in the broader context of the overall shift of 

the PSTN to new technologies. 

Network Reliability 

The basic mechanisms of the network must continue to function throughout and 

after the PSTN transition, even and especially in emergency situations. Above all 

else, Americans rely on their communications networks to work consistently and reliably. Above all else, a successful transition means that phone numbers still work 

and calls still go through with the same reliability they do today. 

One important part of making sure the phone network just continues to work on a day-to-day basis is ensuring the network’s numbering system continues to function 

throughout and after the transition. Contrary to the beliefs of some, what defines 

the ‘‘public switched network’’ is not its underlying technology, but rather its use 

of phone numbers under the North American Numbering Plan.13 Fortunately, the 

FCC has recognized the importance of ensuring the continuing functionality and security of our numbering system, and has included a phone numbering testbed 

among its initiatives to more fully understand the transition. The FCC should use 

the lessons it learns in this testbed to determine the requirements for future Local 

Number Portability Administrators (LNPAs) and to ensure smooth transitions between administrators when they occur. The FCC could also use this opportunity to 

consider authorizing multiple LNPAs under § 251(e), given the increasing ease of coordinating data between multiple databases.14

The FCC currently exercises its authority over phone numbers to distribute phone 

numbers through the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). This raises the 

stark and critical question: who will be able to obtain numbers when all carriers 

have transitioned to IP-based technology? How will phone numbers work in a world 

with no TDM-based PSTN? These are questions that we absolutely must answer if 

the phone network as users now know it is to continue operating post-transition. 

After the transition, there will also be no ‘‘copper safety net’’ to offer the reliability 

that users have come to expect with basic phone service. Nevertheless, users’ phone 

service—regardless of the protocols or materials it uses—must be able to withstand 

emergency situations. Even now we are still witnessing phone network technology 

‘‘upgrades’’ result in less redundancy and backup power in the system and increased 

reliance on the commercial power grid, creating a single point of failure when disaster strikes and users need to communicate most. 

The FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau has acknowledged that policymakers 

must be mindful of the network transition’s impact on reliability and performance 

during power outages, even when the network is transitioning to a technology like 

fiber that it commonly considered to be an improvement over copper networks.15

Fiber offers the potential for faster data speeds and more network capacity, but, unlike the traditional copper network, is not self-powered and needs battery backup 

17 

16 AT&T Wireless Home Phone & Internet, http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/att/ 

wireless-home-phone-and-internet-black.html (last visited June 2, 2014). 17 47 U.S.C. § 254(c). 18 AT&T Proposal for Wire Center Trials, Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13–5, AT&T 

Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition, GN Docket No. 12–353, 

at 14 (Feb. 27, 2014). 19 AT&T Proposal for Wire Center Trials, Wire Center Trial Operating Plan, Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13–5, AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the TDM-toIP Transition, GN Docket No. 12–353, at 14–15 (Feb. 27, 2014). 20 AT&T Wireless Home Phone & Internet, http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/att/ 

wireless-home-phone-and-internet-black.html (last visited June 2, 2014). 

during power outages. Similarly, fixed wireless services require batteries, and the 

battery backup for AT&T’s Wireless Home Phone product, for example, only offers 

1.5 hours of talk time and 18 hours of standby time.16 As many communities that 

have experience hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters can attest, commercial power can be down for much longer than 18 hours, but users’ need to have 

access to reliable communications remain unchanged. 

This is not to say that we must reject any technology that is not self-powered, 

but we must ensure the network continues to be as reliable as possible during power 

outages while minimizing the burden on consumers to make it so. And where a new 

technology differs from the network customers have come to rely on, we must make 

those differences clear to customers so they are not caught unawares after the 

power has already gone out. We can recognize consumers’ justified expectations 

based on the traditional network they’ve known for decades and pursue policies to 

meet those needs without demanding that technological change be stopped in its 

tracks. 

As the PSTN continues its transition, the FCC and other policymakers must determine how they can ensure the post-transition PSTN continues to guarantee robust service for everyday uses and for emergency circumstances, when users need 

communications services most. 

Universal Access 

Issues of public safety and network reliability also raise the question: what is the 

basic service we’re aiming to give everyone access to? This transition is an opportunity to look forward: what new opportunities are made possible by new technology, and how does that impact what we determine to be the ‘‘basic service’’ that 

all should have access to? The Communications Act specifies that universal service 

encompasses ‘‘an evolving level of telecommunications services’’ and that the FCC 

should take into account ‘‘advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services’’ as it decides what universal service will look like for homes, 

schools, libraries, and health care providers across the country.17 Access to basic 

communications services reaps tremendous social and economic benefits to users, regardless of the material or technology used to transport the communications. 

We cannot simply sit back and assume that new technologies will continue to 

reach everyone at affordable prices on their own. Even now, we see indications that 

the transition could result in customers losing access to wireline service—or indeed, 

any service at all—and having to pay more for services that might not even offer 

all of the features and reliability of the existing network. For example, AT&T is currently seeking FCC approval of a wire center trial proposal that offers no plan for 

serving 4 percent of the population at all in one of the trial areas.18 AT&T’s trial 

proposal also puts forward a plan to offer only a wireless product to a substantial 

percentage of the population, even though that wireless service currently cannot 

support features like medical alerts, alarm monitoring, credit card processing, 800 

number service, dial-around calls, collect calls, elevator phone service, and E–911.19

Technological transitions in the network should be a step forward for everyone—we 

cannot allow everyday networks users to fall through the cracks in a process that 

is supposed to help people obtain better affordable access to communications platforms. 

Policymakers should also consider the impact of the phone network transition on 

the availability and affordability of Internet access. For example, the Wireless Home 

Phone and Internet product that AT&T currently offers costs $80.00 for unlimited 

calling and just 10 GB of data (the package is $140.00 for voice and 30 GB of 

data).20 Under these plans, customers do not have the option of purchasing standalone broadband, so the least expensive package that includes broadband would be 

$80.00 for a mere 10 GB of usage. As a comparison, AT&T offers wireline Internet 

access over its DSL infrastructure for $14.95 for 150 GB of data. 

One of the most important goals of communications policy in the United States 

is reaching universal service for all Americans across the country. The transition of 

18 

21 47 U.S.C. § 222. 

the PSTN is an opportunity to expand and improve the communications service that 

all Americans receive, and our communications authorities must determine how 

they can continue to serve that goal as the traditional make-up of the PSTN 

changes. 

Competition 

Interconnection and other competition policies lie at the heart of the development 

of a robust and competitive communications network. As we saw more than 100 

years ago, without mandatory interconnection the phone network will slide inevitably toward monopoly as the largest carriers can gain anticompetitive advantages 

by withholding access to their customers from competitors. As carriers now move 

toward all-IP networks, policymakers must determine how they will ensure interconnection and competition among providers post-transition. These policies are critical to creating and maintaining a functioning interconnected network and a competitive market for communications services. 

For example, subscribers to different networks must not find themselves with 

dropped calls or degraded quality of service due to ‘‘peering disputes’’ between carriers. If NBC and AT&T have a retransmission dispute and AT&T video subscribers 

temporarily lose NBC programs, it is annoying. But if Comcast and AT&T have a 

‘‘peering dispute’’ and millions of AT&T wireless customers cannot reliably call 

Comcast landlines, it is a disaster. It is not enough to speculate that incentives will 

prevent such a thing from occurring. Policymakers must make sure such an event 

continues to be impossible after the transition. 

The phone network transition also calls into question the future of other rules and 

policies designed to encourage competition among communications providers. For example, local number portability (LNP) obligations have currently been extended to 

VoIP providers so that VoIP customers may keep their North American Numbering 

Plan (NANP) telephone number when changing providers. LNP rules encourage 

competition by allowing consumers to respond to providers’ price and service 

changes without losing their phone numbers. But at this juncture the questions inevitably arises: when the traditional PSTN is gone, what will happen to the NANP? 

How can LNP rules extend to all phone service providers without revisiting the 

foundation of the NANP or classifying VoIP service? 

As the PSTN transitions to new physical facilities and IP protocols, it is critical 

to the competitive future of the market that the law and rules ensure carriers will 

continue to interconnect and rules will continue to promote competition in the marketplace to the benefit of consumers. 

Consumer Protection 

When we talk about a system that everyday Americans count on to call 911, businesses, and loved ones, we cannot ignore users’ need for consumer protections in the 

network. Competition is important, but it does not always guarantee consumer protection. From the privacy of phone calls to truth-in-billing to slamming and cramming, Americans rely on a safety net of rules that protect them when they communicate with one another. Throughout and after the PSTN transition, consumers 

must continue to be adequately protected—including effective recourse through the 

timely resolution of complaints. 

But on the Federal level, the Federal Communications Commission has only extended privacy rules to interconnected VoIP services by reasoning that those VoIP 

services send calls to and receive calls from the traditional phone network.21 Customers should be able to rely on the same protections they have always enjoyed 

when they switch to what by all appearances seems like a pure replacement for 

‘‘regular telephone’’ service. After the DC Circuit’s recent decision in Verizon v. FCC, 

we can be more confident that the FCC could use its section 706 authority to continue consumer protections in the IP world, but Congress should continue to monitor 

movements in this space and ensure important consumer protection rules are actually carried over onto IP-based networks. 

As the PSTN begins to transition to IP protocols and other upgraded technologies, 

policymakers must come to terms with how they will continue to protect consumers 

post-transition. All signs indicate that consumer protection rules will be equally, if 

not more, important post-transition than they are today, and if anything consumer 

protection agencies will need flexibility to ensure that current and future consumer 

protection rules serve the same basic social needs as they do today. 

19 

22 Rural Call Completion, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC 

Docket No. 13–39 (rel. Nov. 8, 2013). 23FCC Enforcement Advisory, Rural Call Completion: Long Distance Providers Must Take 

Consumer Complaints About Rural Call Completion Problems Seriously (July 19, 2013), http:// 

transition.fcc.gov/DailylReleases/DailylBusiness/2013/db0719/DA-13-1605A1.pdf. 24Sherry Lichtenberg, Ph.D., Telecommunications Deregulation: Updating the Scorecard for 

2013 National Regulatory Research Institute, at 1, 20–22 (May 2013). 

The IP Transition and Rural Communities 

The new pattern of carriers eager to replace existing networks with new, untested 

technologies after natural disasters or when wireline networks have simply been allowed to degrade will have especially strong consequences for rural communities. 

Rural areas depend on wireline services more than most, especially because wireless 

deployment—even beyond its general limitations compared to wireline service—is 

not very strong in rural areas. And when a rural community loses a wireline service 

provider that offered DSL or other broadband service, there is rarely any competing 

service to turn to for continued Internet access. At the very least, the rural farmers 

who grow our food should know that they will be able to make phone calls and access the Internet when needed to check weather patterns, predict crop growth, and 

make business arrangements to harvest and transport crops. This also impacts more 

than just rural communities themselves—when farmers are arranging food shipments to your town, do you want them to lose service? 

The recent rural call completion problem also reminds us that rural communities 

may bear the brunt of unexpected complications tied to the IP transition, with potentially devastating consequences. As carriers switch to IP technology, it becomes 

possible for them to route calls through Least Cost Router systems, creating latency 

and sometimes trapping calls in perpetual loops so calls to or from rural areas do 

not go through. The Commission has rightly recognized that this issue speaks to our 

foundational expectation that the phone network will be reliable for all Americans, 

including those in rural areas, and has opened a proceeding to learn more about 

exactly why the rural call completion problem is getting worse.22 But even so, the 

FCC has received some shockingly inadequate carrier responses to rural call completion complaints. For example, one carrier told the FCC: ‘‘We have contacted the 

[rural complainant] and have successfully resolved this matter by advising [her] 

that due to living in a rural area she will experience service issues.’’ 23 As discussed 

below, the DC Circuit’s recent decision overturning parts of the FCC’s net neutrality 

rules call into question how the FCC could effectively solve this problem absent classification under Title II. 

This is why we need rules of the road: problems will inevitably arise as old systems fade away and new ones arise, but carriers have clearly shown that we cannot 

simply assume that companies will voluntarily defend the fundamental principles 

that have made our communications networks great. Meanwhile, 25 states have 

eliminated or reduced state commission authority over telecommunications services, 

and 12 states (all of which are in AT&T’s incumbent local exchange carrier territory) have eliminated or reduced carrier of last resort obligations.24 Particularly 

where the states have effectively written themselves out of the conversation through 

deregulation, everyday Americans are relying on Federal authorities as their sole 

defender to protect the reliable, affordable communications access they count on. 

The IP Transition and the Elderly 

Perhaps the community that stands to be the most impacted by the IP transition 

is the elderly community. Older Americans have traditionally been later adopters 

of broadband and wireless technologies. Older Americans also opt for wireline voice 

services to a greater extent than other demographics, with 89.5 percent of households aged 65 and above living in homes with wireline voice service according to 

a National Health Interview Survey. In households in the 45 to 64 range, 74.2 percent choose to maintain wireline voice service. Studies show that while more wireless options have increased, this community to prefers to have both options available. 

Maintaining a network that can support Life Alert technologies for health related 

emergencies, public safety alerts, and reliable access to 911 capability is critically 

important for this fast growing demographic. Additionally, although the phone provided by a cable company may generally look and function like a telephone, an older 

person might not realize the technology used to deliver their voice service is different and not held to the same regulatory protections that they may be dependent 

on. 

While carriers may cite regulation as a reason for the lack of broadband deployment to rural and high cost areas, it has more to do with the low population density 

20 

25 47 U.S.C. § 214(a). 26See Letter from Angie Kronenberg and Karen Reidy, COMPTEL, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Apr. 2, 2014), available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017610666. 27See 47 C.F.R. § 68 et seq. 

that fails to deliver a sufficient return on investment. The lack of investment in 

broadband and wireless infrastructure in low population density areas raises serious 

concerns for the future quality of services available to the elderly community over 

an IP-based network. The relief from ‘‘regulatory burdens’’ described by AT&T its 

FCC proposal could have serious consequences for communities that depend on the 

reliability ensured by wireline regulation like 911 functionality, equal access requirements, and COLR obligations. 

Finally, many older Americans also lived on a fixed income, and could be subjected to paying for expensive bundles on upgraded networks in part due to the lack 

of maintenance or availability of traditional copper based networks. These bundles 

may not qualify for crucial Lifeline subsidies that provide older and low-income 

Americans with critical access to phone service. 

Moving Forward in the IP Transition 

We are now in the midst of the network transition, and the FCC has taken action 

to gather information and begin creating a framework in which to address the policy 

questions raised by these technological changes. As policymakers continue working 

on this issue, the near-term focus should be on collecting data about new technologies, clarifying what standards carriers must meet to replace existing networks 

with new technologies, and protecting network users throughout and after the transition. 

Clarifying the § 214(a) Standard 

Before a carrier can discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community, it 

must receive authorization from the FCC certifying that the change will not adversely affect the present or future public interest.25 This system was not designed 

with the IP transition in mind, and it is simply not suited to situations where a 

carrier wishes to replace its existing service, still high in demand, with another 

service. The FCC must therefore take steps now make clear what specific changes 

would ‘‘impair’’ service under § 214(a) in the context of the network transition, ensuring that its analysis continues to serve the values identified in the unanimous 

Commission Order beginning the trials process. 

There are three areas in particular that need guidance. First, what policies should 

the Commission adopt as applicable to any new service? These questions would be 

best handled in the FCC’s existing open proceedings addressing these issues.26 Second, what technical standards for covered services must the new service meet? For 

example, what consistent voice quality standards should new services meet (as 

measured in quantifiable—not merely qualitative—measurements)? This should be 

a pure question of engineering, supported by technical trials and other relevant engineering data, industry standards and best practices, and other technical sources. 

Finally, what services must be covered? This is a mixed question of policy and 

engineering. For example, the FCC has long required providers to permit any network attachment that does not harm the network.27 Whether the loss of this capability would constitute an impairment or reduction in service is a question of policy. 

But if the FCC determines that the new service must permit network attachments, 

then the question of how to do so becomes an engineering question. 

More specifically, the FCC should also give guidance for when natural disasters 

damage networks and carriers wish to replace the network with new technologies 

instead of rebuilding the copper network. Communities and their residents have always had to deal with temporary network outages after natural disasters, but now 

that we are in the midst of the phone network transition, we are seeing instances 

where carriers want to respond to damaged networks by replacing the existing networks with new, untested services, rather than repairing or rebuilding the infrastructure the community has relied on for decades. Like the rest of the phone network transition, this can be an opportunity for better, newer service for the community, but unfortunately we have already seen how it can also force customers—who 

are already trying to rebuild their lives after a devastating natural disaster—to accept less reliable, more restricted services than what they had before. 

Collecting Data to Inform Policy Decisions 

The FCC is currently in the process of arranging and approving a series of technical experiments designed to better understand the impacts of new network technologies on consumers. Policymakers should use these trials to better understand 

21 

28See A Brief Assessment of Engineering Issues Related to Trial Testing for IP Transition, CTC 

Technology & Energy (Jan. 13, 2014), http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/CTC-PK%20PSTN 

%20Report.pdf. 29See Letter from Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney, Public Knowledge, et al., to Julie A. 

Veach, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC (May 12, 2014), available at http://www 

.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/blog/14.05.12lCopperlLetter.pdf. 30 Verizon v. FCC, Case No. 11–1355 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2014). 31Develop an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, CC Docket No. 01–92, Establishing 

Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 07–135, Declaratory 

Ruling (rel. Feb. 6, 2012), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocslpublic/attachmatch/DA-12- 

154A1.pdf. 

the transition’s technical challenges and opportunities and inform policy decisions 

going forward. 

The trials are an opportunity to collect technical data about new network technologies under a variety of parameters.28 This data can be used to inform policies 

that ensure we continue to protect the fundamental values of the network. Ideally, 

the FCC will be able to use the information collected in the trials to create a detailed ‘‘checklist’’ of technical standards that would guide companies seeking permission under § 214(a) to replace their existing networks with new technologies. 

It is also worth confirming that the trials, while a useful tool for policymakers, 

cannot become a vehicle for the transition itself. A trial is not a product launch. The 

trials must be limited, transparent, carefully controlled experiments, with definite 

start and end points and definite metrics by which to collect data. Any attempt by 

a carrier to co-opt a trial into a permanent deployment plan should be firmly rejected to protect customers and avoid distracting from the trials process. 

Continuing to Protect Consumers 

We cannot let customers be left behind while we are in the midst of these policy 

debates. We have already seen customers across the country report that they have 

experienced dropped calls and degraded service quality, and that their carriers responded to their requests for help by aggressively upselling them instead of maintaining the network (as they are legally required to do).29

This state of affairs, as reported by consumers across the nation, is unacceptable. 

Congress and the FCC should both look into the industry practices that led to these 

complaints, and where appropriate the FCC could also begin enforcement proceedings or information requests. Failure to take any action will only undermine the 

public’s confidence in the network that we have relied on for decades and puts network users across the country at risk of losing access to basic communications service. 

Authority to Preserve the Network Compact 

As we move forward with the network transition, it is imperative that the FCC 

continues to have authority to implement policies that serve the network’s enduring 

values. 

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision overturning the FCC’s 

no-blocking and nondiscrimination Open Internet rules called into question the 

FCC’s ability to continue applying certain fundamental policies to the phone network as it transitions to IP-based technology.30 Essentially, the DC Circuit ruled 

that when the FCC has put something in the Title I ‘‘information service’’ box, it 

cannot then treat that service like the phone system. This can become a serious 

problem when the service at issue is the phone system. Thus far, the FCC has classified Internet access service as an information service, but has not classified interconnected VoIP as either an information service or a telecommunications service. 

To the extent that parts of the phone network’s post-transition infrastructure fall 

under Title I, the FCC now has expanded authority to implement consumer protection rules like extending slamming and cramming rules to IP-based services. However, the DC Circuit’s decision casts doubt on the FCC’s ability to require VoIP providers to complete all phone calls, prohibit VoIP providers from blocking calls, and 

implement ‘‘carrier of last resort’’ obligations for VoIP service. 

In 2012, the FCC’s declaratory ruling addressing the problem of rural call completion was grounded in Title II common carrier authority and the duty to serve everyone.31 But, as the DC Circuit explained in the net neutrality context, this is precisely the type of action the FCC cannot take for non-common carrier services. So, 

post-transition, absent reclassification, the FCC would be unable to ensure that all 

calls go through when someone dials a 10-digit phone number. The FCC could—as 

it can with net neutrality—require companies to disclose if they are blocking calls 

or otherwise ‘‘managing’’ traffic in a way that degrades rural traffic. But, as too 

22 

32 Incidentally, carriers deploying new networks like fiber-based infrastructure may be willing 

to accept Title II classification when they wish to invoke their common carrier privileges to install fiber over private property or use public rights-of-way. Bruce Kushnick, It’s All Interconnected: Oversight and Action is Required to Protect Verizon New York Telephone Customers 

and Expand Broadband Services, Public Utility Law Project of New York, Inc. (May 13, 2014), 

http://newnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/PublicNN3.pdf. 

many in rural America can already tell you, this has not been effective at curbing 

the problem. 

Similarly the FCC’s inability to apply common carriage-like rules to IP-based 

services could mean the FCC will be unable to implement ‘‘carrier of last resort’’ 

(COLR) rules after the phone network has transitioned to IP.32 After all, the obligation to serve the public indiscriminately is at the core of common carriage, so without authority under Title II the FCC could be unable to ensure that everyone in 

the country has at least one option for standalone basic communications service. 

Particularly as states deregulate their own COLR rules, the FCC’s continued role 

is critical to achieving universal service throughout and after the transition. 

To the extent policymakers ever had the luxury of avoiding the question of the 

FCC’s authority over IP-based services, the phone network transition and the recent 

net neutrality decision in the DC Circuit make clear that the time for putting off 

this decision has ended. The underlying technology of the network may be changing, 

but the fundamental values of the network remain the same, and the FCC must 

continue to have the authority it needs to protect users and honor the network compact. 

Conclusion 

The transition of the phone network presents new opportunities and new challenges for policymakers seeking to ensure new networks constitute a true step forward, not a step backward, for everyday Americans. The stakes are high. The 

choices policymakers make now will impact how the public conducts business, communicates with loved ones, and reaches emergency services. Public Knowledge urges 

policymakers to follow the basic values that have informed our communications networks since the founding of our country to ensure we can all continue to enjoy a 

communications network we can count on. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Honorable? 

STATEMENT OF COLETTE D. HONORABLE, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY 

COMMISSIONERS (NARUC) 

Ms. HONORABLE. Good morning, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and the members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today on the IP transition and its impact 

on public safety and network resiliency. 

My name is Colette Honorable. I have the honor of serving as 

Chairman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, and I am 

especially honored to appear here before my senior Senator, whom 

I think is an outstanding public servant. I am also testifying in my 

role as President of the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners. 

I applaud the Subcommittee for holding this hearing, which is focused on the proper question, which is which public policy value 

should be preserved? What consumers care about is that their telecommunications work and are reliable, regardless of the technology 

used to provide them. 

As we transition from traditional circuit-switched technologies to 

an IP- and wireless-based system, Federal and State policymakers 

must work together to ensure that emergency 911 service and network resilience do not suffer. Public safety is, indeed, a core value 

that should not and cannot be compromised. 

23 

As Senator Pryor and Ranking Member Wicker know all too well, 

the recent tornados in Arkansas and Mississippi were another unavoidable reminder of how important these collaborative efforts are 

to ensure the resilience of our critical infrastructure and the safety 

of our citizenry. The April EF–4 tornado not only took the lives of 

many, but damaged hundreds of homes in one county alone. 

I am very pleased with the recovery and restoration efforts, 

which included the immediate response of our Governor, Mike 

Beebe, the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management, first 

responders and emergency personnel, and the utility and telecommunication sectors. 

Two large cell towers were destroyed, interrupting communications throughout the affected area. However, the carriers responded quickly, bringing in mobile towers that helped to return 

some level of service. While the situation is devastating, it could 

have been worse. 

Superstorm Sandy demonstrated the frailties of our utility infrastructure, knocking out power for days and weeks, cutting off telecommunications networks. While new IP- and wireless-based systems can be more efficient than traditional landline services, they 

do not have the same back-up power capabilities as the older networks. Circuit-switched technologies are supported by robust, independent power sources and continue to function during prolonged 

outages. 

Many of the new IP systems rely on a back-up power in the consumer’s home. These back-up units are, indeed, the responsibility 

of the consumer, and therefore, it is important that consumers are 

educated and are aware about these issues and how they can prolong the life of their infrastructure at home. As more consumers 

switch to IP-based systems, we must ensure that the technologies 

provide the same kind of support or that consumers are aware that 

they may not. 

In conclusion, what is important are the values we apply to the 

communications network, not the technology used to deliver it. 

FCC Chairman Wheeler espoused the four values of universal accessibility, reliable interconnection, consumer protection, public 

safety and security. NARUC agrees. 

While technology may change, the expectations of consumers do 

not. Consumers expect the same quality of service, reliability, and 

access to emergency service to which they have grown accustomed. 

When hurricanes, tornados, or other natural disasters unleash 

their destructive force, they don’t discriminate between a copper, 

fiber, or wireless networks. It is precisely for this reason that we, 

as policymakers, should not discriminate in applying our values. 

These values must be applied consistently and in a technology-neutral manner, especially when it relates to public safety. 

Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Honorable follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLETTE D. HONORABLE, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS (NARUC) 

Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the IP Transition and its impact 

24 

1See, Official FCC Blog: ‘‘Access and Public Safety: Enduring Elements of the Public Interest,’’ 

By Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman, January 30, 20144, available online at: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

blog/access-and-public-safety-enduring-elements-public-interest. 2See, e.g., NARUC’s May 14, 2014 Comments on Wireless E9–1–1 location accuracy requirements, at: http://www.naruc.org/Filings/14%200512%20NARUC%20Comments%20on%20911% 

20location%20accuracy.pdf. 

on Public Safety and network resiliency. Since 2007, I have been a Commissioner 

with the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Governor Mike Beebe designated me 

the Commission Chair in 2011. I am also President of the National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). NARUC is—like Congress—a bipartisan organization. Our members include public utility commissions in all of your 

States, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories with jurisdiction over telecommunications, electricity, natural gas, water and other utilities. NARUC member 

commissioners are the in-State experts on critical infrastructure in the utility sector 

and we are very familiar with network resiliency and service restoration issues. 

I applaud the Subcommittee for holding this hearing because it is focused on the 

correct question—which public policy values should be preserved—rather than just 

on the particular technologies being used to provide services today. NARUC has consistently supported technological innovations that promote more resilient networks 

and provide better service. But preserving public safety and network reliability, 

along with other values that customers expect—such as universal access, competition (interconnection), and consumer protection—are also important concerns in any 

technology transition, including this one. 

Federal and State policymakers must work together to ensure that emergency 911 

services and network resiliency do not suffer as consumers migrate to new technologies. Advances in technology often call for new regulatory policies for both new 

and existing services. 

As FCC Chairman Wheeler noted in a recent posting: 

‘‘When the original 911 rules for wireless providers were first adopted, they 

were built on the assumption that the primary place consumers would use their 

wireless phones would be outside. But today, the vast majority of wireless calls 

are made from indoors, including 911 calls made from wireless phones. Commercial location-based services are raising consumers’ expectations—if a 

smartphone app can locate them within seconds, why can’t a 911 call center?’’ 1

Why indeed? 

To the Chairman’s credit, the FCC initiated a proceeding to correct this deficit 

earlier this year in February. It was an initiative NARUC specifically endorsed by 

resolution.2

Some of these public-interest values present challenges that require the FCC to 

act—while others require close State-Federal collaborative efforts. The recent tornado in my home State of Arkansas was another unavoidable reminder of how important those collaborative efforts are to ensuring the resiliency of our critical infrastructure and the safety of our citizens. 

An EF4 tornado hit Arkansas in April of this year. In one county alone, it destroyed 328 homes; significantly damaged 111 more, and impacted hundreds of others. A new intermediate school which had been rebuilt after a 2011 tornado was 

once again demolished. It was one of the worst storms during my tenure at the Arkansas Commission and grim evidence that no matter how well utilities and others 

plan and prepare, the awesome force of nature can and will find vulnerabilities in 

our critical communications and power infrastructures. It was another reminder of 

how important it is for policymakers to focus on the right questions. 

As we transition to newer technologies, it is crucial for Congress and State and 

Federal regulators to continue to focus on the right issues and recognize that our 

collective focus must be the consumer, especially with regard to public safety. 

IP-based technologies can be more efficient than the technologies they are replacing. If properly implemented, they also can be more resilient than the old networks 

in certain ways. Networks that shift to IP-technology are designed to be highly robust to random failures. However, such networks have new vulnerabilities that the 

earlier technologies did not. For example, so-called ‘‘circuit-switch’’ services are selfpowering. The electricity that carries your voice on such system also provides power. 

IP-based services rely upon external power sources. Therefore if your landline telephone company still provides circuit-switched service, your phone will continue to 

work even through an electricity outage. If, however, the power goes out in your 

home and you have an IP-based phone system, you will only retain phone service— 

even if the rest of the network is operational—as long as your backup batteries 

25 

3See, e.g. Giorgianni, Anthony, ‘‘Verizon to eliminate free backup batteries for new residential 

phone customers: Decision by telecom giant could prevent 911 access during blackouts’’ Consumer Reports (December 12, 2013), online at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/ 

2013/12/verizon-to-eliminate-free-backup-batteries-for-new-residential-phone-customers/index 

.htm. (‘‘The company said that as of early as December, new FiOS customers who want a backup battery will have to pay a one-time charge of $29.99, buy it elsewhere, or do without. During 

a blackout, FiOS customers without a battery, household generator, or other type of backup 

power system will lose their landline voice service, including access to emergency 911.’’) See 

also, U-verse Voice battery backup specifications, ‘‘Upon installation of your AT&T U-verse Voice 

service, you are provided with a backup battery (or batteries) to help maintain your digital home 

phone service in the event of a short disruption of electrical power to your home.’’ at: http:// 

www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB409162&cv=814#fbid=esUgRWuZWBu. 4 NARUC Legislative Task Force Report on Federalism and Telecom (July 2005). See also, 

NARUC’s February 2003, NARUC passed Resolution Relating To Voice Over The Internet Telecommunications, available online at: http://www.naruc.org/Resolutions/voicelover.pdf, that 

notes ‘‘a significant portion of the Nation’s total voice traffic could be transported on IP networks 

within a few years’’ and urged the FCC to ‘‘confirm its tentative decision that certain phoneto-phone calls over IP networks are telecommunications services.’’ In November 2003, NARUC 

passed a Resolution on ‘‘Information Services’’, at http://www.naruc.org/Resolutions/ 

infolservices.pdf, cautioning the FCC to consider the negative implications associated with a 

finding that IP-based services are subject to Title I jurisdiction, including the (i) uncertainty 

and reduced capital investment while the FCC’s authority under Title I is tested; (ii) loss of consumer protections applicable to telecommunications services under Title II; (iii) disruption of 

traditional balance between Federal and State jurisdictional cost separations; (iv) increased risk 

to public safety . . . content; (vi) loss of State and local authority over emergency dialing services . . .’’ Those warnings remain valid today. See also, NARUC’s 2008 Resolution Regarding 

the Interconnection of New Voice Telecommunications Services Networks, online at: http:// 

www.naruc.org/Resolutions/TC%20Interconnection.pdf. (‘‘NARUC applauds the numerous advances in technology . . . to enable the efficient transmission of voice telecommunications traffic 

and the continued successes in developing innovative means to deliver voice telecommunications 

services . . . it is in the public interest for telecommunications carriers to interconnect their networks to exchange traffic in a technologically neutral manner, as provided for under Sections 

251 and 252.’’) See also, NARUC’s February 2012 Resolution on Mandatory Reporting of Service 

Outages by Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol Service Providers, asking the FCC to, 

inter alia, extend the mandatory service outage reporting requirements in 47 C.F.R. Part 4 to 

interconnected VoIP service providers. 5Some argue some technology specific rules may be needed to address the reduced resiliency 

of wireless and fiber networks. But there is no question that competing services should face 

similar rules. Both rely more on commercial power both at the network level and at the customer premise. The battery backup system installed with FiOS service is the responsibility of 

the consumer, after one year. There is a similar question, given the increasing number of wireless-only households, of backup power to cell towers. NARUC has raised concerns about the 

problem and had a panel on the interdependencies between the telecom and energy sectors at 

our conference last November. 6 Experts will always argue about how to define a competitive marketplace or what level of 

competition is needed to eliminate market power concerns but that is a different question and 

debate. It is also a broader question than the one facing policymakers under the current law. 

Here the question is, does the 1996 Act allow the FCC to treat functionally equivalent services 

differently under an ad hoc (FCC-created) regulatory regime. And if it does, how on earth does 

it make sense for them to do so. Shouldn’t competitors be subject to the same set of rules? 

last.3 During prolonged outages, IP-based residential customers will almost certainly lose phone service. Wireless phones that require external power to recharge 

once their batteries drain have the same problem. 

This is one example where regulatory oversight remains necessary regardless of 

changes over time in the technology used to provide a service. It is why NARUC 

has for years consistently urged Congress and Federal regulators to take a technology-neutral approach to regulation.4 The consumer cares if the phone service 

works during power outages and emergencies. When she calls 911, she wants that 

call to go to the right call center—she wants the call center to know where she is. 

The consumer does not distinguish whether the network provides the service using 

IP-protocol based or circuit-switched technology. Though sometimes a technology 

can engender a new problem,5 the basic reasons why public service commissions and 

agencies like the FCC were created remain the same. 

And there are only two. 

First, we regulate where competition 6 is not vigorous enough to adequately protect consumers. Where competition is sufficient to protect consumers and ensure 

market choice and innovation, then there is a reduced need for regulatory oversight. 

Second, we intervene to impose public interest obligations. Regardless of the level 

of competition, some oversight is always necessary to provide things the market will 

not. This includes protecting consumers from fraudulent actors and poor service 

quality, imposing requirements to facilitate or enhanced competitive forces, e.g., (1) 

26 

7 Number portability, which unquestionably facilitates competition, had to be forced on the 

wireless industry at a time when many considered that sector to be the poster child for a competitive market. 8See, e.g., Verizon battery backup policy,’’ available online at: http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/tv/fiostv/general+support/new+to+fios+tv/questionsone/121498.htm#. 9 NARUC Resolution Calling for National and State Collaboration to Ensure Reliable Wireline 

and Wireless Communications during Power Outages, adopted July 24, 2013. Available at: 

http://www.naruc.org/Resolutions/Resolution%20Calling%20for%20National%20and%20State% 

20Collaboration%20to%20Ensure%20Reliable%20Wireline%20and%20Wireless%20Communicati 

ons%20during%20Power%20Outages.pdf 

requiring local number portability 7 and (2) facilitating interconnection in markets 

with competing carriers with widely divergent market power, assuring disabled access, emergency calling services and universal service, and, of course, today’s topic— 

assuring a proper level of network reliability, as well as adequate plans that provide 

robust service restoration after disasters. 

With regard to the recent storm in Arkansas, I remain very pleased with the recovery and restoration efforts in Vilonia and Mayflower. This included the immediate response of Governor Mike Beebe and the Arkansas Department of Emergency 

Management (ADEM), first responders and emergency personnel, along with the 

prompt response of our telephone companies. As an example of how important 

connectivity is during an emergency, I received a call at home near midnight after 

the storm from our Attorney General who was on the ground assisting with rescue 

efforts in Vilonia. He was concerned about a significant gas leak and requested expedited gas-service disconnection in the neighborhood at issue. I contacted 

Centerpoint’s Regional Vice President and head of Arkansas operations who responded immediately, terminating service to the subdivision where a Level B leak 

was subsequently discovered. This was but one example of the excellent coordination 

among all involved in the emergency response effort that night. 

As I touched on earlier, the recent storm outages have raised questions about the 

resilience of these new networks, as both wireless and fiber-based IP services are 

much more reliant on commercial power from end-to-end. 

While regarded by some as old-fashioned, conventional wireline circuit-switched 

packetized technologies are supported by robust independent back-up power supply 

resources (e.g., central office standby diesel generators and battery banks), and continue to function during prolonged commercial power outages. As more consumers 

switch from wireline to IP or wireless service, we must assure that these technologies continue to provide back-up power during outages to maintain emergency 

communications. 

This raises the real question of whether consumers signing up for fiber-based 

services are fully aware of the trade-offs inherent in shifting to a different protocol. 

Do they know of the backup power limitations of the network and at their premises? 

Are they aware of the additional burdens that making this change places upon them 

to assure their own safety? 

For example, Verizon policy states that the battery backup system installed with 

FiOS service is the responsibility of the consumer, after a one-year warranty.8 The 

condition of the battery can dramatically impact the length of backup power a customer will experience in a power outage. While future back-up units may use simple 

batteries available at the local grocery store or pharmacy, current models require 

specialized batteries that are not readily available and can be difficult to change. 

Are most customers who switch aware of and educated about these issues? For 

many, I suspect the answer is no. 

On the wireless side, severe weather can also wreak havoc. As we learned after 

Superstorm Sandy, there can be problems with backup power at cell towers. 

NARUC voiced concerns about this by adopting a resolution in July 2013 urging 

State and Federal regulators ‘‘to engage in meaningful dialogue with industry decision makers to develop policies and procedures that ensure telecommunications are 

maintained during power outages regardless of the technology and the communications protocols used to provide the services.’’ 9

However, the issue in Arkansas after our recent storm was not a lack of backup 

power at the cell tower but the complete destruction of some of the towers themselves. There really is no protective measure that can guarantee this type of situation will not occur again. The storm in April destroyed two large cell towers—a 300- 

ft tower in Vilonia and a 250-ft tower in Mayflower. Multiple wireless providers utilized both towers so coverage to the area was lost across almost all providers. Fortunately, the carriers know this kind of damage is a possibility and, because the 

equipment shelters were spared, wireless providers brought in temporary mobile 

tower units the night of the storm and restored some service, as well as additional 

equipment in the days after the storm. 

27 

10FCC Report and Order on The Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Outage Reporting To Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and 

Broadband Internet Service Providers; PS Docket No. 11–82, Adopted: February 15, 2012 Released: February 21, 2012. Available at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc= 

s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftransition.fcc.gov%2FDailylRelea 

ses%2FDailylBusiness%2F2012%2Fdb0221%2FFCC-12-22A1.pdf&ei=C02GU8eQOemhsATdm4 

HYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFk05jz3-notvngKPR21ZABHWcvSA&bvm=bv.67720277,d.cWc&cad=rja. 11 NARUC Resolution on Mandatory Reporting of Service Outages by Interconnected Voice over 

Internet Protocol Service Providers, adopted February 8, 2012, available online at: http:// 

www.naruc.org/Resolutions/Resolution%20on%20VoIP%20Outage%20Reporting.pdf 12FCC Report and Order on The Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Outage Reporting To Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and 

Broadband Internet Service Providers; PS Docket No. 11–82, Adopted: February 15, 2012 Released: February 21, 2012. Available at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc 

=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftransition.fcc.gov%2FDailylRel 

eases%2FDailylBusiness%2F2012%2Fdb0221%2FFCC-12-22A1.pdf&ei=C02GU8eQOemhsATd 

m4HYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFk05jz3-notvngKPR21ZABHWcvSA&bvm=bv.67720277,d.cWc&cad=rja. 

I commend the carriers for their quick response. While the shorter mobile towers 

lacked the same coverage and capacity, it was nonetheless a big step forward. 

Verizon provided mobile towers, Wi-Fi and charging stations at the storm command 

center within hours of the tornado. AT&T also deployed several mobile charging stations so those in the impacted community could charge their devices and stay connected to friends and loved ones. They waived voice, data and text overage charges 

for a certain time period as well as set up a hydration station to provide water, 

snacks and shelter for volunteers. Windstream’s service territory was also impacted. 

The company brought in a temporary trailer to provide power for charging cell 

phones, etc and it had 10 MB broadband services with computers available to members of the community. They also provided volunteers from other markets to assist 

in the repair and clean-up effort. 

For any policymaker to decide whether any intervention or oversight of a carrier 

or carriers is necessary, access to information is crucial. 

For emergency systems, policymakers at both the Federal and State level need access to outage reporting data submitted by all competing providers, including interconnected VoIP carriers. Without information about the root causes of outages, 

whether they are on the rise or the wane, we have no way of determining if any 

action is warranted. Literally, lives hinge on such decisions and, by extension, on 

access to such data. 

In February 2012 the FCC adopted a Report and Order addressing outage reporting requirements by interconnected VoIP providers.10 NARUC urged the FCC to act 

on this issue and in a resolution adopted earlier that month called for the agency 

to: (1) Extend the mandatory service outage reporting requirements in 47 C.F.R. 

Part 4 to interconnected VoIP service providers; (2) Require interconnected VoIP 

service providers to report service outage information comparable to that required 

from other communications service providers, and on a detail level and timeliness 

that will provide adequate network status information in support of State, county, 

and local emergency response efforts; (3) Expand the criteria in 47 C.F.R. Part 4 

that defines a significant service outage to specifically include VoIP service problems 

affecting public access to 9–1–1, emergency service communications, utilities, and 

other telecommunications service providers; and (4) Provide State commissions with 

the opportunity to have direct and immediate access to the FCC’s outage reporting 

database and to all outage reports filed by interconnected VoIP service providers.11

Carriers almost unanimously opposed the FCC’s extension of mandatory outage 

reporting requirements to VoIP technologies. While it is easy to understand why a 

carrier might not want such data available to policymakers, it is not prudent for 

those with the responsibility to assure public safety and network resiliency to eschew such information. 

Carriers posited a series of unpersuasive ‘‘arguments’’ ranging from outage reporting is a waste of time to the specious argument that the FCC lacks the authority 

to impose such a mandate on interconnected VoIP providers just because they use 

IP protocol.12 Similar arguments proliferate before NARUC member commissions. 

Carriers have denied some states access to outage data claiming State commissions 

do not have authority to require reporting solely because of the technology they use 

to carry their traffic. This is disappointing and contrary to the public interest. 

In my state, under our State Emergency Plan, the PSC is responsible for coordinating between the jurisdictional utilities and other State agencies, principally the 

Arkansas Department of Emergency Management (ADEM). During emergencies, we 

provide a greater emphasis on the restoration of electric and natural gas service. 

As a result of State deregulation and existing jurisdictional ambiguity, because of 

28 

13February 8, 2012 Letter from James Bradford Ramsay, to FCC Chairman Genachowski and 

Commissioners McDowell and Clyburn, filed In the Matter of the Proposed Extension of Part 4 

of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Outage Reporting to Interconnected Voice Over Internet 

Protocol Service Providers and Broadband Internet Service Providers, PS Docket No. 11–82, at: 

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021858903. 14See In the Matter of the Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding 

Outage Reporting To Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and 

Broadband Internet Service Providers, PS Docket No. 11–82, Report and Order, FCC 12–22 (rel. 

Feb. 21, 2012, at note 230, mimeo at 43: (‘‘We note that, in its ex parte filing on February 8, 

2012, NARUC requests that the Commission provide State commissions with an opportunity to 

have direct and immediate access to outage reporting data and to all outage reports filed by 

interconnected VoIP service providers. See, NARUC February 8, 2012 Ex Parte Filing. NARUC’s 

request is beyond the scope of this proceeding.’’) 15The Arkansas Commission’s authority to keep information confidential is in Ark. Code Ann. 

Section 23–2–316(b): ‘‘(b) (1) Whenever the commission determines it to be necessary in the interest of the public or, as to proprietary facts or trade secrets, in the interest of the utility to 

withhold such facts and information from the public, the commission shall do so. (2) The commission may take such action in the nature of, but not limited to, issuing protective orders, temporarily or permanently sealing records, or making other appropriate orders to prevent or otherwise limit public disclosure of facts and information.’’ 16See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) (‘‘Any telecommunications carrier, or class of telecommunications carriers, may submit a petition to the Commission requesting that the Commission exercise the authority granted under this section with respect to that carrier or those carriers, or 

any service offered by that carrier or carriers.’’). See also, 47 U.S.C. § 253. 

the FCC’s refusal to provide any regulatory classification of VoIP services, we play 

less of a role in telecom restoration. 

It is imperative that we assist in the coordination between the electric and telecommunications utilities in the event of an emergency to understand the timeframes 

for the restoration of electric facilities and communications facilities, and aid in rescue and recovery efforts. We also assist by providing reports to ADEM on the status 

of any outages and restoration of electric, natural gas, and to a lesser extent telecommunications service. 

We were pleased when the FCC extended its outage reporting requirements to 

interconnected VoIP providers as NARUC recommended.13 However, it failed to address our request to provide State commissions with direct and immediate access 

to the FCC’s outage database and to all outage reports filed by interconnected VoIP 

providers.14 This is a problem. states play a key role in coordination of outage restoration. We are the ‘‘boots on the ground’’ when disasters strike. Limited access to 

this information is counterproductive to our joint goal of quick and timely service 

restoration. 

There is concern about the confidential treatment of such data in a handful of 

states due to their open record laws. However, that should not prevent the sharing 

of vital public safety information. The FCC should grant immediate access to the 

outage database and reports for those states meeting the confidentiality requirements. For those that do not meet such requirements the confidentiality issues can 

be easily resolved by requiring them to issue a certification that the information will 

be kept confidential, as has been done in the past. In addition, many states have 

statutory authority to protect highly sensitive or competitive information from public disclosure.15

Emergency 911 services are a top priority in every State. Even in states that have 

adopted deregulatory telecom policies in recent years, all of them have focused on 

the need for continued oversight of 911 services. Emergency services and network 

reliability are a core value that does not change with the evolution of technology. 

The IP transition is not about regulation or deregulation. The FCC has ample 

tools in the 1996 Act to eliminate unneeded regulation through the forbearance 

process.16 Nor should the debate be technology-focused. 

A change in the technology to provide a ‘‘functionally equivalent’’ voice service 

cannot allow carriers to escape State and Federal disaster recovery, service quality, 

law enforcement access, universal service, disabled access and interconnection obligations. If the FCC is truly interested in a resilient network and reliable emergency 

911 the best thing it can do is provide legal certainty over the classification of VoIP 

services and apply its policies in a technology-neutral manner. 

In conclusion, what is important are the values we apply to the communications 

network not the technology used to deliver it. Chairman Wheeler has espoused four 

key values, which he refers to as the ‘‘Network Compact’’. They are universal accessibility, reliable interconnection, consumer protection, and public safety and security. The FCC reiterated these values and noted the need for the agency to work 

with State, local and tribal governments to uphold these values in its IP-transition 

29 

17 ‘‘State, local and Tribal governments and leaders share this challenge, along with other Federal entities. We will work alongside each other to ensure that, as networks transition, public 

safety is assured, access is universal, competition is promoted, consumers are protected, and the 

Nation remains well-served by its critical communications infrastructure.’’ From paragraph 9, 

Page 5, FCC Order, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Report and 

Order, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Proposal for Ongoing Data Initiative, 

GN Docket No. 13–5, GN Docket No. 12–353, WC Docket No. 10–90, CG Docket No. 10–51, CG 

Docket No. 03–123, WC Docket No. 13–97, adopted January 30, 2014, available online at: 

http://transition.fcc.gov/DailylReleases/DailylBusiness/2014/db0131/FCC-14-5A1.pdf. 18 NARUC Federalism Task Force Report: Cooperative Federalism and Telecom In the 21st 

Century, adopted November 2013 and available at: http://www.naruc.org/Publications/Federalism-task-force-report-November-20131.pdf. 

trials order.17 NARUC agrees that is what the Act requires. We have adopted our 

own set of guiding core principles. 

In November 2012, NARUC chartered a task force on Federalism to review 

NARUC’s 2005 policies and paper and to determine any changes to those policies 

required by the changing communications landscape. The resulting whitepaper was 

unanimously adopted at the NARUC Annual Meeting in November 2013.18 At its 

foundation are core principles in line with that of the 1996 Act, and Chairman 

Wheeler’s ‘‘network compact.’’ They are: consumer protection; network reliability 

and public safety; competition; interconnection; universal service; and regulatory diversity. 

While technologies change the expectations of consumer do not. Consumers expect 

the same quality of service, reliability, access to emergency service and the protections to which they have grown accustomed. 

When hurricanes, tornadoes or other natural disasters unleash their destructive 

force they do not discriminate between a copper, fiber, or wireless networks. It is 

precisely for this reason that we as policymakers should not discriminate in applying our values. These values must be applied consistently and in a technology-neutral manner, especially when it relates to public safety. 

Consumers moving to these new services must be educated on their limitations 

and vulnerabilities as much as they are about the exciting bells and whistles. They 

must be informed of their new obligations, such as the responsibility to maintain 

battery backup systems. Failure to provide such vital information could prove deadly. NARUC members deal with network resiliency on a regular basis across the utility spectrum. We stand willing and able to work with this subcommittee, the whole 

of Congress, the FCC and industry to make sure all Americans enjoy the benefits 

of a resilient communications network. Thank you for your time and I look forward 

to any questions you may have. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Smith? 

STATEMENT OF GIGI SMITH, PRESIDENT, 

ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS 

OFFICIALS (APCO) INTERNATIONAL 

Ms. SMITH. Good morning, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member 

Wicker, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gigi 

Smith, and I am the President of the Association of Public Safety 

Communications Officials, or APCO. Thank you for inviting me 

back to testify on yet another important public safety matter. 

APCO is the world’s oldest and largest organization of public 

safety communications professionals. Our members field 911 calls, 

dispatch critical information to first responders, and manage the 

communications networks used by first responders. 

I have been active in public safety for over 28 years, starting as 

a 911 call-taker and now serving as the police operations manager 

for the Salt Lake Valley Emergency Communications Center in 

West Valley City, Utah. I bring the perspective of an association 

that is focused on how technology shifts, including the IP transition, impact public safety. 

30 

The IP transition will bring a number of benefits. We are fully 

embracing efforts to bring IP technologies into public safety communications by supporting the FirstNet network, driving Next 

Generation 911 deployment, and ensuring development of the most 

effective apps for public safety, among other initiatives. 

I would like to now briefly mention a few considerations regarding the impact of the IP transition on public safety. 

First, IP-based networks must be reliable, supporting access to 

911 communications between dispatchers and first responders, and 

communications of emergency operations centers and first responder agencies. 

Second, IP networks present new vulnerabilities. Service providers should incorporate security procedures, failover plans, and 

mitigation strategies to best protect public safety communications. 

Third, copper networks are self-powered, whereas IP networks 

rely on power from the consumer electric grid. IP network designs 

need to consider stand-by power, battery back-up, and other contingency plans. 

Fourth, IP networks must maintain the quality of location information for 911 calls, and we encourage exploration of how IP can 

offer improved capabilities. 

Fifth, IP and Next Generation 911 transitions in the public safety community will be more gradual than for nonpublic safety networks. Certainly, additional funding at the national level would 

support more rapid adoption of next-generation technology by 

PSAPs and, thus, help public safety keep pace with the industry’s 

IP transition. 

Finally, some service providers offer or may require wireless replacements to landlines. We need to preserve existing levels of 911 

service in these cases. 

In summary, we believe that the IP transition holds great promise. APCO looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and all 

stakeholders to help guide the best path forward. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith Follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GIGI SMITH, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY

COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS (APCO) INTERNATIONAL

Good morning Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

My name is Gigi Smith, and I am the President of the Association of Public-Safety 

Communications Officials International, or APCO International. Thank you for inviting me back to testify on yet another important public safety matter. 

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to highlight the public safety implications of 

the transition of the Nation’s communications infrastructure to IP-based technologies. 

I have been active in public safety communications for over 28 years. I started 

as a 9–1–1 call taker, and then worked my way through the ranks of dispatcher, 

trainer, supervisor, and I now serve as the Police Operations Manager for the Salt 

Lake Valley Emergency Communications Center in West Valley City, Utah. My 

Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) is a 9–1–1 police, fire, and emergency medical services dispatch center. 

Thus, I am very familiar with the impact of changing technologies on the 9–1– 

1 system and emergency dispatch operations, including how best to ensure that as 

we embrace new technologies, we preserve, and improve, the safety of the public 

and first responders. 

31 

APCO International is the world’s oldest and largest organization of public safety 

communications professionals, at over 20,000 members. Our members are mainly 

state and local government employees who manage and operate communications 

systems for law enforcement, fire, EMS and other public safety agencies. Effectively, 

our members field 9–1–1 calls, dispatch critical information to first responders, and 

are integral to the implementation of the critical communications networks used in 

the field by first responders. In all of these respects, APCO International provides 

the training, certification, technical, and standards development resources to make 

the most effective and efficient use of communications technologies in use today or 

planned for the future. 

So as President of APCO, I also bring the perspective of an association that is 

focused on current and future implications of technological shifts, including the IP 

transition. 

We recognize that the transition of the Nation’s communications networks to IP 

technology will bring many benefits to the public at large, such as the ability to deliver and share content rich video and multimedia messages, with increasing quality. 

At the same time, maintaining and improving voice quality remains very important. This is because sometimes the ability of 9–1–1 call takers to hear and pass 

along subtle background sounds, like someone racking a shotgun, can make a significant difference to the first responder. 

Just as another example, IP and related technologies also present us with an opportunity to acquire and utilize data on a large scale, which can help to identify 

ways to improve efficiencies in emergency response like never possible before. 

Indeed, we are fully embracing efforts to bring IP and other advanced technologies 

into the public safety communications arena. We are actively supporting the 

FirstNet network, leading the way to responsibly drive implementation of Next Generation 9–1–1 (‘‘NG9–1–1’’) networks, and ensuring development of the most effective mobile apps for public safety and emergency response purposes, among other 

initiatives. And there are other public safety communications capabilities that 

APCO is involved with that also will be impacted by the IP transition, including priority services, emergency alerting, and other existing and growing sources of information such as alarms, sensors, video, and social media. 

For the remainder of my testimony, I will offer a few considerations we believe 

should be kept in mind as we explore how best to preserve the needs of the public 

safety community. 

Reliability 

Let me begin with reliability, as this was a term wisely included in the title of 

today’s hearing. 

Reliability has a unique importance in public safety—for example, when else 

would you want to have a more reliable communications capability than during a 

large-scale emergency? This means that communications networks need to continue 

to serve the 9–1–1 system, and the first responder community, in the wake of widescale physical damage, at times without advance warning, and with rapid and sustained surges in traffic demand. 

Over decades, current time-division multiplexing (TDM) copper networks have 

been built to a very high reliability level of 99.999 percent. While more capable, and 

feature rich, IP-based networks may be less reliable. Thus, the design of IP-based 

networks should incorporate a reliable, redundant standard that anticipates real 

world conditions such as the ability to handle scalable traffic in emergencies. This 

includes supporting the ability of the general public to reach 9–1–1, the communications between dispatchers and first responders, and the communications systems 

supporting emergency operations centers and first responder agencies. IP-based networks, when properly designed and implemented, should be both logically and physically redundant. 

APCO has been at the forefront of identifying reliable and redundant standards 

for advanced communications networks. Most recently, APCO worked with the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council to develop and deliver to FirstNet 

a report on ‘‘public safety grade’’ requirements. While these requirements were designed to provide guidance to FirstNet, many aspects of this report are equally applicable to, and should be part of, any IP network design intended for use or interconnection with public safety. 

A related matter is service quality. In the IP world, as in wireless, ‘‘quality of 

service’’ is a key indicator. Thus, IP networks not only need to be reliable, but deliver the priority and quality of service required for public safety-related communications. 

32 

Also related to reliability is recovery and restoration particularly in the wake of 

severe natural or man-made disasters. On the plus side, IP networks are redundant 

by design. But as Hurricane Sandy and other disasters have shown, Mother Nature 

can defeat even the best designed networks. And the rollout of IP networks will involve multiple components serviced by multiple companies, which will require a new 

level of coordination and associated procedures to ensure rapid service restoration. 

Further, response plans should include appropriate priority for public safety communications. 

Security 

As public safety and the industry have already experienced, security is a critical 

issue. IP networks present new cyber-security and related vulnerabilities as compared to the ‘‘closed loop’’ legacy communications infrastructure. IP networks have 

been compromised by hackers, and denial of service, spamming, swatting, and other 

attacks are even more easily perpetrated on an IP-based system, including 9–1–1 

networks. Security also becomes a cascading and increasingly complex problem to 

address, since an all-IP environment introduces a new variety of transport providers, network service providers, and interconnect players. 

Thus, service providers should incorporate security procedures, failover plans, and 

mitigation strategies into their network design to best protect PSAP and other public safety communications. 

Power 

Copper-based networks are self-powered, whereas IP-based networks rely on 

power from the consumer electric grid. Thus, IP-based networks are more susceptible to power outages. During power outages, telephone service will not be available 

unless sufficient backup power is available. Further, IP networks bring a paradigm 

shift for the consumer, as the customer now becomes responsible for maintaining 

and ensuring battery back-up. Consider how important it has become for people to 

be able to-recharge their mobile devices in the wake of power outages that accompany emergencies. In this respect, consumer education will also be key. IP-based 

network designs need to consider stand-by power, battery back-up, and other contingency plans for power supply. 

Location Information 

Today’s wireline networks typically provide very dependable and actionable, or as 

we say, ‘‘dispatchable’’ addresses, such as the specific street address of a 9–1–1 caller. Of course, this issue is near to me, as I spoke on the topic of wireless location 

accuracy in January before this very subcommittee. As I said back in January, the 

prompt and effective dispatch of appropriate emergency services to any reported 

event is dependent upon obtaining the best location information possible from the 

caller. Further, this essential element of dispatching must occur regardless of the 

technology used to access 9–1–1. 

As it relates to the IP transition, ensuring that the general public can reach emergency services in the first place is paramount. At the same time, new technology 

permits innovative solutions that can improve upon existing location technologies. 

Thus, we encourage active exploration of how to harness and implement such capabilities from the start. 

Impact on 9–1–1 and Next Generation 9–1–1 Networks 

We expect that the transition of the Nation’s communications networks will be an 

evolution, following a relatively steady process. But as compared to the transition 

to NG9–1–1, it will likely occur much more rapidly. To date, IP and NG9–1–1 transitions in the public safety community have been partial, and typically on a PSAPby-PSAP and carrier-by-carrier basis. 

Thus, IP networks will need to interconnect effectively with both legacy 9–1–1 and 

Enhanced 9–1–1 networks, as well as new text-to-911 services and future NG9–1– 

1 networks. Further, service providers will have to account for the fact that public 

safety networks will be provided by a variety of service providers, both private and 

public. In addition, IP networks will need to adhere to the two prevailing standards 

that are being deployed for NG 9–1–1 services. One is known as ‘‘i3’’ that some 

PSAPs are deploying today, and the other is IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem), which 

we expect will be the standard used by many PSAPs as well as by FirstNet. 

In the current economic environment, local governments are more likely to devote 

scarce resources first to public safety operations that directly impact both responders and the public (e.g., radios, squad cars, fire engines, ambulances, and related 

equipment and supplies). As a result, legacy PSAPs are likely to remain operational 

for some time, and there will be a need to interconnect new IP-based networks to 

multiple PSAP types for many years to come. Certainly, additional funding mechaVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:12 Feb 26, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\93481.TXT JACKIE
33 

nisms at the national level would support more rapid adoption of next generation 

technology at the Nation’s PSAPs, and thus help public safety keep pace with the 

industry’s IP transition. 

At the same time, public safety’s transition to NG9–1–1 will present a number 

of opportunities and synergies with the evolution of communications networks to IP. 

Commonalities will include increased multimedia features, new network redundancy 

options, standardized interfaces for improved interoperability and information sharing, and a broader vendor and service provider ecosystem. APCO has been working 

with the industry with all of this in mind, and intends to continue to pursue ways 

to collaborate on network design and implementation to anticipate and meet the 

needs of the public safety community. 

Wireless Options 

Finally, let me briefly touch on how the IP transition can lead to wireless replacements of copper and TDM-based networks. In some early offerings, service providers 

offer wireless replacements as an option to consumers, and in others, a wireless replacement product may be the only option. 

In such cases, we believe that certain steps will be necessary to preserve existing 

levels of 9–1–1 service. We support development of technology that can provide the 

equivalent of the home address, and detect when the device has been relocated to 

ensure the address is updated. Also, we recommend that the wireless network serving a wireless-only residence is made as redundant and resilient as possible to withstand natural or man-made disasters and afford sufficient network access and capacity. 

In sum, we believe that the IP transition holds great promise for public safety 

communications, provided that the aforementioned issues are addressed. In this regard, APCO looks forward to working with this Subcommittee, and all stakeholders, 

to help guide the best path forward. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you, and I look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Ms. Honorable, let me start with you, if I may, and that is kind 

of pick up where Ms. Smith left off there about 911 service. 

As we move forward, does it make sense that 911 service is more 

of a Federal function or a State function? Specifically, you know, 

I think we all recognize how important 911 service is, what a great 

success it has been, but as we transition to IP-based—you know, 

how should we make sure that our 911 service has the integrity 

that it has up to this point? 

Ms. HONORABLE. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

The NARUC community believes that it is a proper State function. I believe the success that we have enjoyed thus far has been 

precisely because of the ability of the states to work very nimbly 

and with flexibility within their borders to not only coordinate and 

have oversight, but also to respond in emergent situations. 

When I think back over the severe weather events that we have 

had over the past few years—and we have, indeed, had many, as 

many of the members of the Subcommittee have—the ability of 

first responders of our State Department of Emergency Management, of our Governor’s office, of the local and county officials, as 

well as the State public utility commissioners, to participate very 

aggressively with coordination efforts, even at heightened levels 

than ever before, it is imperative that we have the ability to respond quickly, that we have the ability to oversee 911 efforts locally because the ultimate goal is safety. 

The ultimate goal is public safety and ensuring that we use every 

tool to respond as promptly as possible, and the best way to do so 

is to ensure that that is occurring at the State level. 

34 

Senator PRYOR. Are there any States, though, that have State 

laws that would prohibit the State PSE or PUC, whatever they call 

it in their State, to do 911 requirements on an IP system? Are you 

aware of any? 

Ms. HONORABLE. No, I am not aware. There are certainly other 

State prohibitions with regard to telecommunication services more 

broadly. As you know, many states have undergone deregulation. 

But certainly, the 911 core functions are carried out at the State 

and local levels. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Banks, let me ask you, I have a concern 

about us going to IP, and some of you all have mentioned this. I 

mean, obviously, there is great innovation with it, and there is a 

lot of good things with it. I don’t want to say it is all bad because 

it is not at all. 

But we all know and our experience has been that when a lot 

of people are on the Internet, sometimes it runs slower, and we 

talked about the power, the need for, you know, electricity, and if 

electricity goes out, you lose your power. So how do we resolve that 

with—how do we resolve that in the 911 world, or when there are 

emergencies or some crisis, that too many people get on the system, 

and how do we make sure as we go forward that we don’t have that 

problem? 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you. 

There is always an issue around disasters when networks can be 

overloaded, and that can be a wireless network, a traditional copper network, or another network. I think the first thing that puts 

us in a better position for all this than we were a decade or two 

ago is that there are multiple networks throughout the country. 

So, in general, people can use their traditional wireline network. 

Their neighbor might be on a cable network. There are four or 

more wireless networks, and 90-plus percent of Americans have at 

least one mobile phone in the home. So there are these multiple 

networks people can turn to, and if any one network gets overloaded, that doesn’t mean no one can get through to 911. 

But fundamentally, you are asking a very good question about 

designing robustness into these systems, and that—that is a challenge for our industry, the wireless cable industries, and the public 

safety community to work together to make sure that there are the 

right number of trunks to PSAPs, that there are back-ups and 

overflow systems. 

So, you know, this is one of these technological challenges we are 

working through with this transition and working through at DHS, 

with APCO and the public safety commission, with the FCC, and 

you know, we are very focused on that. 

Senator PRYOR. Senator Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

Let me ask about the transition between the copper line networks and IP, fiber. It obviously doesn’t all happen at once. So 

there is a lag there. 

Let me start with Mr. Banks. Substantial geographic areas—and 

therefore, substantial numbers of individuals—will be living in 

areas that will continue to be served by copper, which we call 

TDM, and others will be in the transition to IP areas. How will 

providers and your members ensure that these communities will 

35 

maintain the ability to communicate with areas served by all IP 

networks? 

Mr. BANKS. Well, thank you. 

I think that the customers you are talking about, the TDM or the 

old-fashioned copper customers, are all customers of the members 

of USTelecom. They are our customers. We have been serving them 

for decades. Our companies have every intention of making sure 

those people can call whomever they want, and when people call 

them, that those calls go through. 

So I think the commitment is there. I think there are occasional 

unfortunate rural call completion issues that your question probably touches on. But our members who serve these people every 

day are going to make sure that those calls can go through, for the 

next—for however long it takes to get through the IP transition. 

Senator WICKER. Do you need any help from—from the Congress 

in that regard? 

Mr. BANKS. There is a substantial effort at the FCC to understand some of these rural call completion issues going on, and the 

FCC is gathering data from across the industry. So I think—we are 

very involved in that, in the provision of data, and I think we need 

to see the outcome of that FCC investigation. 

Senator WICKER. Let me toss this topic to you, Mr. Schulzrinne. 

Are there any novel technical challenges to maintaining connectivity in this incremental area-by-area phaseout? 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. Yes, I believe there are. The challenge is always when you have an old technology and a new technology. The 

danger is that investment in the old technology lags and that there 

are complexities that are incurred because you need to interconnect 

the old technology to the new technology. 

I briefly mentioned the CAMA trunk problem, where even in 

areas which are now served by IP, for example, most of the cable 

customers are typically on Voice over IP systems, they still reach 

PSAPs through these legacy trunks, which are often capacity limited, that are brittle, poorly maintained in terms of their vendor 

support, and very few people still understand how they operate. So 

the transition, I believe, in many cases, if it happens faster across 

the network, can prevent these types of interruptions. 

For the call completion issues, I do believe there are opportunities that as we transition to Voice over IP-based interconnection, 

as opposed to TDM-based interconnection, that the number of 

places where things can go wrong decreases. 

Similarly, the Commission has started an effort, as part of its investigation of telephony numbering, to improve the data bases, 

which, at least in some cases, are implicated in making it difficult 

to route calls to the correct destinations and leads to call failures. 

Senator WICKER. Ms. Honorable, do our friends at the State regulatory level have any insights to offer in this regard? 

Ms. HONORABLE. Yes sir, Senator Wicker. Yes, we do, thank you. 

We have been engaged with the FCC, even at the highest levels. 

I have personally met with Chairman Wheeler about the IP transition issue, and I want to applaud the FCC for engaging the states. 

They recognize that we have a significant role to play in aiding 

in a smooth transition, and we have been particularly interested 

and concerned about doing our part to ensure a smooth, or smoothVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:12 Feb 26, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\93481.TXT JACKIE
36 

er, transition. And we hope to watch with great interest the IP 

trials, and we have been following and working with the FCC and 

its staff to ensure that State regulators are involved, offering feedback. 

Again, the ultimate goal that we share is the same, and it is to 

ensure public safety, but also from a regulatory perspective, ensuring the same tenets we have come to know, the same quality of 

service, the same ability for consumers to have optionality, and for 

them to have consumer protections as well. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you all. 

Ms. HONORABLE. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Senator Klobuchar? 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Senator Pryor, 

for holding this important hearing. 

Senator Wicker, if there is one thing every person is concerned 

about, I know from my former job as a prosecutor, is public safety, 

and we need to make sure that these new technologies are functional. 

There are many opportunities. You know, firefighters walking 

into a building that will maybe be able to see immediate blueprints 

or video of what is in there. And you have Minnesotans who get 

stranded out on snowmobiles when they break down, and they 

are—their only hope is to have some kind of a GPS system if they 

are lost. And we have seen some really good rescues, actually, because of technology, but we know that there are also challenges. 

I am the Chair of the Next Generation 911 Caucus, and I continue to be an advocate for deploying this community technology 

and this modern technology and our efforts. As with many members of this subcommittee, I have been concerned about call completion. It is not going to help if people are making 911 calls, if they 

can’t complete them. And this is especially, as you know, Ms. 

Smith and Ms. Honorable, is a problem in the rural areas. 

And what I wanted to know from the NARUC perspective, is if 

you have been supporting the action by the FCC? As you know, 

they just issued a new consent decree, announced yesterday, with 

Matrix Telecom, and can you expand on how this issue is of a concern to public safety if we can’t complete the calls? 

Ms. HONORABLE. Senator, thank you for the question. 

Thank you for your concern, also we share in that, on both points 

that you have mentioned. One, regarding public safety. And after 

Hurricane Sandy, NARUC issued a strong resolution, which calls 

for heightened coordination, particularly among the utility and 

telecommunication sectors. 

For some time, we have been operating within our own silos, but 

the lesson we have learned from Sandy and the derecho storm and 

others is that there is a strong symbiotic relationship between both 

the utility sector and telecommunications. They need one another. 

The telecom sector can’t do an effective job without the electric 

infrastructure, and the electric infrastructure can’t communicate 

and get the lights back on without a strong telecommunications efVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:12 Feb 26, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\93481.TXT JACKIE
37 

fort to restore service once there has been an interruption. So we 

have been very active there. 

Particularly also on call completion, too, the second issue that 

you raised, we have also issued resolutions on call completion. We 

commend the FCC’s efforts, even yesterday, with regard to that 

consent decree. 

This is such an important issue. The calls have to go through because lives are on the line, and we recognize that. And we are very 

committed to continuing to raise these issues and aiding where we 

can, as State regulators, to making sure that we see this through 

because lives depend on it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

And Senator Fischer has been working with me on that effort, 

and I appreciate your help on this as well. 

We are starting to see text to 911 services, as I mentioned, being 

launched, and someday we may be able to see, as I mentioned, 

video to 911 services. Ms. Smith, how do you view the potential for 

these innovations, and how will the IP transition help or hinder 

these efforts? What is the balancing act that we need to see to ensure that the new networks have what they need to provide the 

services? 

Ms. SMITH. Well, there is a balancing act, and as Mr. Wicker 

mentioned earlier, this is an exciting transition. So, for me personally, being the police operations manager of a 911 center, it is exciting to see what the future lies ahead, to be able to have these resources for my responders and to be able to offer them the information that is needed. 

But with the balancing act, there are pros, and there are concerns. And those concerns or those challenges, as we have mentioned earlier, come with—you know, we need to have reliability, 

and we have to have security. Reliability. We need to ensure that 

those systems are up, and in the time of need, our citizens can call 

in and reach 911 and get the help that they need. 

But we also need to be aware of the security issues. There is, you 

know, cybersecurity to be aware of—TDOS, Telephony Denial of 

Service, swatting, spamming, those types of things. So that our systems aren’t taken down, but instead, we know that they are reliable, that they are there when they are going to be needed. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And one last question. When we passed the 

Spectrum Act, I included an amendment that would allow revenue 

from the incentive auction that wasn’t allocated to FirstNet or paying down the deficit to go to Next Generation 911 upgrades, including the implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications. We expect the auction to put—take place next year. 

I know we hope the auction raises enough revenue to provide 

these resources to upgrade our 911 systems, but in the meantime, 

what other Federal resources are available to help PSAPs as they 

work to keep up with this evolution to IP? 

Ms. SMITH. I think funding is a very important question, and I 

don’t have the answer specifically as what other fundings are available, but I can definitely look into that, and we can respond back. 

But I do—I would like to say that, you know, funding is important in as much as that, I know my own center, we just went 

through where we are now able to connect with IP, and I know how 

38 

much we spent, just under $400,000. And with that, that is just for 

the equipment only. That doesn’t include the training, the personnel, and the other equipment that is going to come with it. 

Times that by approximately 6,000 PSAPs that are across the 

Nation. There is going to be a large cost, and it is very important 

that—you know, we understand and we are very appreciative that 

those funding sources may come, and will be coming later, but the 

same time, we need to have something immediate in order to ensure that public safety does not lag behind and that we can keep 

up with the industry. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for not being here for all of the testimony, but Mr. 

Banks, I am a numbers guy. It looks like your testimony had more 

numbers—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator JOHNSON. —so I want to try and define the problem 

here. We are talking about transition from, you know, copper to IP. 

How much has already been transitioned? I mean, how much do we 

have left to go? 

Mr. BANKS. Well, I would say that if you look across America’s 

households, about 25 percent still have regular, old-fashioned 

POTS, copper-type phone service. I would say the vast majority of 

America’s businesses have switched to IP-based systems. 

Senator JOHNSON. Of that 25 percent, though, how much—how 

many have easy access to upgrade, to make the transition? 

Mr. BANKS. Uh—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Or is it all, is that 25 percent just a problem? 

Mr. BANKS. No, no. So the most—much of that 25 percent also 

has a cable system available or, like many households, could switch 

to wireless. The upgrade path for those homes to go to IP is—depends very much on where they are. In some of the more rural 

areas, it is a longer term issue. 

Senator JOHNSON. That is what I am trying to find here. What 

percentage of people that haven’t transitioned is the real problem? 

Where we really have to be concerned about, you know, companies 

like yours, you have made significant investments, $671 billion, 

into—you know, into the infrastructure, but what percent is really 

the problem? 

Mr. BANKS. That is a difficult number to give you, but having the 

FCC follow through on the right universal service reform to ensure 

that people that have these really old—the older networks in rural 

areas, that there is a business case to upgrade. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Schulzrinne, you look like you want to 

jump in here? 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. I just wanted to comment from a technology 

perspective and, as Mr. Banks alluded to, somewhat different circumstances. So the one is where only TDM is available, and that 

is, I think, a relatively small number of places, but they exist 

39 

where no robust IP networks exist and, in particular, where not all 

rural telecom providers offer Voice over IP services because that 

would run over copper. 

Senator JOHNSON. So just give me a percent. Are we talking 

about 1 percent? Are we talking 10 percent? 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. It is hard to pin that down. 

Senator JOHNSON. I am just looking for a ballpark. 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. Order of magnitude, I would say, it is probably in the 5 percent-ish range. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. But that changes on a year-by-year basis. 

Senator JOHNSON. But again, we are talking about we have got 

a 5 percent problem here. 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. Yes, the problem is, however, also one where 

a number of consumers have chosen to retain a landline because 

they value the features of a landline. So, indeed, one carrier has 

recently offered a 911-only service on a traditional landline for a 

relatively modest fee, presumably to address consumers that want 

to retain those or that do not want to subscribe to, say, a cable 

service. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, I know there has been some discussion, 

I think, action, of course, as to how we are going to actually regulate broadband. Anybody here on the table really want to regulate 

broadband under the telecom rules? Is there anybody? 

I mean, guys, I assume nobody wants to do that? Or—— 

Ms. GRIFFIN. I would say that I think that the values that underlie the phone network apply just as much as we move to the next 

generation of communication services and broadband. I think that 

how those rules look may be a little different than what we have 

done in the phone network because it is a different technology, and 

it operates differently. 

But at the end of the day, we still want everybody to have access 

to what the basic service is, and as that moves to broadband, then 

we need to make sure that we still have rules that are ensuring 

everybody has access to that, too. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ms. Griffin, in notes on your testimony, it 

sounds like you are not necessarily believing the broadband companies have an incentive to make sure that, you know, the majority 

of the calls go through and that you really think Government has 

to—is that—is that your position? Do you really need Government 

to force broadband providers to make sure that their service is excellent? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. I think that—we have seen some reports where 

there have been failures, like cases in rural call completion, and 

the lesson I take there is that even in situations where there may 

not be any bad actors, new technologies can create situations where 

nobody really has an incentive to absolutely guarantee that calls go 

through, and then maybe—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think Government can absolutely 

guarantee that every call goes through? Do you think Government 

really has got a better capability, as opposed to the broadband carriers themselves, to provide excellent customer service. If you have 

a company and you are providing a service, if it doesn’t work very 

40 

often, don’t you think customers are going to switch to a different 

company? 

Don’t you think competition would actually do a far better job 

than having the heavy hand of Government try and guarantee 

that, which, I don’t think it would do? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. Well, I think in too many areas, competition doesn’t 

exist or isn’t robust enough to really guarantee that people are 

going to have a meaningful choice, particularly, say, if they are 

using a heart monitor, and they may be able to switch to a wireless 

service, but it wouldn’t support the heart monitor or something like 

that, or if the new service isn’t affordable. 

So I think that the essential promise of the phone network is 

that when you make a call, it goes through, and that should be the 

goal of the Government is to make sure that we are fulfilling that 

promise. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr.—I am running out of time, but Mr. 

Banks, would you just like to respond to Ms. Griffin there? 

Mr. BANKS. I think that the vast majority of Americans have 

multiple choices for how they communicate, and that interconnection is part of how the whole industry works. So completing calls 

is essential to any company being able to sell voice service, and you 

see this on the wireline side. 

On the wireless side, the Government does not get involved, telling wireless companies how to connect and not connect. And interconnection happens in the free market there. There is no reason to 

think it wouldn’t happen throughout the rest of the industry. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator PRYOR. Senator Ayotte? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

of you for being here. 

I want to follow up on some of the points Senator Johnson has 

made. As I understand it, the purpose of the Universal Service 

Fund is really to build out capacity—used to be hard lines, now we 

are looking at broadband because of what we are talking about 

today in terms of an IP transition, which makes sense, in terms of 

technology. 

I represent a state that gets really shortchanged under this fund, 

37 cents on the dollar, and, I would love to have any of you drive 

around New Hampshire with me in the rural areas, and you can 

see that we really have significant needs that aren’t being addressed. So I have introduced legislation to make it more equitable, 

reform this fund. I want the FCC to act further, to reform universal service. 

But, Mr. Banks, when we are thinking about this percentage 

that Senator Johnson asked you about, really what we are talking 

about perhaps are rural areas where you are not going to have the 

business incentive to build out capacity, and that, as I understand 

it, is why we have the Universal Service Fund. So what are your 

thoughts, in terms of IP transition, as a way of more effectively 

using the Fund, and what opportunities do you see for rural America with the Universal Service Fund in this IP transition? 

41 

Mr. BANKS. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. And please correct me if I am wrong in terms 

of what I think the purpose of this fund is in terms of what we are 

trying to accomplish here. 

Mr. BANKS. No, you are absolutely right. The purpose of the USF 

fund is to connect Americans. The FCC is engaged in a major reform of a big part of that fund, the part of the fund for larger companies, and increasing the funding available to larger companies to 

serve people who wouldn’t be served otherwise. 

The FCC—that was an FCC 2011 reform order. The FCC is still 

working to implement that, to operationalize it. Hopefully, that will 

be in place by 2015, and for the larger companies, funds will flow 

in a much more targeted way, more funds to connecting people in 

census blocks where they have no options, no other service. 

Senator AYOTTE. What about the smaller companies as well? I 

mean, as we think about—— 

Mr. BANKS. Right. 

Senator AYOTTE.—this IP transition, how do we think it will impact competition? I think that is an important issue for consumers, 

and also as we look at reform of the USF fund. And you know, I 

have heard a lot of concerns, obviously, with this transition from 

rural carriers as well. 

Mr. BANKS. Right. So part two of the USF reform is reforming 

the smaller company, the rural company fund. The FCC made 

some reforms that were ill advised. To the FCC’s credit, and Chairman Wheeler, he has taken those off the table and is going to issue 

a notice of rulemaking to modernize the fund for rural carriers, just 

like they modernized the fund for larger carriers. That is a very big 

deal and very important to get that right. 

In terms of rural carriers and the IP transition, many rural carriers have invested heavily in broadband and fiber and IP. So, in 

many rural areas, IP services are available. The right reform of the 

fund should help a lot with that. 

Senator AYOTTE. Mr. Schulzrinne, would you like to comment on 

this? I am sure you have some thoughts on it. 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. Yes, let me comment on the technical aspect. 

Thank you for the question. 

The IP transition, unlike in the old—older days where, essentially, rural meant you had to extend copper lines to remote areas, 

now offers several choices that will make it, hopefully, possible to 

cost effectively reach all Americans, whether that is through fiber, 

the long-term, probably preferred option in terms of capability; extending the capability of copper; fixed wireless; and in really remote areas, satellite. 

It is important to provide robust broadband to all Americans. It 

allows modern applications—voice, as well as video and other applications—to function well. And indeed, to explore these technologies in new ways of providing broadband—robust broadband 

services as part of a reform effort, Mr. Banks mentioned we are 

looking at an experiment to provide funding to both traditional and 

nontraditional providers to extend broadband into rural areas. 

We have received over 1,000 indications of interest from a wide 

variety of organizations—electric utilities, traditional carriers— 

communities working well with these organizations to explore proVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:12 Feb 26, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\93481.TXT JACKIE
42 

viding robust, mostly fiber, but also robust wireless services, into 

areas that are not currently being served. 

So I believe that technology transition gives us additional opportunity to do that cost effectively and on a schedule which may be 

more aggressive than what we have been able to do in the past, 

where we had to rely on one technology only. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, that actually would be good news for 

many rural areas because, as you know, having the ability to connect can determine the economic viability of rural areas as well. So 

I see this as a very important jobs issue. 

So, thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Senator Nelson? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. A hurricane approaches, knocks out the power. 

Somebody is in dire straits in their home, and they need to make 

a 911 call. In the copper wire, that power source is there. In fiber 

optic, there has generally got to be a power source in the house or 

a battery back-up. 

What do we do? Ms. Smith? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, that is very important. Thank you for the question. 

There is going to be a paradigm. There is going to be the change. 

Our consumers, they are used to that. They are used to just picking 

up the phone, and it works for them. 

And I think a lot is going to have to come back on education, and 

that is going to have to be from the industry and both from the 

PSAPs ourselves to educate the consumers how important that 

back-up power is going to be, whether that be, as we, in public 

safety, call our ‘‘plan B,’’ meaning that we have those sources available to us, whether that be supplied with the equipment, whether 

I know—I know my equipment well. I know if it takes an extra battery and how I am going to recharge that battery. 

But, that is so important, again, to bring to their attention so 

that they know what the expectation is, and they know that they 

could have those challenges ahead of them, so that they can reach 

help when they need it. 

Senator NELSON. Well, you have got a lot of educating to do, if 

it is anything like smoke detectors and the batteries in the smoke 

detectors. 

Ms. SMITH. Well, and absolutely, I realize that. Think about how 

stressed you are now when you have your smartphone, your cell 

phone, and you see that the battery is getting low, and you have 

nowhere to plug it in. Imagine in an emergency, you need to make 

that phone call, you need help, and you don’t have the power that 

is necessary. 

So to be able to educate and to put that information out there, 

but also to ensure that the industry is creating what is necessary, 

whether it be, you know, those battery packs they are putting into 

the homes or making those available to the customer so that they 

can have those in their time of need. 

Senator NELSON. Anybody else? 

43 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. Let me comment on that from a technology 

perspective briefly. The opportunities are that I think industry is 

learning, and based on consumer experience I believe partially 

that, I think, could help to make that less onerous than it is for 

smoke detectors, for example. 

First, unlike for smoke detectors, these devices typically are rechargeable batteries. So, in most cases, they should be charged up. 

However, often, the duration that they provide may be sufficient to 

bridge short disruption, but not longer disruption. 

I believe, and this is reflected in some of the comments that our 

technological advisory council has been offering, is that there are 

opportunities, for example, with user exchangeable batteries. So 

you can go to the drugstore and pick up new D cells, for example, 

and some carriers are starting to do that. 

With standardized connectors, so that you can use, for example, 

the backpacks that some people have on their cell phone to power 

their own connectivity. And importantly, to reduce the power consumption of network units. That has two benefits. It reduces the 

use of energy during normal times, but it also allows households 

to sustain operation, and I believe it is important to sustain it for 

both voice and Internet connectivity for much longer duration than 

we are currently able to do. 

Senator NELSON. Well, that is a good suggestion from a technological standpoint. Say, for example, with an elderly population, the 

easier that you can make it to recharge those batteries, for example, what you just suggested, with the kind of thing that we do 

with cell phones, that is—that interconnectability so that a senior 

citizen knows what to do, that is a good suggestion. 

Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Senator Markey? And I am actually going to turn the gavel over 

to you, Senator Nelson, because they need me for a quorum in another committee. So, thank you. 

Senator Markey? 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very, very much. 

It was just 18 years ago, when the Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I was the House author, and not one 

home in America had broadband in February of 1996. So, today, a 

12-year old believes that broadband and a 50-inch HD screen is a 

constitutional right, huh? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. That is how quickly it all moved. No two ways 

about it. And simultaneously, you know, out of my committee, we 

moved the spectrum for the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth cell phone 

license. It was all bottled up, just bottled up, so that a couple of 

companies, you know, controlled everything, and you couldn’t have 

a Facebook and eBay and Amazon or Hulu, YouTube. You couldn’t 

have all these other issues because they were all bottled up by 

companies, competitors that did not want to see that kind of a competition. 

44 

And what we had to do as part of that act was to ensure that 

reliability, competition, consumer choice, economic growth were all 

a part of this, and a trillion dollars worth of private sector investment went into the marketplace because of those couple of laws. 

Trillion dollars of private sector investment, because there was 

more opportunity for people to get out there with their new ideas, 

their new products, their new ways of doing business. But they 

needed the Government to set the rules so the private sector could 

act. 

And the principle definition of the Act was that everything was 

going to be technology neutral. We weren’t going to decide. The 

marketplace was going to decide. So we need to make sure that the 

system is reliable. We have to make sure that public safety remains at the core, and we have to make sure that the phone network works every single time. We learned that again at the marathon bombing in Boston. We each learned it in each one of our communities over and over and over again. 

Ms. Griffin, what implications on public safety does the D.C. Circuit’s Net Neutrality decision have for the transition to IP? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. Thank you. 

That court decision has tremendous implications for the phone 

network and the IP transition. One lesson that we can take from 

it is that if the FCC has put a service into the information service 

box, in terms of its regulatory classifications, the one thing it can’t 

do is make it act like the phone network, and that becomes a huge 

problem when the service we are talking about is the phone network. 

So if we can’t—if the FCC can’t require carriers to complete 

every call and make sure that we have complete reliability in the 

phone network without reclassifying these services as Title II telecommunication services, then that is what it needs to do to avail 

itself of the authority it has. 

Senator MARKEY. And I agree with you. Ms. Griffin, the chairman is from Florida, but how should we evaluate the results of 

AT&T’s IP trials in Florida and Alabama? What would a success 

look like? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. I think successful trials would be trials that have 

rigorously and objectively collected data that—on a variety of parameters that is designed to inform us about these new technologies so we know, for example, what is the impact on voice quality, what is the impact on reliability? And trials that do so transparently and continue to protect consumers throughout the trials 

so that, even though this is an experiment and we are learning, we 

have safeguards to know that people won’t be left behind during 

the trial. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

And there are concerns that the IP transition will impact vulnerable populations—including seniors, minorities—disproportionately, 

who rely on traditional telephone service. What steps have to be 

taken to ensure that the broadband services and other services are 

provided to the public, regardless of age or economic circumstances? Does anyone want to take that so they can give us an 

answer as to how we should do that? 

Ms. HONORABLE. Senator Markey, thank you for the question. 

45 

I believe, and certainly, NARUC, the National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners has been very engaged with the 

FCC on this issue, and I believe that a very broad stakeholder involvement process is critical. It is critical to make sure that we 

leave no consumers on the side of the road, particularly where so 

many of our states have substantial rural areas, significant senior 

populations, significant minority populations. It takes an ‘‘all hands 

on deck’’ approach, and NARUC is certainly part of this process 

going forward. 

Senator MARKEY. And Ms. Griffin, there are—some people say 

that because we are moving toward mobile, we really don’t have to 

keep a lot of the protections on the books from the 1996 Act for the 

land-based, you know, wireline services. What are the potential unintended consequences of removing protections that were built into 

the 1996 Act? 

Ms. GRIFFIN. Well, I think, first of all, whether it is a mobile call 

or a landline call, when someone places a phone call, they expect 

it to work, and a lot of times, they are expecting the exact same 

guarantees they had on the traditional copper network, even if they 

are making the call via a wireless network. Also, wireless networks 

rely on wireline networks for backbone—for their backbone service. 

So we can’t ignore wireline just because more people have cell 

phones. 

And additionally, 100 million people still have traditional copperbased service, and 85 million of those people have it in addition to 

another type of voice service, usually wireless. I don’t think that is 

because they like paying two bills. I think that is because they get 

protections from the landline service they don’t get elsewhere. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. Do you all agree that we should keep the 

protections from the 1996 Act on the books, even as we move more 

toward a wireless world? Do you all agree with that? Ms. Smith? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. BANKS. Yes. I think from our perspective, the network—— 

Senator MARKEY. Ms. Honorable? Mr. Banks? 

Mr. BANKS.—compact idea that Chairman Wheeler has articulated is—is something we believe in, and defining those and figuring out how to best apply them to everybody is a challenge. 

Senator MARKEY. OK. Thank you all so much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

I have a few more questions, and then I think we are going to 

be joined by Senator Booker. 

Our public alert systems are crucial to making sure that the public is notified of any oncoming danger. In my State, it is very important because of tornados. We actually have a lot of tornado 

touchdowns in Minnesota. 

Mr. Schulzrinne—OK, how do you say it again? 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. Schulzrinne. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Schulzrinne. OK. It is almost as good as my 

name—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—so there we go. How will pubic alert systems operate in an IP-enabled world? 

46 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. So public alert systems, currently, we have essentially a hybrid system between a traditional system, namely, 

the Emergency Alert System, that uses radio and television largely; 

the wireless system that is limited to very short messages; and a 

backbone system, if you like, that is behind the scenes, namely, 

IPAWS, that distributes various messages to both. 

I believe that as we move to a mostly IP environment, that the 

existing components will continue to be fulfilling a very vital role, 

but that we can supplement those. In particular, the limitations 

that we have of the wireless emergency alert system, the short 

messages may no longer be necessary in an all-IP environment, 

and importantly, we can now leverage new ideas on how to distribute wire—alerts. 

For example, since many people no longer watch TV or listen to 

radio continuously, they have the opportunity, for example, to inject alerts into Internet content, be it video streaming or maybe 

through advertising networks that might be placing—that people 

might be viewing. 

So we have to see that as an integrated system that is available 

regardless of technology, maintains the legacy protections and capabilities, because many of those are robust in large-scale disasters 

in particular, but also provides much more precise targeting and 

much more detailed information. 

Finally, it is important to not just think about the first minute 

or so of an alert, as important as they are, but also to think about 

the whole lifecycle of a disaster. For example, during Sandy, it was 

important to inform consumers as to where could they get gasoline, 

where could they find grocery stores that were open, what roads 

were passable. All of those were much more readily conveyed by 

maps and other IP-based information, and so we need to integrate 

those longer-term recovery functions with the important shortterm, seek shelter, immediate response type of capabilities. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

We have talked here about how we can see failure with IP over 

fiber, particularly during natural disasters, and that depending on 

the situation, copper technology can be more effective. Mr. Banks, 

what can be done to ensure that people are able to communicate 

effectively via IP technology? Do you think this transition to fiber 

is the answer? 

Mr. BANKS. OK. So I think there are a number of things, like Mr. 

Schulzrinne has said. There is a lifecycle to this. So disaster preparedness is important, and there are sites like Ready.Gov that our 

industry contributes to that can help people think through what 

they need to do first. 

Alerting is very important, reliability, and then restoration. So 

we have talked a lot about copper and the advantage it has in 

powering, which is a significant and meaningful advantage. But we 

shouldn’t overlook that fiber has some advantages. Fiber is generally a more reliable technology and less prone to going out, and 

in general, fiber is quicker to restore than copper. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. BANKS. So when a tree falls over on a power line and a 

phone line, if the phone line is fiber, it is quicker to restore than 

for copper. So it is a balancing act here, and I think we recognize 

47 

that the copper network and the switches that run it are deteriorating. There aren’t people making those switches. There aren’t— 

there is not a real market for spare parts. People are retiring—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Are you aware of the copper theft issue? 

Mr. BANKS. There is the copper theft issue. Yes. It is very driven 

by the market price of copper. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. BANKS. And so, the movement to fiber is—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And do you know that Senator Graham and 

I have a bill to try to do something about it? 

Mr. BANKS. Well, we have worked with your staff and Senator 

Graham’s staff. We are active with a number of State commission 

groups. The copper theft problem is a real problem because you 

don’t know your copper is gone until you pick up the phone and it 

doesn’t work. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. BANKS. So I think you are illustrating that disasters—there 

is a large range of disasters, and it is hard to balance all of this. 

But the movement to fiber is important, and I think it is really 

consumer education. The FCC has a CSRIC group devoted to 

studying back-up power best practices and how best to inform consumers and things. So I do think it is like we need to work together 

on doing the education and understanding the benefits of the transition. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Of the copper to fiber? 

Mr. BANKS. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. BANKS. And reducing copper theft. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Well—— 

Mr. BANKS. We are in favor of that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—we really want to get that bill passed because, as you know, it is not just because telephone lines—— 

Mr. BANKS. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—it is also about buildings and infrastructure, and they have broken into a lot of electric companies. 

We have substantial support from every police group, and we are 

working with the veterans community because we have seen thefts 

from veterans’ graves of medals on the graves, 200 in Isanti County 

in Minnesota alone. Some just this past week because of the value 

of copper, and yet the scrap metal dealers lobby is stopping the 

bill—— 

Mr. BANKS. Right, right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—on the floor and have put a hold on it, basically, through Senators. And so, anything you can do to help, we 

would appreciate. All it does, as you know, is require a check be 

written when it is over $100, the purchase, so that the police can 

track down, when they need to, who it is that is bringing the copper in. 

Many states have those rules in place, but a number of states 

don’t. And so, what people are doing is stealing copper from whatever source—electric companies, telephone lines, veterans’ graves— 

and then bringing it to other states that don’t have the rules in 

place, and it’s just an outrage, and that—the bill won’t go through 

48 

given the widespread support we have from the business community and others. 

So I am just talking about it every single day until people start 

to see that this is the kind of bill that is bipartisan, with Senator 

Hoeven and Senator Schumer and others, that needs to get done 

and that they should stop holding the bill up. 

So, thank you. I see that Senator Booker is here, and I am going 

to turn it over to him. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

First of all, I want to thank you all for being here. Forgive me 

for running in late. But I just think this is a critically important 

issue that we are discussing, and actually, Senator, I think your 

issue is an incredibly important one. I can tell you stories about 

copper theft from my days as a mayor. 

You know, Superstorm Sandy actually came into our area, and 

folks in New Jersey and New York area are very, very familiar 

with it. And the communications networks and problems that I witnessed firsthand were particularly severe during that time, and we 

experienced power outages, and wireless and wireline services were 

unavailable due to flooding and other storm conditions, of which I 

know you all are very familiar. 

As this technology transition moves forward, I just think it is 

paramount that we have reliable, consistent access to these critical 

safety resources like 911 and others, which, again, I am sure you 

all are very familiar with this. 

What was made crystal clear in the experiences we saw in my 

region, in places like Fire Island, New York, and Mantoloking, New 

Jersey, is how technology transitions can pretty significantly impact consumers in ways that is not always evident at the outset, 

and there have been a lot of very strong feelings about this. And 

so, I guess the first question would be, simply, do you agree that 

there are many instances in which a copper network must be maintained because IP services do not meet all the needs of consumers? 

And that is a really open question to the panel. 

Ms. GRIFFIN. Thank you. 

I would say that we need to maintain the protections of the networks that we have now, as we are figuring out what the new technologies are and what opportunities we have to make sure that 

they are serving the same values as the existing networks did. 

As you mentioned, after Hurricane Sandy in Fire Island and 

Mantoloking, New Jersey, Verizon decided to replace its copper network with a fixed wireless service, and there was an outcry from 

everybody because people really cared, and they realized that this 

service wasn’t as good as what they had on the copper service. People had heart monitors, security systems, Internet access that they 

lost because the fixed wireless service didn’t offer it. 

And luckily, the FCC and the State commission there, in New 

York at least, were able to step in and protect consumers, and 

Verizon is now deploying fiber instead. But we still need to make 

49 

sure that consumers know the differences between these technologies and are prepared for more outages. 

Senator BOOKER. Somebody want to—yes, Ms. Smith? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, if I may contact—or comment as well? Public 

safety’s view is that it is so important to maintain, and I am echoing Ms. Griffin, on exactly what they get now. They—it needs to 

be seamless when we move towards this transition. 

But the other thing, as far as public safety is concerned, is we 

are excited for the future, and we look to see the improvements. 

Anything, the capabilities to improve communications is so important. But currently, yes, absolutely, we need to maintain what the 

expectations are from our consumers. 

Senator BOOKER. And maintaining that means maintaining the 

copper, correct? Or no? 

Ms. SMITH. If that—if that means maintaining—— 

Senator BOOKER. Can you push your button, please? 

Ms. SMITH. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, if that means maintaining it at 

this point, yes. But again, knowing that as the future approaches, 

that we need to look at those capabilities and what we can do to 

improve. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. Any other thoughts? 

Ms. HONORABLE. Senator, thank you for the question, and certainly NARUC would concur. 

Our core objective is safety and ensuring the safety of the people 

that we serve. And to respond to some of the tenets that you have 

mentioned in your remarks, coordination of this effort is important. 

We have learned so much from Hurricane Sandy. 

Our National Association of Utility Commissioners, NARUC, 

issued a resolution after Hurricane Sandy, calling for better coordination, heightened coordination, not only with regard to mutual assistance and how the utilities have traditionally worked, what do 

we do in response to a storm of such a magnitude as Hurricane 

Sandy? What are we doing to educate the public? 

And we are—we believe that the—we are technology neutral. So 

whatever the platform might be, the consumer comes to expect a 

certain level of service, a certain level of quality of service, certain 

consumer protections, and we support continuing that. We also 

support preparedness efforts, coordinating among the electric sector, the telecom sector, the Departments of Emergency Response 

throughout the country, county and local officials. 

We also, too, want to ensure reliability. That is our core mission, 

as economic regulators, ensuring safe, reliable, and affordable utility service. 

Senator BOOKER. And I guess my response is that we all want 

the same—we all have the same ambition and the same goals. My 

concern, especially as we get into hurricane season again, which 

means that the Gulf Coast and the East Coast could see another 

major weather event, is how do we—are we stress testing? 

How are we sure that as we go through this time of transition, 

that we don’t have more vulnerable communities that can find 

themselves—and again, as a guy who was in the trenches, sort of, 

with my first responders trying to deal with this crisis, it really is 

a difference between life and death. 

50 

And so, my worry is, is not that we—that we are not all affirmatively desirous of the same thing, but what are we doing to—during 

this time of transition to ensure that we get the result that we all 

want? 

Ms. HONORABLE. Senator, I believe the work that we are doing 

is the work we do in advance, the work we do proactively. In Arkansas, as I am sure it is in New Jersey, we work proactively 

around tabletop exercises. I will participate in one this month, in 

which we are very focused on continuity of operations efforts and 

ramping up the broad range of potentials. 

So it is a hurricane in your part of the country. For us, it is ice 

storms and tornados, and any other severe weather event that 

might occur, as well as other attacks on the grid or disruptions to 

the grid. But we believe that the core effort has to be proactive. 

Senator BOOKER. No, and I agree. I am sorry to interrupt. And 

I had the privilege and pleasure of being in your state this weekend and surveyed the tornado damage in Mayflower. 

I guess, to be even more specific with my question, and anybody 

on the panel can pick this up, is that I don’t want us to be doing 

conversions that are creating problems that we could be anticipating and that we or that FCC, frankly, could be helping us to 

avoid. And so, what happened in Mantoloking and Fire Island is 

that we made a technology switch that proved far less reliable, especially in a crisis. Consumers not only didn’t get what they want, 

but I felt that they were much more exposed to a crisis. 

And so, I guess what I am saying is that I understand. I have 

gone through my—my team has gone through our tabletop exercises ad nauseam, as you should do when you are in the field and 

dealing from an executive position at local government. But I guess 

my concern is on this technology transfer—transition, how do we 

make sure that we are avoiding—and if we are seeing that we are 

creating a situation that is ripe for a crisis to emerge, how are we 

not deciding not to do that or not to do that transition from copper, 

for example? 

Mr. SCHULZRINNE. Let me—thank you for the interesting question. Let me address it from two technical perspectives. 

As others have alluded to, in principle, rain and fiber are a much 

better combination than water and copper. So, in long term, I believe, and particularly in flooding-prone areas, the goal should be 

that we have a fiber-dominated network simply because it will continue to function even when flooded. 

The other aspect is that as communities plan their utility infrastructure, considering burial of utilities, particularly as they transition to fiber, would probably make the infrastructure much more 

reliable. So coordinating, and this is for long term perspective, as 

we do road repairs and roadwork, so that utilities, particularly 

fiber-based utilities, are planned for—dig-once type of policies, coordination between communication providers and the local department of public works—so that conduits are buried, for example, 

when roads are opened up. 

That, besides opening up new opportunity for higher bandwidth 

communication, also, I believe, will facilitate the deployment of 

much more robust infrastructure that is not susceptible to wind 

damage and is much more resilient when water comes flooding in. 

51 

Senator BOOKER. OK. All right. And allow me to push forward, 

if I can, with one more question, with the permission of the chair. 

One of the things I am concerned about is the penetration then 

of those changes, and I agree with the technology shifts. Ultimately, I think I am in concurrence with what you are saying. That 

is the ultimate goal. During a time of transition, I am worried 

about holes or gaps. 

But if I can go down that way of this idea of the penetration we 

are seeing sort of equally applied. You know, access to technology 

is, to me, a great democratizing force in our society. It is powerful 

in terms of being a ladder for social and economic mobility. 

But there are—right now, there are really significant discrepancies in the adoption and availability of a lot of these technologies, such as broadband, in lower income communities. And so, 

I am concerned about that these communities are often the vulnerable populations and that they are often adversely affected by technology transitions. 

And so, the question very simply is, is what can we do—what 

should we be doing to ensure that reliable voice and broadband 

services are delivered to the public, regardless of economic background or geography? 

Mr. BANKS. Well, if I can just jump in a little bit? I think it is 

really two questions. One question is the—the rural question. How 

can you get these facilities that are very expensive built in very 

rural areas? And that the FCC and a number of states have Universal Service Funds that help get infrastructure built. 

The other question, the adoption question, is really a question 

that there has been a lot of study of, whether it is at NTIA, at 

FCC, states, Pew, many places. And there seems to be a real consensus that there are a couple of barriers to adoption. One is, you 

know, having a computer or a smartphone. Does a family have one 

of those? 

Education is important. There are, for whatever reason, a chunk 

of Americans who believe the Internet does not offer value to them. 

And, you know, an education effort with them is important. 

There are a lot of programs for adoption. The FCC is considering 

helping to fund or create an E-Rate program for broadband adoption. So there is a lot going on that recognizes what you are illustrating, that there is an adoption issue in America. 

Senator BOOKER. And so, you are saying that the research is 

showing that the issue, some of it has to do with the end user’s 

lack of appreciation or access to some of the—to laptops or to 

smartphones. But then—but some of your answer indicates that it 

is on us as well, that we are not getting it to the end user in the 

way that we could be? 

Mr. BANKS. Certainly in rural areas it is a challenge to build networks where there are very, very few people, and that is where the 

availability gap would be. 

Senator BOOKER. And is the shortfall—and again, I am just looking for action steps to address this, and there are a lot of conversations I am having with folks that are trying to make cheap laptops 

available for students, and really exciting things going on. But on 

the getting the technology to that end user, give me your sort of 

unbiased appreciation of the Universal Service Funds. Do we have 

52 

the resources necessary to take on that end of the issue, and if not, 

what would—what is a more realistic approach? 

Mr. BANKS. Well, the FCC is in the middle of reforming the USF 

fund to make it more efficient and more focused. So I think if they 

can get that operationalized and in the field, we will really be able 

to see if there is enough money in that fund. There is about $4.5 

billion in the high-cost fund that is devoted to expanding availability. 

Senator BOOKER. And can you just for a Senator that is sort of 

new, can you tell me what some of the issues that you are working 

on to make that fund more efficient? 

Mr. BANKS. How best to target funding. How best to identify 

areas that really need the funding, versus areas that can get by 

without it. The current fund is sort of an old fund that allocates 

money in kind of unusual ways. This is a much more modern, targeted fund with a cost model to focus the money. 

Senator BOOKER. Unusual ways. That sounds like a euphemism. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BANKS. Well, the old fund sort of was built on a series of implicit subsidies that were not well quantified, and in the funds 

itself, particularly for the larger carriers, was based on statewide 

averaging, so that you could have a state with dense areas that, 

on average, would seem like it didn’t need funding, although there 

could be parts of the state that could be very rural that did need 

funding. 

So we are trying to target the funding much more accurately 

now. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. I am grateful. Thank you very much. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, very good. 

Well, I want to thank our witnesses and thank Senator Pryor for 

holding this hearing, and Senator Wicker. 

And we will keep the record open for 2 weeks for questions. It 

was a really interesting discussion with a lot more work to do. 

And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you to our witnesses. 

[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(53) 

1http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-consumer-competition-911-safeguards-tech-transitions-1 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

HENNING SCHULZRINNE

Question 1. What measures are being taken by the FCC to protect consumers who 

use services such as alarms, health monitoring, and other personal emergency response services as the IP transition is taking place, as well as after the transition? 

Answer. There are three separate technical issues that affect the services you describe during the transition, depending on the nature of the services and the transition. These issues are, in part, raised in a recent FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (FCC 14–185 1). The three main technical concerns are: 

Transition from landline to wireless-only: If carriers cease to offer landline residential voice services, services that rely on either voice-data (modem) or DSL 

may not be able to continue to function. This issue arose when Verizon announced plans, later abandoned, to offer only 3G wireless service to residents 

of Fire Island, New York, after Hurricane Sandy had severely damaged the island’s wireline infrastructure. 

Analog terminal adapter incompatibility: Devices that rely on voice modem services for low-speed data may not function properly with some analog terminal 

adapters (ATAs) that are used to connect in-home devices to landline VoIP networks. Such adapters are typically built into cable modems. There is currently 

no interoperability testing mechanisms or certifications for such devices, so that 

making modem-based devices work with such systems is a trial-and-error process. The FCC’s Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has raised this issue recently; the Commission intends to follow up to encourage industry standards 

and interoperability organizations, such as ATIS, TIA or CableLabs, to take on 

this challenge. 

Battery backup: If commercial power fails, alarm systems, even those with their 

own backup power, will only function if the ATA and cable or DSL modems provide 

backup power. The NPRM cited above asks how consumers can best be protected 

against such outages, e.g., by allowing use of standard consumer batteries or USB 

power packs instead of special-purpose lead acid batteries. (Currently, some cable 

and DSL modems with ATA functionality include battery backup functionality. The 

duration of coverage varies, but is typically eight hours.) 

Each of these issues requires a different approach. Some alarm systems, for example, can use cellular data services, but this may not work where cellular coverage 

is unavailable or the signal is too weak for indoor coverage. In roughly 85 percent 

of the country, consumers may be able to switch to a VoIP service offered by the 

local cable company if the incumbent LEC no longer offers landline voice. The table 

below summarizes which of the two main technology transition options may cause 

the issues noted above. 

Transition Low-speed data ATA compatibility Power backup 

Landline-to-fiber available ✓ ✓ 

Landline-to-cellular may not be available ✓ 

Question 1a. Additionally, how is the FCC working with network operators and 

others to promote functionality of these services on fiber optic networks just as they 

have on traditional copper networks? 

Answer. As noted above, two separate technical problems need to be addressed, 

namely the ability to use low-speed data over voice channels and the power backup 

problem. The NPRM asks how to best solve the power backup problem. For many 

54 

2 In standard residential landline alarm systems, the outside phone line is connected to a special jack (‘‘RJ31X’’) for the alarm system, which in turn connects to the phone jacks in the home. 

Since the special jack is first in line, the alarm system can disconnect other phones in the home 

and seize the line if needed. 

networks, ATAs appear to work well with low-speed data services such as alarms, 

but we have no good estimate on whether problems are indeed isolated or more common. I believe that the technology transition trials will provide quantitative evidence and opportunities to assess the best approach. I encourage alarm equipment 

vendors to work with carriers and ATA vendors to improve interoperability through 

industry standards bodies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CORY BOOKER TO

HENNING SCHULZRINNE

Question 1. Because most alarm systems currently depend on traditional telephone services, as we move to IP-networks, it is important that we consider compatibility issues and the implications for homeowners and businesses reliant on alarm 

systems for safety. I am concerned that consumers moving to IP networks will unknowingly disconnect their alarm systems and leave their homes and businesses 

vulnerable. How will IP providers work with consumers to avoid instances of unintentional system disruptions and ensure a smooth IP transition that does not compromise safety? 

Answer. Please see the response to Chairman Pryor’s question for general background. There are three kinds of IP (or VoIP) providers: (1) ILECs that transition 

from landline service to VoIP (e.g., Verizon FiOS Digital Voice in New Jersey); (2) 

cable companies that offer voice services; and (3) over-the-top VoIP companies. 

The NPRM includes proposals to update rules protecting consumers faced with 

network changes and discontinuance of service as the transition moves forward. Ensuring consumers have the information they need to make informed decisions is one 

of the top goals of the NPRM. 

Question 2. Alarm systems connected via traditional telephone service have line 

seizure capabilities that enable the systems to communicate with monitoring stations in the event of an emergency and allow for the timely dispatch of emergency 

services. What are the line seizure capabilities of VoIP networks? 

Answer. There are two cases: In the most common case, the residential VoIP connection simply connects to the inside analog phone wiring. In that case, assuming 

proper installation, the alarm system still retains the same line seizure capabilities 

as before.2 Some over-the-top residential interconnected VoIP services may connect 

directly to a cordless or corded phone, or use a software phone. In those cases, the 

alarm system would have no access to the phone service at all. Many commercial 

(e.g., small business) VoIP systems have IP-based end systems that connect to the 

VoIP system (PBX) via Ethernet. In that case, having a separate device that connects only to the alarm system would be advisable, as VoIP PBX can easily place 

multiple simultaneous calls for the same number. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

JONATHAN BANKS

Question. Some features that work for the traditional network based phone services (such as alarm signaling) may no longer work once the IP Transition is complete. How are your member companies working with consumers to ensure they are 

well informed about the functionality of these services over IP-based networks? 

Answer. In most cases, customers will gain functionality rather than losing it 

when they migrate to IP-based services. A fully IP-based network provides a more 

efficient platform than traditional communications networks, and one that is far 

more flexible for innovation in services and how they are provided to customers. As 

a general rule, customers can continue to use fax machines, medical monitoring devices, home alarms, and accessibility services in a manner similar to what they experienced with traditional TDM service. For example, millions of customers across 

the country are currently using alarm systems with IP-based services. 

Our industry is working to ensure a smooth transition to fully IP-based networks 

and services in several ways. Customers are informed of the functionality of their 

services during the ordering and provisioning process. Customers receive detailed 

information about those changes during initial contacts with a company’s representatives and again at the time of installation. Technicians are trained to work through 

55 

issues related to services that may require special handling (e.g., home alarm systems) during installations. Information is also generally provided on a company’s 

website or in a product guide. AT&T, as part of the wire center trials that it is conducting in Florida and Alabama, has begun a special community outreach effort to 

educate consumers about the IP Transition and any changes that may come about 

as older technologies are replaced with newer IP-based technologies. 

In addition, our industry is working with standards bodies to address a range of 

potential public safety issues raised as we transition to more modern IP-based networks. For example, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions announced in June of this year the formation of the IP-Transition of Public Safety Related Applications Task Force. The press release announcing the formation of the 

task force notes that ‘‘the task force will work with a broad array of industry associations to analyze the issues central to transitioning critical public safety communications infrastructure to All-IP technologies. Based on its findings, the Task Force 

will make targeted recommendations to both public safety and industrial associations and state and local regulators. It will also engage in outreach and education 

efforts to the professionals who manage critical circuits to increase their understanding of and confidence in the evolution to next generation communications. 

Our industry is committed to ensuring that the transition to more modern communications networks protects public safety and supports the services that consumers want and value. 

Æ