U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

71–532 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–166 

SAFEGUARDING OUR FUTURE: BUILDING A 

NATIONWIDE NETWORK FOR FIRST RESPONDERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 16, 2011 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Hon. Charles E. Schumer, U.S. Senator from New 

York ................................................................................................................ 6 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 3 

Statement of Senator Boozman .............................................................................. 28 

Statement of Senator Warner ................................................................................. 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 32 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 32 

Statement of Senator Blunt .................................................................................... 36 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 37 

WITNESSES

Hon. Peter T. King, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner, City of New York ..................... 7 

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

Hon. Jack Markell, Governor, State of Delaware and Member, Executive 

Committee, National Governors Association ..................................................... 11 

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

Al H. Gillespie, Chief, North Las Vegas Fire Department and First Vice 

President, International Association of Fire Chiefs .......................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Joseph L. Hanna, President, Directions ................................................................ 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

APPENDIX

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine, prepared statement ........... 45 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Raymond W. Kelly by: 

Hon. Claire McCaskill ...................................................................................... 46 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 48 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jack Markell by: 

Hon. Claire McCaskill ...................................................................................... 53 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 54 

Response to written questions submitted to Chief Al H. Gillespie by: 

Hon. Claire McCaskill ...................................................................................... 57 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 59 

Response to written questions submitted to Joseph L. Hanna by: 

Hon. Claire McCaskill ...................................................................................... 65 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 66 

(1) 

SAFEGUARDING OUR FUTURE: 

BUILDING A NATIONWIDE NETWORK 

FOR FIRST RESPONDERS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller 

IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. 

This hearing comes to order. 

My Vice Chair, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas, is 

here, and there are some others who are not would be my general 

impression. But you know what? I do not care. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You are here. We are here and we have a great 

subject to discuss. 

The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is very quickly coming up in the 

fall. Despite the passage of time and of the horror, the pain, and 

the deep sadness that marks that day, nothing really has faded 

from our national consciousness. That is part of our eternal time 

clock, what went on during that day and what people did during 

that day and what the nation lost and what the nation gained that 

day. And I think that is all appropriate because these are wounds 

that, even if they heal, they always will cause us pain. That is as 

it should be. We grow as a nation. We deepen as a nation, and we 

come to understand more what people do and can do and will do. 

Although strides have been made across the country in interoperability, mostly in big cities, we are still far from where we need to 

be. Although strides have been made, we have so much more to do. 

More importantly, tragedy does not know boundaries. Besides New 

York or Washington, emergencies occur every day in urban and 

rural communities all across the country. We do not hear about 

them. We do not read about them unless it is a Virginia Tech type 

of event, but they happen all the time. We live with them, and we 

should not have to live with them. Whether it is terrorism or a tornado or a hurricane or a brush fire, one thing is universally true, 

when an emergency happens, who do we rely on? We rely on first 

2 

responders like police, fire fighters, and public safety officials of all 

kinds to keep us from harm. 

Far too often, we talk about the important role that these brave 

first responders play, but then we turn around and we fail to give 

them the tools they need to do their job. So we are full of praise, 

but we are not full of help. We are trying to redress that situation. 

I think it is long past time that we really do something strong 

about this, and it turns out that we can do it with a whole lot of 

funding left over for deficit reduction because of the voluntary nature of the auction. 

So that is what today’s hearing is about, and it is what led me 

to introduce and to fight hard for the Public Safety Spectrum and 

Wireless Innovation Act. The legislation does two things. 

First, it sets aside 10 megahertz of spectrum known as the D 

Block to public safety to support a nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network that will help keep us safe. 

Second, it gives the Federal Communications Commission the authority to hold incentive auctions based on a voluntary return of 

spectrum. And that word ‘‘voluntary’’ turns out to be a very, very 

important word. These auctions, in turn, will provide funding to 

support the construction and maintenance of public safety networks, and they will free up additional spectrum for innovative 

commercial uses. 

In short, the bill marries resources for first responders with good 

commercial spectrum policy. It can keep us safe and help our economy grow. 

That is why this legislative union has the support of every major 

public safety organization across the country. I am proud that virtually every public safety officer in my great state of West Virginia 

has stood up and recognized how essential this bill really is for 

strengthening their ability to do their jobs. They may not be dealing with twin towers, but they are dealing with their equivalent of 

twin towers every day and they never know when it will come upon 

them. In fact, I am especially proud of the good work that we have 

done on the legislation across our State, and I have had very useful 

conversations with first responders in two counties that you have 

never heard of, Jackson County and Wood County, about how this 

bill would make their work safer. 

Across the country, I have also gotten strong statements of support from governors and mayors. And now we have the full and unambiguous support of the Administration. It was a tad slow in coming, but it is here. It is full-force. 

There are some people who argue that we simply want to sell the 

valuable resource to the highest bidder. I forcefully reject that, 

though I have said repeatedly that I will work with anyone who 

seeks to make sure that our public safety officials have the resources they need to communicate so they can do their jobs and 

protect our people. 

But let me also clarify one thing. This effort is about saving lives. 

And to those who say we cannot afford this now, I say we can afford in no way not to do it. We have to do it and we have to do 

it now. The moment is right and everybody is here and this has 

great momentum. 

3 

But if this is not compelling enough, it is important for you to 

know this and important for the world to know this. This legislation pays for itself many times over. According to the Administration and industry, incentive auctions will bring in revenue well 

above what funding public safety requires, leaving billions—and I 

mean $20-plus billions—over for deficit reduction or for whatever 

people want to have happen. So this is a win-win-win from my 

point of view. 

In closing, let me say that we have an opportunity right now to 

provide our public safety officials with spectrum they need to communicate when tragedy strikes. And with incentive auctions, we 

can pair this with funding. Some people are not wild about this 

idea, and we respect their points of view but their points of view 

do not measure up to the facts of what we are dealing with here. 

They do not realize that if we have a voluntary spectrum auction 

for those who feel they can do that, we pick up a ton of money, far 

more than you would need for not just deploying your interoperability but maintaining the system, building it out, deploying it, 

and maintaining it. 

To my colleagues, I say let us seize this moment. This is the 

right thing to do. This is not a left thing to do. It is just the right 

thing to do. So let us do something historical. Let us do it together, 

and let us do it starting with this hearing today. 

I will have to say this is my highest legislative priority for this 

committee. I say that happily, unabashedly, and proudly. We will 

work to get this done before our nation reaches the 10th anniversary of September 11th, which is coming upon us quickly. It comes 

upon us much more quickly than we do legislation in the U.S. Congress. So the earlier we start, the better it is. 

I thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I will introduce 

them, but first Kay Bailey Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think you have pointed out a lot of the reasons for addressing 

this issue. We have all heard too many stories of our police, fire, 

and medical personnel who cannot communicate during emergencies, sometimes even resorting to handwritten notes passed 

across piles of rubble. When school children are walking to school 

with cutting-edge smart phones capable of video conferencing and 

high speed Internet connections, our first responders should have 

more than walkie-talkies and notes across rubble. Oftentimes we 

see that even the equipment they have is not interoperable. 

So this is the time to act. And you have been a leader, Mr. Chairman, on this issue and I think you have shown that commitment 

this morning. 

I said last September that I can support your proposal to allocate 

the spectrum known as the D Block to public safety. However, I do 

have some concerns about how your legislation would fund the deployment of the public safety network and whether we could work 

together to combine the public safety allocation with some of my 

priorities in the wireless area to drive innovation, investment, and 

job growth. 

4 

I have drafted a comprehensive spectrum bill, the Wireless Innovation Spectrum Enhancement Act, WISE Act, to be called, that I 

hope you will consider. My bill would allocate the D Block to public 

safety, as well as provide a stable funding stream through a combination of grants and zero interest loans financed by auction revenue to build a public safety network. Funds would also be specifically targeted to rural and high-cost areas where so many communities do not have access to wireless networks. This is important 

in every state that has rural communities and smaller communities 

to get the public safety broadband network in place and deployed. 

In addition to ensuring our first responders will have access to 

communications systems they need, my bill will generate billions in 

new revenue to help pay down the federal deficit. It will also spur 

more efficient and transparent use of government spectrum, encouraging the Government to use less of its spectrum allotment so 

that some airwaves that today are unused or underutilized can be 

repurposed for higher use. 

Last, my proposal will drive investment, innovation, and job creation by significantly increasing the spectrum available for commercial broadband use. This is necessary to maintain the United 

States’ position at the forefront of the wireless world. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can combine your priority and 

your approach with mine and do something that I think would be 

a win all the way around, from public safety spectrum to paying 

for it and adding to the commercial capabilities to use broadband. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We always do. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to apologize to the other witnesses, but 

Senator Hutchison and I have to be on the floor to manage an aviation bill at 11 o’clock. I think we can be late, but I do not think 

it is a good idea. 

So I want to introduce Congressman Peter King from New York. 

He has been a longtime advocate for handing the D Block to public 

safety. He is Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. By having him kick off the dialogue, I just think it sets the 

tone. He is going to make an introduction. But I must say that I 

am very honored that you are here, sir. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER T. KING, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE 

ON HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member 

Hutchison, Senators. 

First of all, it is a great opportunity to be here. I want to thank 

you for extending the invitation to me. As a fellow New Yorker, 

Senator Rockefeller, I know you took a wrong turn once and ended 

up in West Virginia, but we still miss you in New York and we 

wish we had you back. But in any event, it is great to be here and 

it is good to see my good friend, Senator Toomey. I knew him when 

he worked across the street. It is good to see you, Pat. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, ten years after the September 11 attacks, our 

first responders still suffer from a lack of interoperable communications. 

5 

By the way, I identify myself completely with everything said by 

you and Senator Hutchison. Whatever differences there are I hope 

can be resolved as we go forward. Some of the underlying motivation I agree with completely. 

The current situation is simply unacceptable. We have spent billions of dollars to upgrade communication systems, but we still lack 

interoperability. For instance, at Penn Station in New York, police 

officers are unable to consistently use their communications equipment even when they are only 100 yards away from one another 

due to interference. 

Now, back in 2004, six and a half years ago, the 9/11 Commission report with Congressman Hamilton and Governor Kean, recommended that the Congress should support legislation to provide 

for the expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for 

public safety purposes. Six and a half years later it still has not 

been done. And for far too long the spectrum has been allocated to 

public safety in a piecemeal approach. 

We need to implement a new plan for solving our nation’s public 

safety interoperable communications problem, one that ensures 

first responders have the latest technology to get the job done and 

to save lives. We need to support a plan that will provide public 

safety agencies enough contiguous spectrum to enable the conversions of voice, video, and data communications on one network, and 

this network must have enough capacity and speed to allow public 

safety the ability use the latest equipment and applications to do 

their job in a secure environment. 

That is why, along with Ranking Member Thompson of the 

Homeland Security Committee in the House, I have introduced the 

bipartisan Broadband for First Responders Act, H.R. 607. This is 

the companion to the bill of Senator Lieberman and Senator 

McCain, very close to yours as well, and I look forward to working 

with you, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and Senator 

Hutchison and as many people as we can on a bipartisan basis. 

By allocating D Block to public safety and providing sufficient 

funding, we can finally give the brave men and women of our law 

enforcement community, fire service, EMTs the communications resources that they require and need and which we as the public require and need as we live in very, very dangerous times, whether 

we are talking about natural disasters or the constant peril of terrorist attack. Just last week, Secretary Napolitano said that the 

terror threat is as high now as it has been since September 11, 

2001. So this is a real, real and present challenge, danger, and 

threat to our nation, and I believe legislation of this type is absolutely essential. 

Now, my main purpose, Chairman Rockefeller, in being here 

today is to introduce New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly who 

has truly been a leader. He is here today. There are men from law 

enforcement, men from the fire service, men who literally put their 

lives on the line every day to protect us and need the very, very 

best. Commissioner Kelly has been—probably no one has been 

more of a leader, not just a local leader but a national leader, since 

September 11. The New York City Police Department has 1,000 police officers dedicated to fighting terrorism. That is 1,000 police officers. They have an intelligence division, a counter-terrorism diviVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:19 Dec 09, 2011 Jkt 071532 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\71532.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
6 

sion. They have people focused on interoperability. At every stage 

and every level of the fight against terrorism, the NYPD has been 

there before September 11 but especially since Commissioner Kelly 

came back as Commissioner in January of 2002. We in New York 

live every day with the constant specter of another attack. We have 

been attacked twice, and since Commissioner Kelly has been commissioner, we have stopped 11 other attacks against the City of 

New York. So we realize firsthand the danger. 

But we have no monopoly on threats. We have no monopoly on 

death. And that is why I am supporting this legislation in a bipartisan way, why I look forward to working with you, and why it is 

really my privilege to introduce Commissioner Kelly to you today. 

He and Chief Dobbs from the NYPD have just been constant and 

consistent in urging passage of legislation such as this. So I am 

proud that Commissioner Kelly is here today. He will, as always, 

do a tremendous job in laying out what the reality on the ground 

is and what has to be done. 

So as Congressman Toomey used to say and I still say, I thank 

you for allowing me to testify and yield back the balance of my 

time. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We will have the panel come forward, and as they are doing that, 

I want to point out that our three members here today are all new 

members to the Committee. So I think that reflects very well on 

them and less well on the rest of our colleagues. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KING. I am not going to get involved in that, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is busy. 

I also ask unanimous consent to enter Senator Schumer’s statement in the record. He wanted to be here to support the bill and 

to support Commissioner Kelly but had, as they say, a prior engagement. He is a very busy man. 

Mr. KING. I know. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Schumer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK

I am sorry I could not be with everyone before the Committee today, but I would 

like to thank the distinguished Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, for holding this 

hearing, and his leadership in authoring this important legislation, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. 

I would like to recognize New York City’s Police Commissioner Ray Kelly who is 

testifying today for his tireless work in keeping New York City safe and secure. We 

are all in his debt. He is one of our nation’s preeminent experts on national security, 

and his endorsement of this legislation speaks volumes about its wisdom. 

As we all know this year will mark the tenth anniversary of the attacks of September 11. As we continue to endeavor to understand the reality of a post-9/11 

world, it is imperative that we learn from that tragedy. The 9/11 Commission’s report, which highlighted our gaps in preparedness for any future attack, has been 

a principal roadmap for moving forward. A key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission was to increase the assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes. 

The Chairman’s bill responds directly to that Commission’s recommendations and 

advances the cause of safety. For that reason, I am proud to join him and my colleagues, Senators Cardin, Harkin, Lautenberg, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and Nelson, 

as a co-sponsor of the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. 

This bill is an essential step in propelling our first responders into the twentyfirst century. The bill establishes a framework for the development of a nationwide 

7 

wireless broadband network for public safety. By allocating this 10 megahertz of 

spectrum, or the D Block, to public safety we are in fact facilitating applications 

ranging from location-aware real-time services to multimedia command control capability. This technology could help a firefighter map out the most effective entry 

points of a burning building or ensure that police are able to effectively communicate in a perilous situation. 

We owe it to the American people to do everything we can, not only to prevent 

any other attack, but also to equip our first responders with the tools they need to 

do their important work. And that means passing the Public Safety Spectrum and 

Wireless Innovation Act. 

I encourage the Commerce Committee to swiftly mark-up this important bill in 

order to ensure that it is passed into law before the tenth anniversary of 9/11. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could the panel come forward, please? 

Congressman, we thank you very much. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. So our panel is New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who has been introduced; Delaware Governor 

Jack Markell. He is on the Executive Committee of the National 

Governors Association, NGA. He has a long history. And I believe 

one of your first jobs, sir, was working for Nextel, whose former 

founder failed to show up this morning. 

Governor MARKELL. I am looking for him. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. But he would be sitting in about that third 

seat there from the end. So you can imagine him. 

Also, Al Gillespie, Chief of the North Las Vegas Fire Department 

and First Vice President of the International Association of Fire 

Chiefs. That group has been a longtime supporter of this legislation. And obviously his testimony will be important. 

Also, Mr. Joe Hanna, President of Directions. He is the former 

President of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, and he is also a former Richardson, Texas police captain. 

So we welcome all of you, and I would ask Commissioner Kelly 

to begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND W. KELLY, 

POLICE COMMISSIONER, CITY OF NEW YORK 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Hutchison, members of the Committee. 

I also want to thank Congressman King for that very generous 

introduction and for his rock-solid support of law enforcement and 

fire safety issues in New York City. And in the interest of full disclosure, I must say that Congressman King’s father was a lieutenant in the New York City Police Department. 

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for this bipartisan effort on behalf of public safety. Thanks to the leadership of Senator 

Rockefeller, Congressman King, Senator Hutchison, and so many 

other Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, we are closer 

than ever to providing our nation’s first responders with the tool 

that they desperately need: a nationwide broadband network dedicated to public safety. It was extremely encouraging to see President Obama expressing his firm support for this initiative last 

week. 

I come to Washington today as the head of a police department 

that will benefit enormously from this technology. I consider it essential to the future of our mission. I know this view is shared by 

8 

law enforcement agencies and fire departments, large and small, 

urban and rural, across the country. 

That is because our existing communications systems are fast becoming obsolete. Like virtually all other public safety organizations, the New York City Police Department relies principally on 

the use of two-way voice radios to communicate with responding officers and direct them to the scene. However, this technology is extremely limited. We cannot use it to exchange electronic data. And 

although we have made progress on local radio interoperability, the 

lack of a common radio spectrum prevents us from establishing a 

truly seamless nationwide system for all first responders. 

Today a 16-year-old with a smart phone has a more advanced 

communications capability than a police officer or deputy carrying 

a radio. Given the technology that is available and the complexity 

of the threat that we face, this is unacceptable. It will only change 

if we succeed in building a nationwide broadband network to a mission-critical grade of service. 

In New York City, this would enable the NYPD to fully leverage 

the powerful technology that we use in our Real Time Crime Center. This is a state-of-the-art computer facility we opened at our 

headquarters in 2005. It is supported by a massive database containing billions of public and private records. We have made this 

database searchable with the latest software. Around the clock, 

crime center detectives take calls from investigators in the field 

looking to follow up on various leads they obtained: a partial license plate, a seemingly untraceable cell phone number, a nickname, or even a tattoo. They conduct instant, on-the-spot searches, 

something that previously took days of calling, faxing between 

agencies, and combing through paper files. 

We are also about to launch a facial recognition unit within the 

Real Time Crime Center. It will use digital technology to match 

video images of people at crime scenes to mug shots that are on 

file. 

With a dedicated broadband network, we would be able to push 

this information out to tens of thousands of officers on patrol. For 

example, an officer using a handheld device operating on this network could receive detailed information before he or she arrives at 

the location. This would include who lives there, whether or not the 

police have been there before and why, and if any of the occupants 

has an outstanding warrant, an order of protection, or a firearms 

license. 

Such a network could also provide officers with an immediate, 

digital snapshot of anyone they detain. It would give them the suspect’s address, prior arrest history, and other critical details. The 

officer would be able to take electronic fingerprints at the scene 

and compare them instantaneously with those in local, state, and 

federal databases. This kind of situational awareness is vital to the 

safety of officers and members of the public. And it represents the 

next generation of law enforcement communications. 

But we cannot get there without a safe, secure, and effective 

broadband network over which to deliver this information, one that 

is built and run to public safety specifications and one that we can 

control. We know from past experience that we cannot totally depend on systems run by the private sector. They are too susceptible 

9 

to failure in a crisis. On September 11th and after the 2009 crash 

of a commercial jetliner in the Hudson River, cell phone networks 

were deluged and police and fire communications over them became virtually impossible. 

That is a grave concern in light of the threat that we face from 

terrorism. The New York City Police Department trains every day 

to prepare for large-scale disasters. But we need a network that 

will support a multi-agency response and all of the technology we 

use to keep our city safe. 

To give you one example, as part of our response to the attempted car bombing in Times Square last May, we deployed a 

robot to inspect the vehicle. As is the case with all of our robots, 

it was controlled by its operator through a thin, fiber optic cable. 

Our need to maneuver around fire hoses and other obstacles on the 

street increased the risk that the cable would be run over and severed. If that had happened, we would have lost control of the robot. 

With an adequate broadband network in place, we would not have 

to worry about that. We could control robots wirelessly, thereby removing these risks. 

It would also make it easier and safer to conduct complex operations involving more than one robot, say, if we found a secondary 

device at a bomb scene. With wireless, broadband technology, we 

would not have to be concerned about managing multiple cables. 

We could also share the video feeds from our robots with the federal government and other law enforcement agencies in real time. 

Right now, these capacities do not exist. But they will if we build 

this network. 

Every public safety agency in the nation supports this effort. 

That is why I urge Congress in the strongest possible terms to allocate the D Block directly to public safety and to ensure funding for 

this vital resource. We need adequate bandwidth, network control, 

and a higher standard of reliability and survivability that only a 

public safety network can provide. Together with our partners from 

across the country, the New York City Police Department looks forward to the day when we can share a broadband capability that delivers voice, video, and data on a dedicated wireless network. For 

the sake of the security of cities and towns throughout our Nation, 

I sincerely hope we see that day soon. 

Thank you very much for inviting me, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND W. KELLY, POLICE COMMISSIONER, CITY OF NEW YORK

Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude for this bipartisan effort on behalf of 

public safety. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Rockefeller, Congressman King, 

and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, we are closer than ever to providing our Nation’s first responders with a tool they desperately need: a nationwide 

broadband network dedicated to public safety. It was extremely encouraging to see 

President Obama expressing his firm support for this initiative last week. 

I come to Washington today as the head of a police department that will benefit 

enormously from this technology. I consider it essential to the future of our mission. 

I know this view is shared by law enforcement agencies and fire departments, large 

and small, urban and rural across this country. 

That’s because our existing communications systems are fast becoming obsolete. 

Like virtually all other public safety organizations, the New York City Police DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:19 Dec 09, 2011 Jkt 071532 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71532.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
10 

partment relies principally on the use of two-way voice radios to communicate with 

responding officers and direct them to a scene. However, this technology is extremely limited. We cannot use it to exchange electronic data. And although we 

have made progress on local radio interoperability, the lack of a common radio spectrum prevents us from establishing a truly seamless nationwide system for all first 

responders. 

Today, a 16-year-old with a smart phone has a more advanced communications 

capability than a police officer or deputy carrying a radio. Given the technology that 

is available, and the complexity of the threat we face, that is unacceptable. It will 

only change if we succeed in building a nationwide broadband network to a missioncritical grade of service. 

In New York City, this would enable the NYPD to fully leverage the powerful 

technology that we use in our Real Time Crime Center. This is a state-of-the art 

computer facility we opened at our headquarters in 2005. It is supported by a massive database containing billions of public and private records. We’ve made this 

database searchable with the latest software. Around the clock, crime center detectives take calls from investigators in the field, looking to follow up on various leads 

they’ve obtained: a partial license plate, a seemingly untraceable cell phone number, 

a nickname or even a tattoo. They conduct instant, on the spot searches, something 

that previously took days of calling, faxing between agencies, and combing through 

paper files. 

We’re also about to launch a facial recognition unit within the Real Time Crime 

Center. It will use digital technology to match video images of people at crime 

scenes to mug shots on file. 

With a dedicated broadband network, we would be able to push this information 

out to tens of thousands of officers on patrol. For example, an officer using a 

handheld device operating on this network could receive detailed information before 

he or she arrives at a location. This would include who lives there; whether or not 

the police have been there before and why; and if any of the occupants has an outstanding warrant, an order of protection, or a firearms license. 

Such a network could also provide officers with an immediate, digital snapshot 

of anyone they detain. It would give them the suspect’s address, prior arrest history, 

and other critical details. The officer would be able to take electronic fingerprints 

at the scene and compare them instantaneously with those in local, state, and federal databases. This kind of situational awareness is vital to the safety of the officers and members of the public. And it represents the next generation of law enforcement communications. 

But we can’t get there without a safe, secure, and effective broadband network 

over which to deliver this information, one that is built and run to public safety 

specifications, and one that we can control. We know from past experience that we 

can’t depend on systems run by the private sector. They are too susceptible to failure in a crisis. On September 11 and after the 2009 crash of a commercial jet in 

the Hudson River, cell phone networks were deluged and police and fire communications over them became virtually impossible. 

That’s a grave concern in light of the threat we face from terrorism. The New 

York City Police Department trains every day to prepare for large-scale disasters. 

But we need a network that will support a multi-agency response and all of the 

technology we use to keep the city safe. 

To give you one example, as part of our response to the attempted car bombing 

in Times Square last May, we deployed a robot to inspect the vehicle. As is the case 

with all of our robots, it was controlled by its operator through a thin, fiber-optic 

cable. Our need to maneuver around fire hoses and other obstacles on the street increased the risk that the cable would be run over and severed. If that had happened, we would have lost control of the robot. 

With an adequate broadband network in place, we wouldn’t have to worry about 

that. We could control robots wirelessly, thereby removing these risks. 

It would also make it easier and safer to conduct complex operations involving 

more than one robot—say if we found a secondary device at a bomb scene. With 

wireless, broadband technology, we wouldn’t have to be concerned about managing 

multiple cables. We could also share the video feeds from our robots with the Federal Government and other law enforcement agencies in real time. 

Right now, these capacities do not exist. But they will if we build this network. 

Every public safety agency in the nation supports this effort. That is why I urge 

Congress in the strongest possible terms to allocate the D Block directly to public 

safety, and to ensure funding for this vital resource. We need adequate bandwidth, 

network control, and the higher standard of reliability and survivability that only 

a public safety network can provide. Together with our partners from across the 

country, the New York City Police Department looks forward to the day when we 

11 

can share a broadband capability that delivers voice, video, and data on a dedicated 

wireless network. For the sake of the security of cities and towns throughout our 

nation, I sincerely hope we see that day soon. 

Thank you again for this chance to testify. I would be pleased to answer any of 

your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Commissioner. We are 

honored that you are here. You have a very excellent national reputation. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Governor of Delaware, Jack Markell, is our 

next witness. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK MARKELL, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF DELAWARE AND MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 

NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION 

Governor MARKELL. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, members of the Committee. My name is Jack 

Markell. I am the Governor of the State of Delaware. 

And before I start, I would like to thank the men and women behind me from public safety and law enforcement, first responders, 

and certainly especially those who are behind me from Delaware. 

I am grateful to them. 

It is a privilege to testify today on behalf of my fellow governors 

and also on behalf of the National Governors Association in favor 

of reallocating the 700 megahertz D Block spectrum to public safety. Governors are committed to working with you and with our federal partners to develop a nationwide broadband network for first 

responders. 

And I especially appreciate the opportunity to testify on this particular issue. As you noted, before my political career, I actually 

spent years acquiring the spectrum that led to the nationwide network that became Nextel. 

Senator Rockefeller, as you know, it is not always easy to reach 

consensus among governors, but when the FCC proposed auctioning the D Block for commercial use and then giving priority access to public safety for a fee, governors, legislators, county officials, and mayors joined with police and fire chiefs to say no. In 

our opinion, if we are to build the system that our first responders 

need and our citizens expect, we have got to begin by making the 

reallocation of the D Block the cornerstone of our efforts to develop 

and to deploy a nationwide interoperable broadband network. 

Now, as Governor, I am fortunate to lead a state that has 

prioritized interoperable communications. Since the attacks of September 11th, we have worked diligently in Delaware to address 

interoperability by installing a statewide 800 megahertz narrowband radio system that is used by all of the public safety agencies 

within our state. And when we did so, we became one of the first 

states to operate a truly interoperable public safety communications system. But unfortunately, due to the narrow bandwidth, this 

system does not have the capability to provide the robust exchange 

of broadband data. 

And this is where the opportunity to reallocate the D Block becomes so critical. Instead of a limited, piecemeal system, we have 

the chance to build a system to allow all first responders to share 

12 

mission-critical video, to download building plans, to track personnel and equipment in real time. And in fact, if done correctly, 

the build-out of a nationwide interoperable system could save 

states like ours millions of dollars. This is because instead of 

spending taxpayer money to upgrade an old system, we could invest and leverage our dollars to join a 21st century system that will 

reliably provide our first responders with the critical information 

that they need to save lives. 

Now, as you know, the development of such a system is dependent upon three things. First is access to sufficient and dedicated 

spectrum for public safety. Second is a funding mechanism to construct, manage, and maintain the network, and third, clear governance guidelines to ensure nationwide coverage and interoperability. 

Efforts to address one issue without solving the others will only 

lead to us meeting again 10 years from now to ask why we still 

do not have interoperable communications. 

Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, your bill, S. 28, the Public Safety 

Spectrum and Broadband Innovation Act, takes advantage of this 

unique opportunity to move us forward, and by reallocating the D 

Block to public safety, first responders will, for the first time, have 

sufficient, contiguous broadband spectrum to support a nationwide 

system. 

S. 28 also addresses the funding question by establishing a funding source for construction and operation of the network. And as 

states continue to face budget gaps after several years of unprecedented revenue declines, federal funding to support network construction and maintenance will help ensure its timely development 

and nationwide deployment. 

I should also note that the reallocation of spectrum will provide 

state and local governments greater flexibility to innovate in the 

development and administration of the network, to achieve economies of scale, to utilize public/private partnerships to reduce the 

costs of construction and to reduce the costs of maintaining the network. 

And finally, your bill addresses key governance issues necessary 

to maintain nationwide interoperability. For example, while the bill 

maintains flexibility for local areas to begin network construction 

ahead of the state, the legislation also would ensure that any advance network deployments are coordinated throughout the state 

and region. And this coordination will be critical to facilitating 

interoperability and coordination between existing voice communication systems and the new public safety broadband network. It 

will also help ensure that rural areas are included in the nationwide network in a timely manner. 

So the development of an interoperable broadband network for 

public safety is essential for enhancing the ability of first responders to protect our citizens and to respond to emergencies, and the 

cornerstone of such a network is dedicated spectrum and specifically the reallocation of the D Block to public safety. 

Governors greatly appreciate the support and work of this committee and the fact that S. 28 takes advantage of this one-time opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the past by allocating appropriate contiguous spectrum to support the safety and security of 

our country. 

13 

So on behalf of the National Governors Association, I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on this critical issue. We 

governors are committed to working with you and our federal partners to develop, to build, and to deploy a nationwide interoperable 

broadband system for first responders. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Markell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JACK MARKELL, GOVERNOR, STATE OF DELAWARE

AND MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison and distinguished members of 

the Committee, my name is Jack Markell, Governor of the state of Delaware and 

a member of the National Governors Association’s (NGA) Executive Committee. I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the importance of 

a nationwide broadband network for our first responders. 

For more than a year Governors have called for the reallocation of D Block spectrum to public safety to serve as the cornerstone of efforts to develop and deploy 

a nationwide, interoperable broadband system. It is with great pleasure that I testify today to lend Governors’ support for the solutions presented by S. 28, the ‘‘Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act,’’ introduced by Senator Rockefeller. 

Overview 

As Governor, I am responsible for the safety and security of our citizens and must 

ensure that our public safety agencies can respond to any and all emergencies that 

may arise. Whether the event is a terrorist attack, a hurricane, chemical spill or 

bridge collapse, Delaware’s first responders must be able to communicate seamlessly 

with each other and with the public at a moment’s notice. 

To do so requires a communications network with sufficient capacity to allow firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel to share video, building 

plans, and the location of personnel and equipment in real time. In short, they must 

have access to the technology that today’s teenagers have at their fingertips. 

Almost 10 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11 and despite a great 

deal of national attention to first responders’ communications needs, we continue to 

lack a nationwide network that can provide these capabilities to first responders. 

S. 28, The Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act 

The nation’s Governors believe the development of an interoperable broadband 

network for public safety is essential to enhancing the ability of first responders to 

save lives and protect property. 

Development of such a system is dependent upon three things: first, access to sufficient and dedicated spectrum; second, a funding mechanism to construct, manage 

and maintain the network; and third, clear governance guidelines to ensure nationwide coverage and interoperability. Efforts to address one issue without solving or 

supporting a solution for the others will only hinder progress toward reliable and 

interoperable communications. 

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Delaware has worked diligently to address interoperability by installing a statewide 800 MHz narrowband radio system 

that is used by all public safety agencies within the state. In doing so, Delaware 

became one of the first states to operate a truly interoperable public safety communications system. Unfortunately, due to narrow bandwidth, this system does not 

have the capability to provide for the exchange of robust broadband data. 

S. 28, the ‘‘Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act’’, would take advantage of the unique opportunity to dedicate sufficient contiguous broadband spectrum to first responder communications by reallocating the 700 MHz D Block spectrum to public safety, establishing a funding source for construction and operation 

of the network and addressing key governance issues necessary to ensure nationwide interoperability. 

Spectrum Allocation 

The chance to allocate the 700 MHz D Block spectrum to public safety represents 

an unparalleled opportunity to develop a robust, modern and reliable nationwide 

interoperable broadband network. 

Past efforts to develop and maintain interoperable communications across the 

country have been hindered by the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) allocation of small sections of spectrum across different frequency bands for public 

safety use—none of which are large enough to consolidate communications into a 

single segment of spectrum. Since devices operating on different frequencies cannot 

14 

talk to each other, public safety agencies have sometimes been forced to install two 

or more radios in each response vehicle to ensure neighboring agencies can communicate. 

This solution is not only cumbersome but costly. With state and local budgets that 

support public safety under continuing strain for the foreseeable future, it is time 

to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of critical public services, including 

first responder communications. 

Without access to the D Block, however, state and local governments will again 

be forced to maintain multiple communications networks to ensure the brave men 

and women who protect the public and respond to emergencies can talk to each 

other. 

On the other hand, by combining the D Block with the existing 10 MHz of adjacent public safety spectrum, public safety communications could eventually be migrated from other spectrum bands to allow for more streamlined, efficient and costeffective communications systems. 

While the migration of voice systems to broadband should be explored for potential future consolidation, please note that this cannot happen overnight. The 

narrowband spectrum is currently used by state and local governments for existing 

or developing interoperable voice communications systems that cannot be migrated 

to broadband until the technology has been further developed. 

As you know, current law requires the FCC to auction the 700 MHz D Block. The 

FCC plans to auction the D Block for commercial purposes and provide public safety 

with roaming and priority access on other 700 MHz broadband networks for a fee. 

This will simply not work. 

As demonstrated repeatedly during recent disasters, excessive demand can clog 

commercial systems and prevent users from accessing the network. First responders 

require more reliable access, especially during times of emergency. It is simply unacceptable for first responders to be forced to wait for access when lives are at stake. 

In contrast, S. 28 is based on the core principle that public safety communications 

are simply too important to be placed in other hands. By adding the D Block to the 

existing Block of 10 MHz, and by providing funding mechanisms, Congress will ensure that public safety controls the design and construction of network facilities sufficient to meet their exacting standards of performance. No commercial operator 

builds to meet those same standards. This is not to say that commercial providers 

should not be involved. Public safety should explore the real potential of working 

constructively with the private sector to meet its needs. 

Funding 

Just as sufficient spectrum is critical to the success of the nationwide network, 

so too is a sufficient funding source to ensure that the network is constructed in 

a timely manner throughout the country and that these systems can then be managed, upgraded and maintained as necessary. 

Regardless of whether it is built on 10 or 20 MHz of spectrum, construction of 

a nationwide network will be a costly endeavor. As states continue to face budget 

gaps after several years of unprecedented declines, Federal funding to support network construction and maintenance will help ensure its timely development and nationwide deployment. 

S. 28 would address these funding challenges through the establishment of grant 

programs for construction and maintenance. These grants would be fully funded 

through future auctions of spectrum and could provide billions of dollars in financial 

support for a critical national public safety asset. 

In addition, much like real estate, the D Block is a valuable asset. If reallocated 

to public safety, this additional spectrum could allow state and local government 

greater flexibility to innovate in the development and administration of the network. 

For example, commercial wireless operators will continue to spend billions of dollars 

deploying broadband facilities that mirror those that public safety will construct and 

operate. Constructive and innovative partnerships with commercial operators might 

achieve economies of scale and allow sharing of construction and operating costs to 

the benefit of both parties. By putting public safety in control of the spectrum, the 

playing field is leveled to enable such beneficial arrangements. 

Governance 

Finally, in addition to the spectrum and funding issues I mentioned, establishing 

clear governance guidelines for the network will be critical to ensuring nationwide 

coverage and interoperability. 

S. 28 recognizes the importance of the coordinated development of the public safety network by requiring the FCC to establish technical and operational requireVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:19 Dec 09, 2011 Jkt 071532 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71532.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
15 

ments and by authorizing states to oversee the issuance of requests for proposals 

related to the network. 

While maintaining flexibility for local areas to begin network construction ahead 

of the state, the legislation would ensure that any advanced network deployments 

are coordinated throughout the state or region. This will facilitate interoperability 

and coordination between existing voice communications systems, such as land mobile radio, and the public safety broadband network. It will also help ensure that 

rural areas are included in the nationwide network in a timely manner. 

Conclusion 

The development of an interoperable broadband network for public safety is essential for enhancing the ability of first responders to protect our citizens from harm 

and respond to requests for emergency assistance. The cornerstone of such a network is dedicated spectrum; specifically, the reallocation of the 700 MHz D Block 

to public safety. 

Governors greatly appreciate the support of this committee and the introduction 

of S. 28. We also appreciate the President’s support and his commitment to reallocating the D Block to public safety. 

By reallocating the D Block to public safety, S. 28, the ‘‘Public Safety Spectrum 

and Wireless Innovation Act,’’ would ensure that the nation takes advantage of this 

one time opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the past and allocate appropriate contiguous spectrum to support the safety and security of our country. 

On behalf of the National Governors Association, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify. I encourage this committee to work closely with Governors as you consider 

the legislation and to report it favorably to the Senate as soon as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, sir. 

Chief Gillespie? 

STATEMENT OF AL H. GILLESPIE, CHIEF, NORTH LAS VEGAS 

FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Minority Member Hutchison, and the honorable members of the 

Committee. I am Al Gillespie, the Fire Chief for the City of North 

Las Vegas, Nevada, and the First Vice President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the IAFC, on whose behalf I appear. 

My testimony today is in support of S. 28. A top priority for all 

public safety, police, fire, and EMS, is to build a nationwide public 

safety wireless interoperable broadband network. This urgent need 

is recognized in many studies such as the 9/11 Commission and 

Hurricane Katrina reports. Mr. Chairman, S. 28, the legislation 

you introduced, will allow public safety to realize its nationwide 

communications goal by providing both the spectrum and the funding which is required. 

This bill also has the support of the Public Safety Alliance, an 

organization of nine national public safety organizations, including 

the IAFC, and with the support of a diverse range of entities from 

both the public and private sectors. Our goal is supported by the 

seven national organizations representing state, county, and local 

governments, as well as many of the leading technology integrators, telecommunication carriers, and equipment manufacturers. 

We are very appreciative of the recently announced support from 

the Obama administration. The President’s budget announced earlier this week contains provisions for allocation of the D Block to 

public safety and methods for funding. We look forward to working 

with the administration, as well as Congress, to make possible a 

nationwide public safety broadband network, bringing public safety 

16 

communications into the 21st century to better serve America’s citizens. 

Over the past 50 years, America’s domestic defenders have been 

allocated thin slices of spectrum in each new band as it became 

available. That is why today we have over 55,000 public safety 

agencies each operating their own mission-critical radio system 

over six or more different bands. This makes our goal of interoperability both difficult and expensive. 

After numerous major events and other significant disasters, it 

is clear that a new model is necessary: a national architecture for 

public safety wireless communications. To achieve a nationwide 

public safety wireless, interoperable, broadband network, key elements need to be in place. 

The network must have sufficient capacity to achieve a national 

public safety broadband network, connectivity coast to coast, border 

to border, 10 megahertz of D Block spectrum, currently slated for 

FCC auction, must be added to the current 10 megahertz of spectrum licensed to public safety in order to build out a 20 megahertz 

network. The currently licensed public safety spectrum abuts the 

D Block and is perfect for public safety. Only with this particular 

spectrum configuration and none other can public safety be assured 

that it will have the ability to build the network it needs now and 

into the future. S. 28 will accomplish this one-time opportunity to 

get it right. 

Public safety must control the network. Local control of the network by public safety agencies is critical. Utilizing a single technology with sufficient spectrum will ensure nationwide interoperability and allow us to effectively manage day-to-day operations, as 

well as any major incident. 

The network must be mission-critical at the onset. Key elements 

of mission-critical are: the network must be hardened to public 

safety requirements; the public safety mission-critical voice network must have the ability to broadcast and receive one-to-one and 

one-to-many and the ability to broadcast and receive without the 

network infrastructure being operative; and the network must have 

backup capabilities in the event of network loss and at public safety requirements. 

There are numerous examples and applications for possible fire 

and emergency medical services. For example, live video feed to 

provide instantaneous situational awareness for mass casualty incidents like the Tucson shooting, major hazardous materials spills, 

and real-time situational awareness to incident commanders, as 

well as elected officials and other decisionmakers. 

In the area of emergency medical services, we envision digital 

imaging, portable EKG’s, portable ultrasounds, and field blood 

work with direct links to the hospital’s emergency department. 

This would put a virtual physician in the back of an ambulance 

with an emergency medical technician to expedite the proper lifesaving treatment. This will be especially critical in rural areas 

where transit time to the hospital is longer. These types of applications for fire and EMS are only possible with broadband capability. 

And funding is important for the build-out of a public safety 

broadband network. State and local government budgets are challenged. The broadband network needed by public safety cannot be 

17 

built without federal funding support. S. 28 recognizes this fact and 

offers a solution. 

Mr. Chairman, the IAFC and the public safety support S. 28. The 

bill provides public safety with what it needs to begin the task of 

building out a nationwide public safety broadband network. The 

10th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 will be 

marked in about seven months. Thus, we urgently need to move 

forward on a plan to develop the envisioned public safety 

broadband network communications. We thank you for your personal attention and leadership on this issue and will continue to 

work with you and the Committee to assure prompt passage. 

I will be available for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gillespie follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AL H. GILLESPIE, CHIEF, NORTH LAS VEGAS FIRE

DEPARTMENT AND FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE

CHIEFS

Good morning Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Minority Member Hutchison. I 

am Al Gillespie, Chief of the North Las Vegas Fire Department and First Vice 

President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) on whose behalf I 

appear. The International Association of Fire Chiefs represents the leadership of 

over 1.2 million firefighters and emergency responders. IAFC members are the 

world’s leading experts in firefighting, emergency medical services, terrorism response, hazardous materials spills, natural disasters, search and rescue, and public 

safety policy. Since 1873, the IAFC has provided a forum for its members to exchange ideas and uncover the latest products and services available to first responders. 

My testimony today is in support of S. 28 (the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act). A top priority for all public safety—law enforcement, fire and 

emergency medical services—is to build a nationwide, public safety, wireless, interoperable, broadband network. This urgent need is recognized in many studies such 

as the 9/11 Commission and Hurricane Katrina reports. Mr. Chairman, S. 28, the 

legislation you introduced, will allow public safety to realize its nationwide communications goal by providing both the spectrum and funding which is required. This 

bill also has the support of the Public Safety Alliance, an organization of nine national public safety organizations, including the IAFC, and with the support of a diverse range of entities from both the public and private sector. Indeed, our goal is 

supported by the seven national organizations representing state, county and local 

government, as well as many of the leading technology integrators, telecommunications carriers and equipment manufacturers. 

We are very appreciative of the recently announced support from the Obama administration. The President’s Budget, announced earlier this week, contains provisions for allocation of the D Block to public safety and methods for funding. We look 

forward to working with the administration as well as Congress to make possible 

a nationwide public safety broadband network bringing public safety communications into the 21st century to better serve America’s citizens. 

Over the past fifty years, America’s domestic defenders have been allocated thin 

slices of spectrum in each new band as it became available. That is why, today, we 

have over 55,000 public safety agencies each operating their own mission critical 

radio system over six or more different bands. This makes our goal of interoperability both difficult and expensive. After numerous major events and other significant disasters, it is clear that a new model is necessary: a national architecture for 

public safety wireless communications. To achieve a nationwide, public safety, wireless, interoperable, broadband network, key elements need to be in place. 

The network must have sufficient capacity. To achieve a nationwide public safety 

broadband network—connectivity coast to coast, border to border—10 MHz of D 

Block spectrum, currently slated for FCC auction, must be added to the current 10 

MHz of spectrum licensed to Public Safety in order to build out a 20 MHz network. 

The currently licensed public safety spectrum abuts the D Block and is perfect for 

public safety. Only with this particular spectrum configuration, and none other, can 

public safety be assured that it will have the ability to build the network it needs 

now and into the future. S. 28 will accomplish this onetime opportunity to get it 

right. 

18 

Public safety must control the network. Local control of the network by public safety agencies is critical. Utilizing a single technology with sufficient spectrum will ensure nationwide interoperability and allow us to effectively manage day to day operations, as well as any major incident. We cannot have commercial providers deciding 

what is or is not an emergency and what is the priority. Public safety transmissions 

have to go through without delay. A ‘‘no service’’ signal is not an acceptable element 

of emergency operations. The lives of firefighters, the lives of medics, the lives of 

law enforcement officers depend on this. It is our responsibility. 

Public safety expects to work with others and enter into public-private partnerships. We will work with state, county and local governmental agencies, Federal 

partners, utilities and others who respond to emergency incidents. But, public safety 

must have control over the operation of the network in real time. It cannot rely on 

commercial operators to provide its critical governance needs. Network control will 

give public safety assurance that it will have full, preemptive priority over its spectrum on a when-needed basis. 

The network must be mission critical at the outset. In the beginning, this system 

will handle only data and video. At some future time—years away—we believe there 

will be a transition to mission critical voice. We all need to take a long term view— 

to start out with sufficient spectrum so that we will have the ability to migrate to 

mission critical voice. This will happen when the technology is developed, public 

safety has confidence in it, and its cost is affordable. Here are the key elements of 

‘‘mission-critical:’’ 

• The network must be hardened to public safety requirements. This means towers must be able to withstand the elements that might disable them. Towers 

in hurricane-prone areas and tornado alleys must be designed accordingly. Back 

up electrical power must be available 24/7. Redundancy is necessary. 

• The public safety mission critical voice network must have the ability to broadcast and receive ‘‘one-to-one’’ and ‘‘one-to-many’’ and the ability to broadcast and 

receive without the network infrastructure being operative. This is called ‘‘talk 

around’’ mode—also known as simplex. This is a command and control imperative. You know well that we operate under extremely hazardous conditions. If 

the network, for any reason, cannot provide connectivity, then we need the capability to communicate without the network. This means communicating in the 

simplex mode. This is the essence of public safety communications. 

• The network must have back up capabilities in the event of network loss and 

at a public safety standard. We envision satellite capability for the network to 

be available when a tower is disabled or other crippling malfunction. Satellites 

also can cover remote areas that do not have towers. Our mission is geographyoriented whereas commercial carriers are concerned with population. 

Funding is important for the build-out of a public safety broadband network. State 

and local government budgets are challenged. The broadband network needed by 

public safety cannot be built without Federal funding support. S. 28 recognizes this 

fact and offers a solution. And, this network, much like current 700 and 800 MHz 

Land Mobile Radio (LMR) systems, must also be accessible to Federal public safety 

users nationwide as well as ‘‘second responders,’’ such as utilities and highway 

agencies. Both a Construction Fund and a Maintenance and Operation Fund will 

be created and authorized to a maximum of $11 billion for both funds. These funds 

will provide matching grant programs at the U.S. Department of Commerce to build 

the network and at the FCC to operate and maintain the network. The bill will fund 

the Construction Fund by auctioning, at a minimum, 25 megahertz of contiguous 

spectrum at frequencies located between 1675 MHz and 1710 MHz. 

It is important to recognize how this public safety broadband network will revolutionize the fire and emergency medical services. Examples of applications include: 

live video to provide instantaneous situational awareness for mass casualty incidents (e.g., Tucson shootings), major hazardous materials spills, and real time situational awareness to incident command as well as elected officials and other decisionmakers. In the area of emergency medical services we envision digital imaging, portable EKGs, portable ultrasounds, field blood work with a direct link to the hospital’s 

emergency department. This would put a virtual physician in the back of the ambulance with the Emergency Medical Technician to expedite the proper life saving 

treatment. This will be especially critical in rural areas where transit time to the 

hospital is longer. These types of applications for fire and EMS are only possible 

with broadband capability. 

Mr. Chairman, the IAFC and public safety support S. 28. This bill provides public 

safety with what it needs to begin the task of building out a nationwide public safety broadband network. S. 28 is the vehicle for finally securing this critical asset, and 

19 

we look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues in the Senate 

to further refine this legislation in order to enact the best possible bill into law. The 

10th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 will be marked in about 

7 months. Thus, we urgently need to move forward on a plan to develop the envisioned public safety broadband communications network. We thank you for your 

personal attention and leadership on this issue and will continue to work with you 

and the Committee to assure prompt passage. I am available to respond to any 

questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief, very much. 

And we turn now to Mr. Hanna. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. HANNA, PRESIDENT, DIRECTIONS 

Mr. HANNA. Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman 

Hutchison, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify on this significant piece of legislation. But I am sorry about my voice. This is the day my cold has 

to settle in here. 

As Senator Rockefeller mentioned, I currently serve as President 

of Directions, which is a public safety-focused wireless communications practice. For the last six years, I have focused almost full 

time to the issue of this very topic today about a national 

broadband network. 

The comments I am making today are solely my views and 

should not be construed to represent any of my clients or any past 

affiliations I have had. So I am just speaking from my experience 

in the field here. 

Again, Senator, I would like to thank you for your leadership on 

this critical issue. It is, as folks have noted, well time that we move 

down the road to get this thing done. 

I think everybody in this room agrees that our first responders 

should have all the tools they need to serve the public, including 

access to state-of-the-art wireless broadband communications. We 

fail to agree, however, on the fact that there are two paths that can 

provide public safety with the wireless broadband services that 

they need and that they deserve. Congress has provided public 

safety with 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band. 

If prudently used, this allocation can provide public safety entities 

with the capacity they require for their day-to-day needs. Using 

that capacity in connection with commercial spectrum in the 700 

megahertz band, as proposed in the FCC’s National Broadband 

Plan, will give public safety the bandwidth necessary in situations 

in which the public safety allocation may become overloaded. 

The difference between S. 28’s recommendation to reallocate the 

D Block to public safety and that of the paradigm envisioned in the 

National Broadband Plan is that the LTE platform, which is now 

standardized as the interoperable vehicle for a public safety network, already provides for a seamless, priority-accessible mechanism that can be triggered in the event of an overload of the baseline public safety network. 

Equally as important, partnering with commercial entities, a cornerstone of the National Broadband Plan, will allow first responders to take advantage of both reductions in the cost of building the 

core network while taking advantage of the benefits of commercial 

networks and the economies of scale that we have already heard 

20 

mentioned that will allow for terminal products that are needed by 

first responders. 

Core communication capabilities for the public safety broadband 

network should be centered around a dedicated public safety grade 

broadband network, and it should recognize no distinction between 

urban, rural, and suburban boundaries. I believe my fellow panelists and I also agree that the widespread financial crises that are 

facing America’s cities, counties, and states throughout the nation 

will not allow America to realize implementation of this dedicated 

public safety network without a massive infusion of federal funds. 

Unlike my fellow panelists, however, I do not believe that first responders need to be the licensee for all the spectrum that they 

need to use. 

I commend Senator Rockefeller for your inclusion of the language 

in S. 28 that will help public safety use the spectrum they do have 

presently allocated through flexible use in the 700 megahertz band. 

We currently have 12 megahertz of narrow band spectrum in that 

band, and there are jurisdictions that have indicated that they 

have no desire to implement narrow band technologies. As they 

have indicated, it is a somewhat archaic technology. So to not be 

able to use that spectrum in an aggregated form has a massive potential to leave a large volume of this critical spectrum lying fallow 

in some parts of the country. 

I think the greatest flaw in the reallocation of the D Block to 

public safety, in lieu of the current law and the proposal in the 

broadband plan, would be the unintended consequences of creating 

an island technology, a band class 14 subset that only first responders will use. With no commercial economies of scale, public 

safety will again find itself held hostage by a limited number of 

providers resulting in the same low-demand, high-cost marketplace 

faced every day in the public safety land mobile environment. 

Additionally, budget estimates for a public safety network as calculated in the National Broadband Plan were based on a model in 

which the dedicated public safety network would be built in conjunction with a commercial rollout of their LTE networks. The 

broadband cost estimates for a stand-alone public safety network 

more than triples the cost of a shared deployment. 

Budget provisions in S. 28 are already somewhat below the cost 

projections made in the broadband plan’s concept of a shared buildout. We have a shortfall in federal funds provided through this bill. 

Public safety will be faced with the difficult choice of determining 

either having to come back to Congress and ask for billions of additional dollars in funding or to choose where the network will be 

built and where it will not be built. Instead of building a bridge to 

nowhere, we will be building half a bridge, then forcing the unnecessary expenditures of additional billions of dollars to complete the 

bridge or leaving a substantial portion of America’s first responders 

without the broadband service that they need and they deserve. 

While S. 28 has addressed many of the key elements needed to 

make a nationwide public safety network a reality, the proposed 

legislation misses one key element, and that is that of governance 

and the administrative structure required for the deploying of this 

initiative. If we fail to address the underlying issue of governance 

and administration at the beginning, we guarantee extended delays 

21 

in implementation, massive, needless cost, and the failure to have 

services implemented nationwide in an acceptable timeframe. 

Again, Senator, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

speak today, and I would also be glad to answer any questions you 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanna follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. HANNA, PRESIDENT, DIRECTIONS

Introduction 

Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, Vice Chairman Hutchison, and members of 

the Committee. My name is Joe Hanna and I currently serve as the President of 

Directions, a public safety focused wireless telecommunications consulting practice. 

Prior to starting this practice, I retired from the public safety communications and 

public policy arena after 30 years of service. Additionally, I had the privilege to 

serve on the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials—International, 

or APCO, International Board of Directors from 1996–2000 and served as President 

during the 1999–2000 period. Since starting my consulting practice, I have remained an active member of APCO, the National Emergency Numbering Association 

(NENA), and have actively participated in meetings of the National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

events related to public safety, and have had the privilege to speak at numerous 

national conferences on topics related to public safety wireless communications. I 

have served as a public safety advisor to the 800 MHZ Transition Administrator and 

currently serve as a Senior Fellow for the Center for Digital Government. Thank 

you for inviting me to join this distinguished panel to address the need for a nationwide interoperable network for first responders. 

Summary 

Everyone in this room agrees that our first responders should have the tools they 

need to serve the public, including access to state-of-the-art communications systems. We differ on the most effective path to get to that result. Congress provided 

public safety with 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHZ band. If prudently utilized, this allocation can provide public safety entities with the capacity they require 

for day-to-day needs. Using that capacity in connection with commercial spectrum 

in the 700 MHZ band, as proposed in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, will give 

public safety the bandwidth necessary for disaster situations. Equally as important, 

partnering with commercial entities will allow first responders to take advantage of 

the benefits of commercial networks and handsets that consumers have come to 

enjoy. 

Public Safety Must Have a Nationwide Interoperable Network 

As I am sure that you will hear from all of the panelists, it is inexcusable that 

almost 10 years following the tragic events of September 11 and the carnage inflicted upon the residents of the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina, America’s 

first responders still find themselves ill equipped to communicate to the degree they 

need and deserve. 

My real estate agent can take a client to a home, take out her laptop computer 

and pull up photos of the interior of the house, tax records, surveys and plats, and 

a list of comparable values in the neighborhood. But a firefighter at a burning building cannot pull up a floor plan to aid in a search and rescue or identify known hazardous conditions inside the building. A pedophile in a park can sit on a bench with 

a smart phone, take photographs of vulnerable children, and then instantly send his 

pictures to other pedophiles around the world. But a police officer who has responded to that park to investigate this suspicious person cannot upload or 

download a photograph or scanned fingerprint of that person to a local, state or national database to help determine if this subject is indeed a known threat to the 

community. 

I believe that every member of this panel can agree on a common set of principles 

for a public safety broadband network that will best serve our nation. First, America’s first responders deserve and require the same communications capabilities 

used every day by our real estate agents and junior high school students. Second, 

these core communications capabilities should be centered around a dedicated, public safety grade broadband network. Third, America’s first responders need for these 

communication capabilities to recognize no distinction between urban, suburban, 

and rural boundaries. In fact, rural America may have the greatest need for highVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:19 Dec 09, 2011 Jkt 071532 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71532.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
22 

speed data. An accident victim in Brewster County, Texas or Webster County, West 

Virginia bleeds just as fast as an accident victim in New York City or Houston, 

Texas. The only difference is that the time it takes to respond to that victim and 

to transport him or her to the nearest medical facility may be measured in hours 

rather than minutes. The deputy stopping a suspicious van on a dark highway in 

Hillsville, Virginia recognizes that his closest backup may be 20 to 30 minutes 

away. The volunteer fire fighter understands that fire burns as quickly in Mountain 

View, Arkansas as a house fire in Dallas, but the nearest resources will take considerably longer to respond. 

Public Safety Users Need Funding and a Plan for the Efficient Use of the 

Existing Spectrum Allocation 

I believe that every member of this distinguished panel will also agree that, at 

a minimum, there are two fundamental elements for providing America’s first responders with the wireless broadband tools that we need—dedicated spectrum and 

funding. I assume that my fellow panelists will agree that the widespread financial 

crisis facing cities, counties, and states throughout the nation will not allow America 

to realize the nationwide implementation of a dedicated, public safety broadband 

network without a massive, unprecedented infusion of Federal funds. At a time 

when we are seeing major cities laying off substantial numbers of police officers and 

as fire departments are not able to upgrade critical equipment with more reliable 

or efficient models, communications systems far too often fall victim to these fiscal 

realities. One need look no further than the 21 jurisdictions that have been granted 

waivers by the Federal Communications Commission for early deployment of public 

safety broadband networks. Only 7 of these 21 jurisdictions have initiated steps to 

actually deploy their network. The remaining 14 jurisdictions have not. The difference between the 7 who are actively attempting to deploy and the 14 who are 

not? Funding from the Federal Government in the form of a grant from the 

Broadband Technology Opportunity Program, or BTOP. 

While I agree with the views of my fellow panelists on most issues, unlike them, 

I don’t believe that first responders need be the licensees of all the spectrum they 

may need to use. Working through one of the most ambitious schedules imposed by 

the Obama administration, the FCC was charged with development of a National 

Broadband Plan. One key element of the National Broadband Plan was the proposal 

for the deployment of a nationwide, interoperable dedicated public safety wireless 

broadband network. The proposal was made possible through tens of thousands of 

person-hours of intensive research, interviews, and a thorough understanding of 

technical requirements needed to implement this network. While proposal is not 

perfect, I believe that the National Broadband Plan fundamentally ‘‘got it right.’’ In 

addition to the proposal’s recognition of the need for funding, the cornerstone of the 

proposal is a dedicated public safety network utilizing the 10 megahertz of spectrum 

allocated to public safety by Congress in 1997. Recognizing that a September 11 or 

Hurricane Katrina situation could tax the 10 megahertz allocation, the National 

Broadband Plan proposed to allow public safety to utilize the capacity of commercial 

wireless carriers on a priority basis. The fundamental assumption of the National 

Broadband Plan was that the 10 megahertz of public safety spectrum would be more 

than adequate for the day-to-day, routine needs of the national network. This basic 

assumption remains true today. The question is how to address spectrum needs 

when faced with infrequent, but critical events that require additional capacity. 

This question is faced every day by every public safety entity in the Nation. While 

designing and managing my communication center in Richardson, Texas, I had to 

evaluate our daily, annual, and average call volumes to determine the number of 

call takers, dispatchers, and support personnel. This is no different than my counterparts here at the table. While we all try to provide resources based on our heaviest need, no public safety entity can provide enough telephone trunks, radio channels, or personnel to handle the extreme cases such as September 11 and Hurricane 

Katrina. I could have equipped my suburban call center with 500 trunk lines instead of 7, but I would not have 500 people to answer the overload of calls if faced 

with an event the magnitude of a September 11 or Hurricane Katrina. Even if I 

could produce 500 people to answer the phones, there would not be 500 first responders on the street to respond to the 500 calls being answered. 

While I don’t believe that the reallocation of the D Block as proposed by S. 28 

is the key to an effective first responder broadband network, I do strongly support 

another provision of the bill that will help public safety use the spectrum they are 

allocated more effectively. S. 28 would provide for the flexible use of the 700 MHZ 

public safety spectrum allocated for narrowband communications. While the overwhelming majority of public safety entities have voiced opposition to this concept, 

failure to provide this flexibility will result in critically needed spectrum to remain 

23 

fallow in many parts of this Nation. New York City representatives, for example, 

have made multiple public statements that they have no desire to deploy any new 

voice systems that utilize narrowband land mobile radio, or LMR, technology. If 

New York City’s position remains unchanged, the 12 MHZ of beachfront 700 MHZ 

spectrum currently assigned to them for narrowband technology will lie fallow in 

one of the most spectrum-pressed jurisdictions in the Nation. While coordination of 

narrowband and broadband spectrum is challenging, it can be accomplished and this 

flexible use can provide additional broadband capabilities within the current public 

safety allocation. 

Public safety has multiple other spectrum resources; in particular, 50 megahertz 

of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band is well suited for many emerging broadband applications. Public safety cannot allow this, or any spectrum to lie fallow or under-used 

in an era in which a ‘‘spectrum crisis’’ has been identified by the administration. 

While no one would argue that the 4.9 GHz spectrum suited for the backbone of 

a national public safety broadband network, it can certainly be used to put flesh 

on the skeleton. 

LTE Technology Allows Public Safety Sharing of Commercial Networks 

The difference between current spectrum use and the paradigm envisioned in the 

National Broadband Plan is that there is a viable alternative for accessing spectrum 

needs in an overloaded broadband network. As you may be aware, the public safety 

community has embraced a technology known as Long Term Evolution, or LTE, as 

the technology of choice for the proposed national public safety broadband network. 

The FCC has, for justifiable cause, broken a longstanding tradition of technical neutrality and proposed codifying LTE as the communications protocol for the future 

public safety broadband network. While this choice will not only provide for the critical requirement of interoperability within the network, this same technology provides for the ability of the proposed public safety broadband to seamlessly and automatically tap the networks operated by commercial carriers on a priority basis. 

Those commercial networks will also be using LTE technology. 

Public safety has correctly specified and demanded preemptive capabilities that 

will give it priority over all users in an emergency. An analysis of the current LTE 

standards shows that this capability exists today. Through a mutually agreeable 

partnership between the public safety broadband network and a commercial wireless operator, public safety can be guaranteed automatic, seamless, access to additional capacity on a priority basis—with priority including the functional equivalent 

to ‘‘ruthless preemption’’ in today’s circuit switched networks. From an operational, 

functional perspective, this process also gives public safety control of this shared 

spectrum, a requirement that public safety has identified as critical. This element 

provides the cornerstone for the National Broadband Plan’s notion that a commercial carrier operating in the 700 MHZ D Block can bear the burden of building that 

portion of a network and reducing the building requirements of the public safety 

portion the network. 

The fly in the ointment for the shared spectrum concept is the willingness of current or future wireless carriers to agree to such an arrangement. Some national carriers have made public statements that they have no desire or intent to enter into 

a spectrum sharing arrangement with public safety, as they do not wish to potentially degrade services to their subscriber base. Their position is unreasonable and 

contrary to the public interest. Commercial users in an LTE world will not be totally 

preempted, but just put at the rear of the network access line. Thus, the policy 

question is whether commercial carriers—who hold their FCC licenses to serve the 

public interest—should be permitted to decline participation in a shared network. 

In an environment in which spectrum is a national resource, slower access to commercial applications is a relative small price for the needs of public safety. 

A Public—Private Partnership with the D Block Licensee will Provide First 

Responders with Significant Benefits 

The greatest flaw with Congressional reallocation of the D Block to public safety 

in lieu of the current law and the proposal in the National Broadband Plan, however, are the unintended consequence of creating an island technology—a technology 

that only first responders will use. With expenditures of billions of dollars over the 

past 20 years, the shortcomings of public safety reaching interoperability through 

traditional land mobile communications is beyond debate. Quite simply, public safety land mobile communications has been balkanized into a number of technologies 

scattered over thousands of jurisdictions. With the limited market in which public 

safety operates, the technology has changed relatively little (in terms of basic 

functionality), but costs have soared. It is the norm for a single, portable LMR radio 

to cost $5,000, with some models costing considerably more. Contrast that with the 

24 

commercial wireless market over its twenty-year life span, where prices for terminal 

products have decreased significantly, while the capabilities of these devices have 

developed exponentially. The difference? The scope of the marketplace. 

Current estimates for the total number of first responders range from two to three 

million users, a fragmented market divided among thousands of independent purchasing units. Press reports released last week estimates that Verizon will sell one 

million iPhones during their first week of sales. Another report noted that Samsung 

delivered over ten million units of one phone model in the last 6 months of 2010, 

plus one million tablet computers during the month of December. 

Under the National Broadband Plan, the public safety broadband network would 

have access to the 700 MHZ D Block, plus possible access to other 700 MHZ band 

commercial networks at such time that technology allows. On the other hand, if the 

D Block is reallocated to public safety, it is less likely that public safety entities will 

have access to commercial networks. AT 700 MHZ, equipment is expected to operate 

within designated spectrum bands, known as band classes, but not necessary across 

band classes. The current public safety and D Block comprise the entire band class 

14. Therefore, if public safety were reallocated the D Block, there would be no incentive for any commercial operators using other band classes to include band class 14 

into the handsets they order from manufacturers. With no commercial orders for use 

of band class 14, there is no incentive for baseband chip vendors to design band 

class 14 into their baseband chipsets. With no commercial economies of scale, public 

safety will again find itself held hostage by a limited number of providers, thus resulting in the current low demand, high cost marketplace. 

Additionally, the network budget estimates calculated by the National Broadband 

Plan were based on a model in which the dedicated public safety network would be 

built in conjunction with commercial deployments of their LTE networks. Co-located 

sites, sharing of some key components, and simultaneous deployment will result in 

reduced costs. These simultaneous or shared build outs would also permit public 

safety to access commercial sites where they might have elected to forego infrastructure deployments. As noted in the current round of early deployment by the City 

of Los Angeles, the initial public safety network will be built with approximately 

350 sites. In that same geographic area, one of the Nation’s four largest carriers currently has over 5,500 sites already in operation. Based on the reduced number of 

sites being built in the public safety network, those sites must work at higher power 

levels and will have greatly diminished cell-edge coverage and performance. The 

only viable path in this design to enhance coverage and performance is to add significantly more spectrum to the network. Commercial carriers address these same 

issues without additional spectrum by adding cell sites. Under the National 

Broadband Plan, public safety entities could take advantage of this more responsible 

strategy as well. 

Budget figures in S. 28 are already below the cost projections made in the National Broadband Plan’s concept of a shared build out. If the paradigm shifts to one 

in which public safety builds a stand-alone network in the D Block, there will be 

additional costs of building a national broadband network. With a shortfall in Federal funds, public safety will be faced with the difficult choice of determining either 

how to ask Congress for billions of additional dollars In funding or to choose where 

the network will be built and where it will not. Instead of building a bridge to nowhere, we are now faced with building half a bridge, then forcing the unnecessary 

expenditure of additional billions of dollars to complete the bridge or leaving a substantial portion of America’s first responders without the broadband services they 

deserve. 

The Critical Element of Governance Must Be Addressed 

While S. 28 has addressed most of the key elements needed to make a nationwide, 

dedicated public network a reality, the proposed legislation misses one key element—that of the governance and administrative structure required for the deployment of this complex undertaking. The decades-long absence of a national strategy 

to manage land mobile communications within public safety has fostered the unacceptable lack of interoperability. While billions of local, state, and Federal funds 

have been poured into legacy land mobile voice communication systems, those funds 

have generally been allocated and spent with no national strategy to ensure interoperability. As complex as interoperability within land mobile voice systems may be, 

it pales in comparison to the complexity of broadband networks. If we fail to address 

the issue of governance and administration of this proposed network at the outset 

of this effort, we are guaranteed extended delays in implementation, massive needless costs, and failure to have services implemented nationwide in an acceptable 

timeframe. 

25 

Public safety is well suited to define its operational needs, but has relatively little 

sophistication in network architecture. It is also unreasonable to expect any project 

for which billions of dollars are allocated can be managed by a small group of well 

meaning associations. Given the fact that we have already watched 12 years pass 

from the time that the 700 MHZ band was first allocated until it was made available to public safety, and, given the fact that we have been actively trying to take 

concrete steps to get broadband services in the hands of first responders for almost 

6 years, any legislation proposed by this Congress should ensure the creation of a 

multi-disciplinary governance/management structure that can deliver this network 

to those that critically need it without having to wait another 6 or 12 years. If we 

fail to find an appropriate alternative to the practices of the past, we are doomed 

to repeat the failures of the past. 

To emphasize the critical nature of the role of an effective governance and management structure, there are 21 waivers granted by the FCC, 7 of which are actively 

in the process of deploying LTE systems. While there has been discussion about creating a ‘‘network of networks’’ within these 7 jurisdictions, each of these waiver jurisdictions is effectively proceeding on its own—initiating procurements, negotiating 

and implementing interoperability plans, and certification and compliance testing 

protocols Each jurisdiction will build and staff a network operating center to manage these complex centers. Without a governance structure that understands and 

controls issues such as these from the outset, the road to a nationwide interoperable 

broadband system is guaranteed to be bumpy and paved with expensive, redundant 

capabilities. 

Conclusion 

I again commend Senator Rockefeller for his leadership in bringing awareness of 

this critical issue to the forefront. At the end of the day, my greatest fear is that 

this debate will linger far too long. In the 6-years since I helped introduce the concept of broadband to the public safety community, we have seen the commercial sector move through three generations of broadband technology. In the midst of highminded policy debates and national policy discussions, it is easy to overlook the simple fact that broadband is not a political issue; it is not an ‘‘I win, you lose’’ contest, 

but instead, is a matter of life and death for our first responders on the street. We 

should ask ourselves why it took 12 years for public safety to gain access to the 700 

MHZ spectrum that it desperately needed and why it has been another 6 years since 

the debate over a dedicated broadband network has lingered with no results. The 

bottom line is that there are two fundamental approaches that can provide the same 

functional product to the police officer, fire fighter, or EMT on the street. In one 

model, public safety can control its own destiny as it has in the narrowband world— 

a world that does not take advantage of new technology or a widely built network 

paradigm. The other option is to take advantage of the fundamental constructs of 

the National Broadband Plan that will allow the most prudent stewardship of both 

our limited spectrum resources and precious Federal funds. 

I appreciate your time and look forward to working with you on this critical issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. 

As I indicated, Senator Hutchison and myself have to be on the 

floor to do the aviation bill, and you kind of care about aviation. 

But we have got them to push it back just a little bit. So I am 

going to have somebody here for me because you may want to go 

downstairs. So we will be covered. But I want to apologize upfront 

for that. We had no idea that aviation was going to be brought up 

as the first bill. I mean, I am glad it is, but I am not happy right 

now because I want to spend two hours with all of you. 

Let me just ask a question to the public safety witnesses and the 

Governor. Much of the debate has been about how much spectrum 

public safety needs for broadband. You have discussed that, each 

of you. Some interests maintain that public safety needs no more 

than 10 megahertz of spectrum for broadband and can at times of 

emergency be given priority access to commercial networks. 

I would start with you, Commissioner Kelly. In your opinion does 

this reliance exclusively on commercial networks work for public 

safety? Number two, are there fundamental differences between 

26 

commercial and public safety networks that you could describe for 

us? Are commercial networks built to withstand disaster conditions? You gave one example in your testimony. Are there special 

protections needed in public safety networks not present in commercial networks? 

Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my prepared remarks, I 

do not think the private sector can totally guarantee availability 

when we need it. I have experienced other examples besides the 

one in my prepared statement when the system became overloaded. 

And I am told by the experts that 10 megahertz is simply not 

enough, particularly as we look down the road as technology becomes more complex, as the threat—certainly the threat in New 

York City as far as terrorism is not going to abate anytime soon. 

Everything that I am told by our experts is that we simply are not 

in a position to rely on the private sector. 

We know that they also have obligations, when there is an emergency, to keep citizens informed. Citizens have to be able to notify 

their loved ones in the event of a major catastrophe. 

So my sense is that your legislation or similar pieces of legislation in this day and age simply make common sense, and I would 

not want to have to totally rely on a private carrier or carriers to 

conduct our business. 

The CHAIRMAN. Governor? 

Governor MARKELL. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to 

say, with Senator Warner coming in, it is a pleasure to see you 

again. Senator Warner, when the history books are written about 

the creation of the cellular and wireless industry in this country, 

you should be featured prominently. And it is great to see you here. 

I agree with Commissioner Kelly that the issue with relying on 

commercial systems is really one of reliability and that public safety has got to be able to rely on communications in all corners of 

the country when all else has failed. And that may not be a standard that commercial operators would build to. And so I agree with 

Commissioner Kelly. 

At the same time, I do believe that there are plenty of opportunities within your proposed legislation for there to be creative partnerships between the public and private sectors. And so I think as 

a general matter we should not be in a position where public safety 

has to rely on a private sector network, but I do believe that there 

should be and would be opportunities for the private sector to participate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Chief Gillespie? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Thank you, Senator. 

I also agree that we do not believe 10 megahertz is enough. We 

respectfully disagree with our folks on the other side of the table 

of this thing. The demonstration of that has happened over and 

over throughout our country. A good example is a GETS phone 

line. You have to ask for permission and you have to be able to get 

through to get your GETS phone line to work. In many cases that 

just does not work either. So going to somebody and asking permission to get on their system at the time of an emergency is just not 

feasible for us. 

27 

We certainly support a model where we have control of the spectrums and we work closely with public/private partnerships to develop and use those systems. We do not need them like every day 

like perhaps they do in New York City, but Las Vegas is a pretty 

urban area also. We have a lot of issues there, but there are a lot 

of rural areas across our country that only need them intermittently. So we have great opportunity to share with our friends in 

the private sector, not only to use the spectrum but also to build 

out the system. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. Senator, I have not heard anyone yet suggest that 

we rely solely on a commercial network for the service. My testimony, I think, clearly stated I fully support building the core platform, the base platform of the 5 by 5 in a dedicated network. 

The notion of using commercial spectrum—I think we have to realize that the existing LTE standard that this network will be built 

to, as proposed by public safety, allows a different paradigm than 

we have had in the past, unlike GETS where you have to ask permission and flip switches to make this work. The existing LTE 

standard allows for an automatic, seamless migration into that 

shared spectrum that will give public safety access to that spectrum if they have reached an agreement with a carrier to do that. 

So I think we agree fundamentally that we need a dedicated core 

for this system to work. No question about that. I think there is 

some misunderstanding about the technology as to how you work 

in that shared environment, and the folks that did the National 

Broadband Plan understood that process and thus developed the 

share model. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, sir. 

And I turn to Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I just have one question and it is a follow 

up really because I was going to ask the question that I think Mr. 

Gillespie just answered for himself. But it is that regardless of the 

need for the D spectrum to be allocated, which I think we all agree 

with in principle, are there not still places where we can have public/private partnerships where public safety spectrum could share 

with commercial users on an as-needed basis in exchange for the 

upkeep and repair of the system that would not have to be at public expense. I think you, Mr. Gillespie, said you think there are 

ways, particularly in areas where the public safety spectrum will 

not be needed on a constant basis, and that would allow for, obviously, more build-out and also taking some of the costs off the public sector for the maintaining of the equipment and technology. 

I would like to ask if there are others who would have a view 

on that as we are working through trying to write a bill that would 

meet all the needs. 

Mr. KELLY. Obviously, New York is—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. It is different. 

Mr. KELLY.—different. We do have a great need, we believe, for 

a public sector or public safety controlled system. But, obviously, 

in other parts of the country, it is not going to be so. And I think 

the legislation, as I read it, lays out the very strong possibility of 

the excess capacity being made available to the private sector. So 

28 

it seems only logical to me that there will be opportunities there 

and the opportunity, of course, also to fund part of the cost of the 

bill. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Anyone else care to comment? If not, if it is basically the same 

view, then I will pass it to my colleagues. 

[No response.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Senator Boozman? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess one of my frustrations is that we all agree that this needs 

to get done and probably should have already gotten done in the 

sense of having interoperability. We live in a country where it is 

very difficult to protect ourselves against all the challenges that we 

face from a number of different areas, but we need to have the ability to respond once something happens. Again, we just are not able 

to do that. 

So I really do not have any questions right now. I am enjoying 

the discussion. So I will go ahead and defer to somebody else at 

this time and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Warner? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you and the ranking member for your leadership on this 

issue. I look forward to working with you to try to get this done. 

I do have some comments. I will submit my full comments for the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller for your work to make the issue of communications infrastructure for first responders a priority. This issue has languished for 

years and I am hopeful that on the eve of the 10th anniversary of September 11, 

Congress may reach a bipartisan compromise that delivers a nationwide interoperable broadband network for primary use by public safety that responsibly contains 

costs, leverages commercial technology, and ends the practice of building communications systems that fail to deliver on promises of interoperability between local, 

state, and Federal first responders. 

I do have some serious concerns about the true cost of building a new network, 

particularly given that some are advocating for a stand-alone network, which dramatically increases the costs. I also believe that Congress must do the hard work 

of insisting on multiple cost saving measures, including a complete transition of 

narrowband systems to the new broadband network within 10 years. Finally, I think 

Congress does its best work under pressure. I strongly encourage the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to move forward with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the auction of the D Block of 700 MHz so that if Congress has 

not reached consensus within a year, the FCC should auction the spectrum as is 

required under current law. 

29 

Costs 

I remain deeply concerned about the estimated costs of constructing a new network for several reasons-to say nothing of the ongoing costs of operating and maintaining such a network over time. 

Some of you may know that I have spent the last year working with our Republican colleague, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, on long-term deficit reduction efforts. There are many tough choices ahead for our country, given the fiscal realities 

we face today. I have a hard time saying we have to make tough choices everywhere 

in the budget, except for building a new communications network. 

All the cost estimates show that if the D-block is not auctioned, then it becomes 

more expensive to build this new network and much harder to introduce commercial 

technology that meets public safety needs. This is because public safety only has two 

to three million users, at most. That goes up to approximately six million users if 

you include Federal users and others. That’s a far cry from the 90 million users of 

the two largest commercial networks—90 million users each. Public safety is never 

going to be big enough to direct the commercial market in terms of technology or 

the network, so we need to make sure we insist on cost-effective devices and equipment that meet the legitimate needs of first responders. 

It’s a disgrace that we don’t have a nationwide network already. But let’s not 

waste the opportunity to actually deliver a network. It can’t happen if we rely on 

a system based on high-cost, proprietary technology that has failed every promise 

to reach interoperability over the past 30 years. The National Broadband Plan estimated $6.5 billion in capital expenditures under 

the best-case scenario if the D Block is auctioned and network deployment occurred 

during the 4G rollout. Unfortunately, we have missed that boat. Verizon rolled out 

its 4G deployment in 40 cities in December 2010. It is my understanding that 

Verizon did not map its network for public safety network needs, as was originally 

discussed. AT&T has yet to deploy, but without other commercial service providers 

in 700 MHz, you just don’t get the same cost savings when you try to deploy a network like this. 

So, the cost estimate is now $15.7 billion in cap-ex to build a shared network. 

That’s expensive, but it’s a much better deal than the upper estimates-ranging from 

$41 billion to at least $47 billion for a stand-alone network. Frankly, we’re probably 

underestimating those costs if we provide funding for a network, but do little to ensure the money is well-spent. The President’s budget request for FY 2012 included only $10.7 billion for the net- work, and $3 billion of that was to cover the cost of giving away the D-block. We 

know that’s not going to be enough at this point. This is also on top of the $1.5 billion we’ve already spent over the last few years for interoperable communications 

that never materialized. Some of the highlights, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) are as follows: 

• Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program ($968 million in 

FY 2007) 

• COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant Program ($269 million 

from FY 2003–2006) 

• Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program ($200 million from 

FY 2007–2010) 

• Interoperable Communications System, after Hurricane Katrina ($20 million in 

FY 2009) 

These numbers don’t count billions in taxpayer money spent over the past three 

decades for related purposes, including state and local funds for the purchase of devices, because the GAO and others are struggling to even track where we’ve spent 

our money. For instance, when Virginia built the first statewide public safety network several years ago, we spent $5000 per device for first responders. 

All of us have already spent billions of taxpayer dollars at the Federal, state and 

local level for interoperable communications. What do we have to show for it? 

We Need Serious Savings 

If we’re going to move forward-and I think we should try-there are a number of 

cost saving measures Congress should consider. Some of the things we should 

prioritize include: 

• A new governance structure for licenses that gives the states a leading role in 

developing regional interoperability plans, mapping buildout to cover 98 percent 

of the population, and most importantly, creating a competitive process for 

building out the network in different parts of the country, instead of relying on 

a limited pool of companies for buildout. 

30 

• Only building new infrastructure where we lack it, which means we should 

focus on rural areas. Network upgrades, collocation, infrastructure sharing with 

the commercial sector are some of the lower cost options we need to prioritize 

wherever possible. We’ve already spent billions on public safety communications 

infrastructure. We don’t need to recreate the wheel. 

• Permitting licensees to lease excess wireless broadband capacity to the private 

sector to create another funding stream for ongoing O&M for all public safety 

entities, not just big cities. I’m not all that worried about the best first responder technology getting to northern Virginia. I’m worried about rural southwest Virginia. 

• Migrating public safety narrowband networks, including Federal law enforcement, to the new broadband network within 10 years. I would also like to credit 

Rep. Peter King and Sen. John McCain for including limited narrowband migration language in their legislation. I think we can do better in the Senate Commerce Committee. We should set up separate incentive auctions for narrowband 

spectrum within the next 5 to 8 years, as I discussed during last September’s 

hearing. Whatever we’re not able to clear would be auctioned after a few years, 

so we can create an incentive for early adopters of cost-saving technology. We 

can use the revenues for ongoing O&M costs and we’ll save money by not funding two networks. We do not need both a broadband network and a narrowband 

network in perpetuity. If taxpayers aren’t paying for narrowband indefinitely, 

I have a feeling new technologies will emerge much more rapidly than previously expected. 

• Supporting these efforts by requiring interoperability standards for devices and 

network components, including funding for R&D for new technologies like mission-critical voice capabilities. Senator Roger Wicker and I are working on bipartisan legislation—the Next-Generation Public Safety Devices Act-that we believe starts this process, but there’s no pride here. There may be even better 

ways to generate innovation and lower costs—I’d welcome that discussion. 

Finally, Congress has tried and failed to address this issue before. The politics of 

making tough choices on this issue are not easy. But I think there are Republicans 

and Democrats on this Committee who are ready to make good decisions about 

using limited resources. Congress operates best with a deadline. Let’s move the 

NPRM on the auction so that if we can’t reach consensus in a year, we’re not stuck 

in the same place we are today. 

There are no easy choices in the current fiscal environment. I appreciate the 

amount of work the Chairman and Ranking Member have contributed already. I 

stand ready to work with the Committee on possible solutions as we move forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator WARNER. First of all, I want to also welcome my good 

friend, the Governor from Delaware, and correct his one comment. 

We worked on the creation of wireless networks together. I made 

a lot of the money. He did a lot of the work. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. It was a great working relationship. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. And it is a real tribute to know Jack Markell 

to see the great progress he has made in his both private sector 

career and public sector career. 

And let me also state that I have a number of colleagues here 

from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and we have had robust conversations, Mr. Chairman, about this issue. 

Let me put at the front end of my comments that I share, as 

every member on this committee does and like the Senator from 

Arkansas has mentioned, we need a dedicated, fully interoperable 

public safety network that takes advantage of advanced technology. 

Now, how we get there ought to be a robust debate. 

And let me just add one other comment. In my previous tenure 

as Governor, we in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I think at that 

point leading in the country, put our money where our mouth was, 

31 

north of a $400 million investment, in creating that interoperable 

network for our state law enforcement. 

And I look forward to working with the Chairman to get to 

where we need to be on S. 28, but I do want to make a couple comments. 

I am very concerned on the cost issue. The National Broadband Plan outlined that this dedicated network would cost about $6.5 

billion if it had been done in conjunction with the build-out of the 

4G network. That is not going to happen. The costs, by the time 

this would get rolled out even with this dedicated source, an estimate at about $15 billion just on capital expenditure. And that is 

based on a shared network. If we are not to do some level of shared 

network, we are probably talking in most estimates in a $40 billion 

area. And the President’s proposal puts about $10 billion out on 

this. 

My concern is how do we make sure that, if we are going to do 

a D Block allocation, even if we are going to do a straight public 

safety D Block allocation, in the days when you will see us constantly cutting back, find the capital, particularly if it is coming 

from other spectrum reallocations or other spectrum auctions, to 

make sure that we build out a system. I have a concern—and I 

have shared this with the chairman—that we may build out the 

New Yorks, the Las Vegases, the northern Virginias, maybe the 

Charlestons and the Wheelings. But how do we make sure that 

rural communities where the cost level of getting that kind of full 

system built out is going to be put in place? And I really think we 

need to drill down on this and work with our partners in public 

safety so that we are all going into this with open eyes if we do 

a straight allocation of the D Block. Point number one. 

Point number two. 

And again, it is great to see the Governor here. 

We have talked about interoperability forever, and I have made 

the comment before this committee before. It is much easier to get 

Republicans and Democrats to agree than it is to get radio engineers to agree on actually sharing spectrum in an interoperable 

way. I am concerned. And if we look back on Congress’s history, 

since 9/11, there have been five or six efforts already where we 

have tried to promote interoperability. And frankly, we have not 

gotten there. So if we are going to move forward with the plan, the 

Chairman’s proposal, we need to, I think, even strengthen further 

the interoperability requirements. 

And when we think about governance, we need to make sure 

that our local partners and our state partners, in terms of collocation and in terms of build-out, all have skin in the game. Again, 

shared tower space, shared other things, terribly, terribly important. I know my time is about up. 

And let me just add two quick comments. I am not going to get 

to a question. I apologize. I have got other members. But I feel a 

little passionate on these issues. 

Just to stir the pot a little bit more, I believe in the narrow band, 

the notion of trying to migrate existing law enforcement narrow 

band spectrum into broadband over a defined period of time and 

if we migrate, giving some of those dollars back to law enforcement 

in terms of an operating and maintenance budget so that even if 

32 

we get the capex done, no network is ever finished. There are always going to be upgrades, and we are going to need to make sure 

that there is some dedicated source other than coming back to Congress on a regular basis. I know you do not want to give up your 

narrow band, and I know you do not want to migrate. I know you 

want to look at some of your other spectrum. But if you can get 

a piece of that in terms of long-term operation and maintenance, 

it is terribly important. 

So I look forward to working with my colleagues from Virginia 

and the Chairman on getting this right. I do also think we ought 

to go ahead and start the clock ticking. This stuff always takes 

longer. 

And I do believe on basic cost structure—final comment—that 

there are different needs in public safety, but technology is changing and the market in public safety will never approach a commercial market. And the cost differential is so great. We have got to 

find some ways to level that. And I think the chairman has got 

some ideas there. I think some of us have got some other ideas, 

and we have got to get this done in a timely way as we approach 

9/11 so we can show real, tangible progress and not continue to 

avoid the hard choices that we need to make. 

I really thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this 

issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

I simply want to apologize to you. This aviation safety, the whole 

question of how do you deal with fatigue, and all kinds of things, 

and a modern air traffic control system which we do not have in 

this country, digitalized, the only one in the industrialized world 

that does not have it. That is what we are debating now, and Senator Hutchison and I have to do that on the floor. I desperately 

apologize to you. We did not know this bill was coming up when 

we set this hearing. So I want to apologize to you. 

Senator Udall is going to stand in for me, and Senator Blunt are 

you as going to stand in? 

Senator BLUNT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Please accept my apologies and thanks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Thank you. 

I think the next in line is Senator Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all very much for your testimony today. It has, I 

think, been very enlightening. 

I would like to direct a question, if I might, to you, Chief Gillespie. In your testimony, you mentioned that public safety must 

have control over the network. I wonder if maybe you could talk 

a little bit more how you would see the administration of that sort 

of a network. 

33 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Thank you, Senator. Well, at this particular juncture, I am going to leave the governance issues to the folks that 

have more letters behind their name than I do. I think it is important that we do have control of that. There are a number of different models out there, and I think we will find the right one as 

we wind this up. The less different licensures we have out there 

I think the better, but the general governance at this point—it is 

more important to me as a fire chief out on the streets to make 

sure that we have this available to us than how it is governed. 

Senator THUNE. Under any circumstance, could you envision a 

public/private partnership that could manage such a network in a 

manner that meets the needs of first responders? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. I think we have to look at all the options certainly. But I have got to tell you from the public safety side of this 

thing, if we do not have the control, whether it be by the number 

of votes or by just control in general, I think we are always going 

to be at odds with when and how we have access to a system. 

Senator THUNE. You mentioned also in your testimony and also 

in follow-up on some of the things the Senator from Virginia asked 

about—I represent a very rural State. South Dakota is a state that 

is made up of rural areas. Could you expand a little bit about some 

of the remarks that you made in your testimony about how this 

public safety broadband network could have positive results in 

rural America? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Certainly. Well, first of all, I think that is a great 

opportunity for our public and private partnerships using facilities 

that are already in place and adding facilities as the network is 

built out. 

I am from the West also. I spent most of my career in Washington State, and I have been mobilized on a number of wildland 

type fires. So I have worked in very urban settings and worked in 

very rural and wilderness settings. 

The ability to have the information at your fingertips, as people 

talked about, that folks in the teenage years have right at their fingertips right now—to have that available to our first responders 

working out in remote areas like that is just extremely important. 

We know that one of our largest loss of lives in the fire service has 

been in the wilderness areas responding to wildland fires. If they 

had the technology at their fingertips that had the weather information, had the fire movement, all of that in the commander’s 

viewpoint right now in real time, they might be able to better respond to those things. 

If we have a medical incident in a very remote area, in a farming 

community in your state or in mine, then we could have the ability 

of the responders that are responding to this incident to have 

linked in with the terminus where they are going to be taking 

these patients to the hospital, have them linked in all the way into 

the hospital because sometimes we are talking about not minutes 

but hours transporting these people into medical care facilities that 

can deal with their issues. And they can work with the doctors that 

are there, making sure that the doctor sees the EKG that they see, 

the condition of the patient. They could actually have a video of the 

patient as they are coming in, seeing that information going back 

34 

and forth. The responders could have the doctor right there working with the team inside the hospital. 

So I think those are just a couple of quick examples where that 

would be a great opportunity for us to work that. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Hanna, I appreciate the ongoing debate 

about auctioning versus allocating the D Block to first responders. 

If the D Block is ultimately auctioned, what restrictions should be 

placed on this auction to ensure that first responders would have 

priority access in times of an emergency? 

Mr. HANNA. Well, I will make clear that this answer is definitely 

my opinion and certainly not representing anybody else. 

I think envisioned in the broadband plan—and even going back 

to the last attempt to have an auction on this spectrum, it was always envisioned, I believe, that there would be a hook in the D 

Block portion of this that would have a fundamental requirement 

that the D Block winner have a relationship with a public safety 

partner. To the extent that that hook goes outside the D Block, I 

mean, I think that is something that certainly is open for debate 

as well if other carriers choose to provide this access. But I think 

having that hook in the D Block, it certainly will impact the auction value of that spectrum, but that has been envisioned from day 

one. And it goes back, I say, to the last attempt we had to make 

this thing work. 

Senator THUNE. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all very much. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Just to remind all the Committee members, the rule we are functioning in, in terms of order—this committee functions in early 

bird, time of arrival, regardless of party. So we are following that 

rule. So, Senator Blunt, I am going to recognize myself now since 

I am on that list and move along here. 

Thank you all very much for your testimony. I want to say to the 

Chairman—I know he is not here, but I really look forward to 

working with him on S. 28. I think it is a good, solid piece of legislation. It has many, many good things in it. 

The thing that concerns me is what was mentioned by Senator 

Warner, Senator Thune, and some of the other Senators here: rural 

areas and how we deal with rural areas. And in New Mexico, we 

are a border state, and four states are along the border with Mexico. You obviously have border states along the northern border 

with Canada. And what is going down on the border right now are 

things like drug smuggling, human trafficking, many other illegal 

activities that are growing concerns for ranchers and other residents. And so we get ourselves into a situation on the border, and 

there are drug cartels operating on the other side of the border. 

And some of that is flowing in. A rancher was killed recently in Arizona as a result of violence, I think, flowing across the border. 

So I guess what I am wondering is how we work the border into 

this situation. And my question is how should a new public safety 

network be optimized to meet the needs of those living along the 

nation’s border with Mexico in light of the problems I mentioned? 

Any one of you can jump in. 

Mr. KELLY. About ten years ago, I was the U.S. Customs Commissioner before there was a customs and border protection. So I 

35 

am very aware of some of the issues and concerns of the border 

communities. As a matter of fact, the problems have only exacerbated in ten years’ time. 

I think it is sort of a classic situation, spoken about by the Chief 

before, where you have events that can happen in an area where 

multiple jurisdiction personnel could respond because there is no 

one jurisdiction that has enough personnel for major events. And 

that is where I think the benefit of this system comes in. It allows 

for sharing of information. Some of the examples the chief gave I 

think are appropriate. You can use aviation assets to send video 

back to a central command or share with other agencies, I think 

sharing of information between local entities and the Federal Government. We need more of that. I believe this is the vehicle that 

will enable us to do precisely that. 

I can think of many examples of sending forensic evidence, for 

instance, to a lab from a remote area. Chemical, biological, radiation detection equipment findings can be sent instantaneously to 

many partners. Any database that needs to be accessed can be 

accessed by multiple agencies. I think sharing is the operative word 

when we talk about this system, as far as law enforcement is concerned, and I think along the border sharing of information and the 

sharing of resources is as much an issue now if not more so than 

ever before. 

Governor MARKELL. Several of you have raised the issue of the 

rural states, and I think it comes up in connection with the border 

issue as well. 

One thing that I think is important for you to understand is, at 

least in the President’s proposal, he suggests investing $5 billion 

for rural networks separate from public safety. But the reason I 

think that is important is because many of you have talked about 

the potential public/private partnership. That is a very clear place 

where much of the expense in building out a network has to do 

with construction of towers and some of that kind of infrastructure. 

And there is certainly an opportunity there for the public and private sectors to participate and share. 

The broader issue that has been raised a couple times—Senator 

Thune brought it up again with respect to the kind of opportunity 

for public/private collaboration. The challenge is that the incentives 

are so different on the public and private sides. And so on the public side, we all want to make sure that there is build-out in all 

parts of the country so that your rural constituents can be served 

as well. And not surprisingly, the private sector folks will be more 

likely to build where the density is greatest and where the demand 

is going to be greatest, which is why I think there are tremendous 

opportunities for a public/private collaboration and partnership, but 

I also think it is very important that it is the public side that be 

overall responsible. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for those answers. 

Senator Blunt, why do we not come to you now for questioning? 

36 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BLUNT. All right. Well, thank you all for being here. I 

was in an Intel meeting. I wanted to be here for this and I do not 

want to recreate a lot of the discussion that has already happened. 

But in this whole area of the spectrum, we continue to think, 

among other things, that people who have spectrum can use less 

and less of it. And I am really wondering how much we need to 

reserve and how much we can afford to build out. I mean, one of 

the ways we would finance this, Mr. Hanna, I am told is that we 

would ask people who have been allocated spectrum to give up 

some of the spectrum they have. And what I am wondering is why 

have we allocated more spectrum to the private sector than we now 

think they may need, but we still think that the allocation to the 

public sector needs to be as big as we thought it needed to be a 

few years ago. What we do not want to wind up with here is a lot 

of allocated spectrum that we cannot develop. Whatever we need 

to do to serve the rural areas—I think we all understand the need 

to do that. 

But, Mr. Hanna, what is your sense of how we could have this 

paid for by other people giving up part of the spectrum that we 

have decided they do not need and we still think we need all we 

have allocated to the D Block for the public effort? 

Mr. HANNA. Senator, there has been a lot of discussion about incentive auctions, reclaiming spectrum, and for the most part, I 

think that the focus has been on broadcast spectrum, so returning 

spectrum from the broadcast community, not necessarily from—I 

have not seen any carriers offering up spectrum for public safety. 

So I think most of this will either be federally owned spectrum or 

the broadcast spectrum. 

Certainly through this last year, there was major discussion 

about the country has a spectrum crisis, and obviously people pay 

billions of dollars. So they see value in that. 

There is certainly opportunity to raise a significant amount of 

money through spectrum auctions. I think the unknown at this 

stage is exactly how much that is going to be. If we did it three 

years or four years ago, it would be one value. If we did it a year 

and a half ago, there would be a very different value based on what 

is happening in the economy. So to a degree, we are venturing out, 

committing money based on speculation of what we think auctions 

will bring in. And I think they will bring in a great deal of money. 

No question about that. 

Senator BLUNT. Governor, in your State, have you got all of the 

public safety people now where they can communicate with each 

other from whatever the highway patrol would be, which is what 

we call it in Missouri, and I think what that is called in Delaware, 

to other areas? 

Governor MARKELL. We do. Right. We built one of the first interoperable systems. But what it does not have is the robust communications potential that a broadband and contiguous spectrum offer 

together. So that means everything from if a paramedic arrives at 

a scene and can literally download video to the doctor at the emergency room or to have a fire fighter walk into a building and have 

the plans sort of right there in front of him on the screen. 

37 

So there are really two huge benefits. One has to do with interoperability. We are a small state. We border on Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. And so right now the interoperability between our agencies and those states—it is really a patchwork. 

And Senator Warner said, I think very appropriately, that one of 

the great difficulties that this industry has had over time is getting 

radio frequency engineers to agree with each other in terms of a 

whole range of issues. And one of the opportunities that you have 

with this piece of legislation, if you are talking about a nationwide 

block, you can deal with some of those types of governance issues. 

Like the chief, I am going to stay away from any specific suggestions in terms of governance, but I think what you have is the potential to really ameliorate many of those potential issues by authorizing this in one block. 

Senator BLUNT. And currently are we able to share any of these 

examples that really the three of you have given on what is already 

developed privately on the spectrum? The information to the emergency room. Is there some reason that cannot be sent now? Commissioner? Anybody that wants to answer that would be fine. 

I mean, we have got all these things that we would like to be 

able to do. What I am asking is is there some reason we cannot 

do those on the developed spectrum already. Are you blocked out 

of that? Is this too sensitive to send across that? Is there anything 

keeping you from doing that now as opposed on the D Block that 

is not funded and developed? Commissioner? 

Mr. KELLY. We have what we call an ICE 1 system in New York 

City that can do some of this. However, it does not penetrate buildings, for example. This is, obviously, a significant restriction for us. 

We want to be able to have responding police officers get, for instance, a bank robbery suspect. We want to get that picture out immediately. We cannot do that as yet. We are limited in terms of 

broadband capacity, I am told. And there is a whole series of initiatives that we would like to put in place that experts tell me we just 

cannot do because of the narrowness of the band that we have now. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, I am interested in being able to do all 

those things. I am also interested in figuring out the way that we 

are most likely to be able to get that network in place, whether we 

get it in place with public money quicker or we get in place with 

private development with assured access. Senator Warner and I 

have been talking about that and others. It is a critically important 

issue. And to have all of you here today and to have the people 

backing you up in this hearing room is meaningful to us. But we 

want to have a system that we can use and as quick as we use it. 

Chairman I have used up my time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator 

Blunt. 

It is good to be here with all these great and renowned witnesses. 

I have to tell you I am taking over the chair here from Senator 

Rockefeller who is significantly taller than me, and so my feet do 

not touch the ground, but I am trying to look mature. 

38 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I first wanted to just talk about why I am 

so interested in this. I head up the 9–1–1 Caucus along with Senator Burr. Also, my own experience with this came from my years 

as a prosecutor and two tragedies in our state. 

The first was when a police officer was killed in St. Paul, Minnesota, and he was killed by someone who got away. And there was 

a huge chase. And literally we had six or seven different radios, 

multiple walkie-talkies, and telephones that were connecting different departments and helicopters and other people as they chased 

him down. And it was simply unacceptable. 

Then you fast-forward to the tragedy of our 35W bridge collapse 

where since then we have made many upgrades especially in Hennepin County where I worked under the leadership of Sheriff 

McAllen. And as you know, that eight-lane bridge right in the middle of the Mississippi River, 55 cars in the water, and sadly while 

13 people died, many more would have died if we did not have the 

kind of system we had in place to bring in emergency personnel 

and get people there to rescue people in the water. So that was a 

tale of things working well from an emergency coordination perspective. 

And that is why I am so interested in moving this along, and I 

am supportive of the work that Senator Rockefeller has done. I understand that the Fraternal Order of Police is now supporting this 

effort as well, and I think you will see a real interest in this in the 

Senate. 

Now, from the 911 perspective, Commissioner Kelly, I want to 

ask you about New York’s Real Time Crime Center and the support 

that is offered to your investigators and how you think we might 

incorporate into a national model using some of the work that you 

have done there. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, thank you. We are very proud of our Real Time 

Crime Center. It really is the first in the country. 

We were probably the biggest user of whiteout and carbon paper 

in 2002. So we created a data warehouse and we put a lot of information into it. And we put on top of that data warehouse this Real 

Time Crime Center which is staffed by detectives 24 hours a day. 

And it gets information out into the hands of investigators when 

a crime happens, a murder, a robbery. We deal with a recidivist 

criminal population. So the quicker we can make an arrest, the 

more likely we are preventing further crimes. So we put out 

victimology. We put out 911 call information, up to 10 years of 

that. We have the history in a particular location. And it gives us 

the ability to very quickly check things such as tattoo files and information, both publicly available information and proprietary information. 

But this system that we are talking about now will enable us to 

share that, to share it on a regional basis with other law enforcement entities. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It is the tie-in—— 

Mr. KELLY. That is the tie-in with the D Block. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Burr and I are reintroducing the 

Next Generation 9–1–1 Preservation Act which also fits into this 

and looks at how we can have better access to all. People are not 

39 

just calling in with their emergency calls anymore. They are 

texting. For instance, Mr. Gillespie, you can send blueprints to fire 

fighters at a building ready to go in. You could actually get them 

the blueprints to that building. And looking at how we can update 

the 911 system, and that is what this bill does, complements the 

work that is being done on the spectrum bill, to make sure that we 

are updating the 911 system. 

Do you think that would be helpful to update some of that technology as well? 

Mr. KELLY. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Very good. 

Governor Markell, I have a question about Delaware’s experience 

with developing a statewide public safety network and what insights you have to offer here in terms of how we can develop a national public safety network that would work better. 

Governor MARKELL. Well, I mean, it has been extraordinarily 

helpful in Delaware to have one network organized at the state 

level. As you know, neither crime nor emergencies stop at either 

the city boundary or the county boundary, and the idea of having 

everybody on one network has been tremendous. 

That being said, the idea of also being on the same network as 

neighboring states, as having the more robust communications capability that I mentioned earlier, we see nothing but up-side in the 

proposed legislation. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

I think Senator Warner has a second round of questions here. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I will try 

to actually get to a question this time. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Maybe I should say your first round. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Just one other quick little point, though. Maximum public safety devices—my estimates—would anybody disagree with the maximum universe of public safety devices out 

there, even with full build-out, $2 million to $3 million? Anybody 

going to disagree with that? I did not see anybody in the back nodding. 

We do have to recognize that we build out on the commercial side 

right now robust, interoperable, pretty darned good handsets on a 

worldwide market that have consumer prices of a couple hundred 

dollars, many, unfortunately, still in our public safety market. 

Now, there are clearly durability requirements that are higher. We 

have bought radios that cost $5,000 for a handset. 

I agree with Governor Markell. The D Block allocation will give 

the ability to build out a network in a truly more interoperable 

way. But that delta, unless we can find a way to better public/private partner, is not going to diminish greatly. And I do get concerned that the construction costs of this network are much higher 

than what has been built in and baked into the plan, and that an 

ongoing operating and maintenance piece of that is going to be continuing to upgrade your units. 

Let me do get to a question, though, and this is for the Governor 

and for everyone on the panel. If we were to do some allocation like 

this that did not include an auction, how do we make sure, for your 

own long-term interests, that everybody has got some skin in the 

40 

game? And Governor, I know you cannot commit the Governors Association or commit your localities. But the notion, again as you 

well know better than I, of collocation—and every local community 

in Delaware and every local community in Virginia and in Missouri 

and in Minnesota all see their water towers and their tower sites 

as revenue sources right now. But could we work together on something where they will all have skin in the game? Would the public 

safety community be willing to say we will do collocation? We will 

do build-outs together. Will you do narrow band migration and 

then take some of that spectrum, and if you got a piece of the pie, 

in terms of ongoing operating, would you take—I think Senator 

Blunt has asked some of the right questions. 

But we do have spectrum in public safety that, under any kind 

of modern utilization, is not fully utilized to the maximum value. 

We have voice spectrum that could still have voice communications, 

but that could be done more efficiently. There are ways. 

What I guess I would ask the Governor and then the public safety community is will you be willing, if the Federal Government 

were to take on this enormous commitment of this huge construction cost build-out and give up the revenue source that would be 

generated by kind of a shared spectrum auction? Will you put skin 

in the game as well? 

Governor MARKELL. Well, first of all, Senator, I appreciate the 

context of the question which is, of course, states across the country have very difficult financial situations. 

That being said, we understand—certainly when it comes to public safety, I think many people would argue that protecting the 

public is at the very top of what we as governments are expected 

to do. We have demonstrated for a very long time now that we had 

skin in the game, whether it is, in the case of Delaware, the construction of the interoperable network over the last 12 or 13 years. 

And of course, in this business, that is going to require upgrades 

over some period of time. 

We believe that actually this program and this initiative could 

end up saving us money. I mean, first of all, the President’s plan 

does allocate a significant portion, billions of dollars, specifically toward the build- out of this network. There is additional funding 

that goes to the rural piece. And again, as I mentioned earlier, we 

think that whether it is the sharing of towers or other infrastructure, that that is one great place for public/private partnership. But 

I do think that in the spirit of all of us trying to figure out how 

to pay for this, that the idea of some kind of public/private collaboration and partnership is certainly something that should be on the 

table. 

Where I have an issue is when the conversation gets flipped and 

the question is what about a private network that gives priority access to public users. And I think the real challenge there again— 

it is not just a matter of priority access. It is about where is the 

network going to be built out because the private sector has much 

less of an incentive to build out in places where there is going to 

be less private sector demand. 

Senator WARNER. Unless the guaranty of the grant of the spectrum had build-out requirements in it—coverage requirements. 

41 

Governor MARKELL. But I think again whether it is the money 

from the incentive auctions specifically focused on this network, 

whether it is funding specifically for the rural piece, whether it is 

the necessity of some kind of state investment—and states are 

going to have to, over any period of time, continue to have to invest 

in their own public safety networks, along potentially with some 

kind of private/public partnership—it seems to me that there are 

several potential sources. 

Senator WARNER. Again, I apologize, Madame Chair, but my 

time has expired. But I would like to include the notion of working 

with local governments to make sure that siting locations and other 

things are done at the least possible price and cost. 

And if we could just get a quick comment from the public safety 

colleagues whether they would be willing to say that you would 

look at migration of narrow band, other kind of spectrum that may 

not be fully utilized to make sure that if some of that was then better deployed, if resources that came from that could then go back 

to operating or building out this D Block. 

Mr. KELLY. It simply makes sense, Senator. Sure, we would be 

willing to do that. 

In New York—a rough analogy—we have a Lower Manhattan coordination center where we have cameras and license plate readers 

that protect the lower part of Manhattan. In that facility, we have 

private sector stakeholders with New York City police officers and 

other government folks working together, working collaboratively. 

We are open to working with the private sector. They are very important to help us protect the city. 

We have another organization called NYPD Shield where we 

have 7,500 private sector entities that work with us. 

So we need the private sector. We know we have to work in partnership. 

Senator WARNER. Chief, would you agree that potentially even 

reallocating, moving around some other spectrum that may not be 

used, if you are going to get some great—— 

Mr. KELLY. I think if it is available, it makes sense. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GILLESPIE. Senator, obviously, we are very interested in the 

government’s model and that we have full access and that we decide when we have access and when we need it. That certainly is 

important. As the technology becomes available to make some sort 

of migration, it would be foolish for us not to look at those things, 

obviously. 

We have a specific need not only in the fire departments but certainly in the police agencies around the country also for simplex or 

talk-around or one-to-many and one-to-one, those sorts of conversations that take place in the area you are talking about. We have 

that need and as the technology becomes available, certainly I 

think those are things we could look at. 

Senator WARNER. Other existing spectrum could be looked at. 

Mr. GILLESPIE. I think we could look at it, certainly. 

Senator WARNER. I will not put the migration of all the existing 

narrowband into broadband under a ten-year frame. You are not 

saying you are endorsing that, are you? 

Mr. GILLESPIE. No. No, please do not put me there. 

Senator WARNER. Sorry, Madame Chair. 

42 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you have any more questions really, 

Senator Warner? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. 

Senator Blunt, any closing comments? Anything? 

Senator BLUNT. Well, I do think our goal here should be getting 

this system working, getting it working across the country, the 

ability to communicate within a state. As the governor said, these 

things do not know county lines or city lines. They also do not 

know state lines. But I am particularly concerned that we do not 

allocate a lot of spectrum that nobody can afford to develop particularly prior to exhausting every other avenue we might take so that 

we have full access to develop spectrum, that we understand the 

public safety aspect of that. And what I would hate to see is that 

five years from now we are still saying, OK, we have got this big 

block of allocated spectrum to public safety, but it is really undeveloped still because our needs are now. And as Senator Warner mentioned, be sure that we are maximizing the publicly available technology at increasingly lower cost so that we are seeing how much 

of that is transferrable to the true public safety that each of you 

and so many people in this audience represent. 

So I think this is a decision. We need to figure out how to move 

forward in the way that produces the best possible result in the 

short term. The medium term in this area is so hard to plan for 

because everything changes so quickly, and saying, well, we may 

need this 10 years from now or 15 years from now—in any discussions I have had on any of these issues, none of the challenges 

have ever been anywhere near what anybody thought they were 

going to be, and the opportunities have been significantly greater 

than anybody thought they were going to be. 

So we want to work together and continue to talk with everybody 

that is represented here today to be sure that we get these tools 

available—at least my goal would be to get these tools available to 

you in the quickest possible way and the best possible way rather 

than continuing to reserve things that do not get developed. I think 

this hearing was an important part of that and, Madame Chairman, I am glad to be part of it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. 

I want to thank you, Commissioner, for your good work and, Governor, Chief, and Mr. Hanna, for being here. I think you see from 

the high rate of attendance, the number of Senators that showed 

up here today, there is a lot of interest in this issue. But I do remember us having a hearing on this—I have only been here 4 

years—the first year I was here. And I think there is some impatience, which I feel, a sense of urgency on the public safety side 

that we move forward in this area. 

And I just wanted to note before I got here, I was at a Judiciary 

hearing. The issue of rural service as well was mentioned. It is 

more than just New York City, as you know. As you look at the 

region that you want to share your information with, Commissioner, especially some of the rural areas in our state have had 

some real issues with interoperability and getting the information 

that they need. So I am really hopeful by the number of people inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:19 Dec 09, 2011 Jkt 071532 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71532.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
43 

terested in this, in Senator Rockefeller’s work. People are pledging 

here to work on a solution that we can move ahead. 

And I want to thank you all for being here and let you know that 

we will keep the record open for the next two weeks for submissions and questions and other things. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(45) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on public safety communication. As we all know, in less than a year we will observe the tenth anniversary of 

9–11 and I am concerned that we haven’t yet realized the goal of establishing a nationwide interoperable public safety wireless broadband communications network. 

Such a network is vital to effectively responding in times of regional or national 

emergencies because of the enhanced mission-critical services it will provide to first 

responders. This network, if properly designed and built, will provide greater safety 

and protection to all citizens and, because of that, is long overdue. 

The need for this network cannot be overstated but my concern is compounded 

by the ongoing debate regarding the fate of 10 megahertz (MHz) of 700 MHz wireless spectrum known as the ‘‘D-Block.’’ This issue has unfortunately overshadowed 

deliberation over the future of this critical infrastructure. 

Last fall, this committee held a hearing similar to the one today and it made clear 

the importance of public safety having enough network capacity to respond to emergency events. But no matter how much spectrum is utilized for this nationwide network, it will not be effective unless we also address several key areas such as adequate funding for the network, proper planning and governance to build and administer the network, and seamless coverage and interoperability to ensure undisrupted 

communications. 

I raise the last two points because the lack of interoperability and coverage are 

not necessarily remedied by additional spectrum but more directly associated with 

equipment and infrastructure deployment as well as planning and governance. The 

inability of public safety officials to effectively communicate with each other has 

been a constant problem it was even cited as a major problem in the 9/11 Commission report. And the lack of nationwide service coverage, which precludes responders 

from communicating at all—is a difficulty that continues to plague rural areas 

across the country. So I hope we do not focus solely on one aspect such as spectrum 

when what is required is a multi-faceted approach to comprehensively address the 

challenges we face. 

We also must closely examine how we will fund the construction and maintenance 

of the wireless broadband network because the funding challenges that exist are 

compounded by the fiscal constraints our nation and most states face. Current law 

requires the Commission to auction the D Block but if it is directly allocated, then 

approximately $3 billion in auction revenue would be lost—these funds could be 

used to assist in the construction of this critical asset. 

Furthermore, the Commission concluded a public safety network would require ‘‘a substantial investment’’—with initial estimates between $12 and $16 billion for construction and operating costs over ten years, which dwarfs previous federal funding 

for public safety communications. If public safety were to rely on a stand-alone network, construction and operating costs would most likely exceed $30 billion over the 

same period. 

Also, no amount of spectrum and funding will be effective without sufficient plan- ning. A clear example is with interoperability more than $7 billion of taxpayer 

money has been spent over the past 7 years without proper planning and coordination. And as a result, only incremental improvements have been made—many experts state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved. In addressing this issue, we must balance providing the public safety community with the 

tools and resources it needs to effectively respond to emergencies with our fiscal responsibilities to taxpayers to ensure their hard-earned money is used wisely and responsibly. And without proper planning, we could expend more money without improving the safety and security of citizens in times of emergency or putting them 

at risk due to incomplete and disparate systems. 

I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this critical 

issue but I do have some outstanding concerns about the current draft of the legislation, which I would like to work with you and your staff to address. I believe making 

46 

these corrections will improve the legislation to ensure public safety has sufficient 

resources to build and operate this critical asset effectively. 

I have been calling for comprehensive spectrum reform for almost two years. Last 

Congress, Senator Kerry and I introduced comprehensive spectrum legislation to 

modernize our nation’s spectrum planning, management, and coordination activities 

and fix fundamental deficiencies that exist. It is my intent to reintroduce this legislation or some variation of it this Congress to continue to advance the legislative 

discourse on spectrum reform. 

The problem we are facing is growing demand for spectrum by both non-federal 

and federal users in order to enhance the services provided to consumers and citizens. To meet the ever-increasing demand, users have to utilize existing spectrum 

more efficiently and we also have to develop more robust spectrum management 

models that involve sharing and reuse of this finite resource. Because it is not just 

public safety that is calling for more spectrum, it is the wireless industry, utilities, 

and numerous government agencies. So I hope we will have an additional hearing 

on spectrum reform to discuss this issue important to meeting the future needs of 

all spectrum users. 

But in regard to this hearing’s topic, this nation has for too long lacked a nationwide interoperable public safety network, so the quickest and most feasible path to 

achieve that goal must be found. Let’s not allow the tenth anniversary of 9/11 to 

pass while we are no closer to protecting our nation than we are now. 

Given the importance of this issue, I look forward to working with my colleagues 

in Congress to ensure public safety officials have the resources and necessary communications network to effectively respond to any future emergency events this nation faces. 

Thank you. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO

HON. RAYMOND W. KELLY

Question 1. The Wireless initiative that the President has put forward is a plan 

that is worth strong consideration. As I stated in a forum that I held in Missouri 

last year with FCC Chairman, it is paramount that rural and underserved areas 

have access to broadband. The President has stated that his plan would reduce the 

deficit by $9.6 billion and that about $28 billion would be raised through incentive 

auctions. However, I want to get a better handle on these calculations. How are we 

determining that $28 billion would be raised? 

Answer. As you state, the President has stated that these saving would occur and that $28 billion would be raised in incentive auctions. These are his figures and I 

respectfully suggest that the President’s budget experts are the most appropriate 

people to explain the process by which they arrived at these budgetary numbers. 

Question 2. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much spectrum would be voluntarily given up for auction—do we have assurances that we can actually reach 

this figure? 

Answer. Since LTE is a new technology and public safety communications are 

mission critical, public safety agencies including the NYPD are understandably reluctant to specify an exact amount of spectrum that they would be willing to give 

up at this time. However, I hasten to add that if public safety’s needs are met by 

the 700 MHz public safety broadband network, there would be no reason, technically or economically, to retain large blocks of spectrum in other bands. In particular, public safety data networks now operating on 25 Khz channels would be the 

first to be replaced by a public safety broadband wireless network. 

Question 3. Conversely, I have concerns about how we would pay for a public safety network under the FCC’s plan. The estimate is that we can raise $3 billion by 

auctioning off the D Block. I realize that this would be a different type of auction 

than what was attempted a few years ago but, given that that effort failed, how (do) 

we know we’re going to get $3 billion? 

Answer. As you know, I am not in favor of auctioning the D Block. I am in favor 

of assigning the D Block to public safety and auctioning off alternative spectrum. 

The D Block auction failed for many reasons, but one of the primary reasons was 

a requirement that the D Block auction winner partner with public safety and build 

a network to public safety standards which are much more stringent than commercial standards, and provide service nationwide including in areas where there were 

insufficient customers to support the network and still provide the network owners 

with a positive return on their investment. 

Our opposition to the D Block auction and desire to have it allocated to public 

safety are driven by two basic concerns. The NYPD has consistently maintained 

47 

1See NYC Filing under FCC Docket 06–229 posted 02/23/2010 entitled ‘‘700 MHz Broadband 

Public Safety Applications And Spectrum Requirements’’ available on the FCC website 

(FCC.gov). 

that the D Block will be required to support the broadband needs of public safety, 

particularly if these requirements include the eventual migration of mission critical 

voice to the public safety broadband wireless network. The City of New York submitted a white paper to the FCC supporting this contention.1 The requirement for 

contiguous spectrum is important since LTE increases in spectrum efficiency as the 

channel bandwidth increases. Doubling the channel bandwidth more than doubles 

the channel capacity. This is the essence of broadband and is one of the reasons that 

it is more spectrally efficient than narrowband. The wider the channel bandwidth 

the more spectrally efficient LTE becomes. The D Block is the only available spectrum that is adjacent to the public safety broadband 700 MHz spectrum. Furthermore, we maintain that if the D Block were to be auctioned to a commercial entity, 

the resulting network deployed would cause interference to the adjacent public safety 700 MHz broadband network, decreasing its capacity. 

By auctioning alternative spectrum without the restrictions imposed by the previous D Block auction, we believe that the market would react more positively. Spectrum is a limited resource. All commercial wireless network providers realize this 

and they also realize that demand for broadband wireless service will increase over 

time. Since the D Block auction, Long Term Evolution (LTE) has become the technology of choice among commercial wireless providers worldwide, thus reducing 

technology risk. 

Long Term Evolution (LTE) is a very spectrally efficient technology. It approaches 

the theoretical limit. As more spectrum is auctioned, less remains; particularly in 

the frequency bands preferred by commercial wireless network operators. The scarcity of appropriate spectrum coupled with the reduced technology risk, the removal 

of previous auction restrictions and the anticipated accelerated demand for wireless 

broadband services are all factors that will combine to increase the commercial 

value of the remaining spectrum on the open market. 

Question 4. If we donate more spectrum to public safety agencies, can you give 

me any assurances that interoperability between different jurisdictions would work? 

And that you would have economies of scale to get good technology at good cost? 

Answer. Interoperability has been elusive since the early days of public safety 

radio. In the early years, the primary impediment to interoperability was that public safety agencies operated on different frequency bands. Later, digital systems 

were introduced. Although these systems provided many features and benefits, they 

also introduced an additional obstacle to interoperability; the digital systems were 

incompatible since they were developed by companies in competition with each 

other. Although APCO has strived to resolves some of these issues, the fact remains 

that many public safety agencies lack the ability to communicate with each other 

directly. 

One of the primary benefits of the public safety broadband wireless network will 

be native interoperability, that is, the ability to communicate directly without the 

aid of intermediary devices such as gateways or cross band repeaters. The 700 MHz 

public safety broadband wireless network will go a long way to solving the interoperability dilemma, by adapting a common air interface (LTE) and a common frequency band (700 MHz). 

Since commercial wireless networks will also use LTE technology, device costs will 

decrease. Public safety will benefit from research and development funded by commercial interests. Ultimately, when the vision of a public safety wireless broadband 

network supporting video, voice and data is realized, public safety will be able to 

satisfy its wireless requirements using a single network. One of the major cost factors in the current pubic safety radio environment is the high cost of proprietary 

subscriber units manufactured specifically for public safety. The FCC’s Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau has found that, ‘‘while a-state-of-the-art consumer 

cellular device typically costs a few hundred dollars, a typical land mobile radio for 

pubic safety communications may cost as much as $5,000 . . . Commission staff expect that leveraging the commercial mass market could reduce costs for public safety devices substantially . . .’’ as noted by FCC Chairman Genachowski in his letter 

to the Honorable Henry A. Waxman, dated July 20, 2010. 

Question 5. If the spectrum is auctioned off, the non-profitable public safety share 

of this deal could slip as commercial demand grows. How do we ensure that private 

entities will ensure that the needs of public safety are met? 

Answer. To be clear, I am not in favor of auctioning the D Block. As previously 

discussed, The D Block is the only available spectrum that is adjacent to the public 

48 

safety broadband 700 MHz spectrum allocation. Public safety requires a dedicated 

broadband wireless network of sufficient capacity to meet its current and future 

communications needs. Nevertheless, we are not opposed to partnering with commercial networks to add capacity for non mission critical connectivity, provided that 

these networks meet public safety requirements. We would also advocate partnering 

with commercial wireless networks to share radio sites and backhaul facilities as 

a means of reducing costs and expediting network deployment. 

Question 6. There is a lot of discussion about up-front costs of maintaining a public safety network but not a lot about ongoing operating costs. How much is this 

going to cost in 10 years? Or in 20 years? How will that be paid for? 

Answer. The FCC estimates expenses that constructing a public safety network through partnerships with commercial providers will cost approximately $6.3 billion 

over 10 years. Adding in operating costs bring the total to $12–16 billion over 10 

years. The FCC also estimates that constructing a stand-alone public safety network 

would cost approximately $16 billion over 10 years and that adding in operating expenses would bring the total to approximately $34.4 billion over 10 years. It is impossible for me at this time to project costs twenty years into the future. 

We hope that the federal government will assist state and local government in 

paying for the construction of the network and for ongoing network costs. The federal government should consider auctioning alternative spectrum, reducing network 

costs by leveraging existing public safety infrastructure and entering into partnership agreements with critical infrastructure entities such as electric and natural gas 

utilities. To some extent however, the users of the network may be required to help 

to pay for network operating costs. To that end, our goal should be to maximize the 

number of users on the proposed 700 MHz public safety wireless broadband network 

without overloading the network, thereby reducing the cost per user while ensuring 

network access for first responders. Costs can be further reduced by sharing sites 

and backhaul with commercial entities. In areas where the number of public safety 

users is small, we should consider allowing critical infrastructure users onto the network to help mitigate the cost to public safety. This, however, would likely require 

Congressional legislative action. In the longer term, migrating legacy public safety 

mission critical voice and data to the 700 MHz nationwide broadband public safety 

wireless network can further reduce costs by eliminating duplicative services and 

utilizing lower cost non proprietary user devices. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

HON. RAYMOND W. KELLY

Question 1. Beginning with the Radio Act of 1927 and continuing with the Communications Act of 1934, the federal government began defining the public airwaves, or radio spectrum, as a resource that must be used in the public interest 

and, more specifically, ‘‘for the purpose of national defense’’ and ‘‘for the purpose of 

promoting safety of life and property through the use wire and radio communications.’’ Since 1927, local, county, state and regional public safety organizations 

across the nation have built, maintained and updated their individual communications facilities. To meet those communications needs, it is my understanding that 

public safety entities utilize approximately 104 MHz of spectrum—including 24 

MHz of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band for both broadband and 

narrowband services. Can you elaborate on the existing spectrum utilized by public 

safety, such as what frequency bands are used, how much spectrum in each band 

is used and what communications services are supported in those bands? 

Answer. Public safety uses frequencies in the following bands: Very High Frequency (VHF), Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Super High Frequency (SHF). The 

VHF land mobile frequency bands are 30 MHz–50 MHz and 150 MHz–174 MHz. 

Within these allocations, public safety channels are interspersed with commercial 

channels throughout the band on a non-exclusive basis. 

In the UHF band, public safety operates in the following sub-bands: 450 MHz– 

470MHz; 470 MHz–512 MHz; 700 MHz and 800 MHz. Within both the 450 MHz– 

470 MHz and 470 MHz–512 MHz sub-bands, public safety channels are interspersed 

with commercial channels. Within the 470 MHz–512 MHz sub-band land mobile 

radio users, including both public safety and commercial licensees, share the band 

with television broadcasters based upon area of operation. Specifically, in the largest 

urban areas, a maximum of three television channels, a total of 18 MHz, may be 

allocated to land mobile radio. This includes both public safety and commercial licensees. 

Within the 700 MHz UHF sub-band, public safety is allocated 24 MHz of spectrum divided into narrowband and broadband channel assignments. Within the 800 

49 

MHz UHF sub-band, public safety has exclusive use of 6 MHz of spectrum and 

shares the 806 MHz–860 MHz sub-band with commercial licensees. In the SHF 

band, public safety is assigned 50 MHz of spectrum for broadband applications 

(4940 MHz–4990 MHz). 

All of the public safety frequency assignments are narrowband with the exception 

of the 700 MHz broadband channels and the 4.9 GHz channels, which are also 

broadband. The narrowband frequency allocations primarily support mission critical 

voice operations, although some of these channels are now used for data. However, 

data rates on these channels are typically limited to 19.2 kbps. 

As you point out, public safety is currently assigned over 100 MHz of spectrum. 

However, much of this spectrum is not available nationwide. Furthermore, public 

safety frequency allocations are scattered throughout the RF spectrum on many disparate frequency bands, which impedes interoperability. 50 MHz of the public safety 

spectrum you reference is in the 4.9 GHz band. This frequency has very poor propagation characteristics. It is used primarily for incident scene broadband data applications and limited local surveillance video. The poor propagation characteristics of 

this band make any wide area network deployment cost prohibitive. 

Question 2. What services, if any, will migrate to the new wireless broadband network? How many first responders in the field are expected to be supported by this 

wireless network? 

Answer. The first services likely to migrate to the new wireless broadband network are data services. Currently, many public safety agencies use narrowband (25 

kHz) channels for mission critical voice as well as low speed (19.2 kbps) data. With 

the deployment of the new public safety wireless broadband network, data-only 

services currently using 25 kHz channels, such as digital dispatch, could be migrated to the new public safety wireless broadband network relatively easily and 

quickly. In fact, it would be prudent to make this transition sooner rather than later 

since Long Term Evolution (LTE) will support much greater data rates and is spectrally more efficient than utilizing 25 kHz bandwidth channels for data, as these 

channels were intended primarily for voice communications and were used for data 

because they were the only channels available at the time. In the longer term, the 

NYPD believes that public safety mission critical voice can also be migrated to the 

new public safety wireless broadband network. 

The limitation on how many first responders in the field can be supported simultaneously at a given location (per cell, or per cell sector) is a question of user density. Doubling the channel bandwidth more than doubles the channel capacity. This 

is the essence of broadband and is one of the reasons it is more spectrally efficient. 

In fact, the wider the channel the more spectrally efficient LTE becomes. 

Question 3. If there are radio-based services that will migrate to the wireless 

broadband network or aren’t required anymore due to the new enhanced services 

that will be available on the wireless broadband network, would public safety work 

with the Commission to develop a transition plan to relinquish underutilized spectrum over a certain period of time? 

Answer. The NYPD would be willing to work with the Commission on this issue 

provided that sufficient broadband spectrum is allocated to public safety, and a comprehensive migration plan was developed. 

Question 4. The FCC estimates expenses for its plan of constructing a public safety network through partnerships with commercial providers and infrastructure will 

total approximately $6.3 billion over 10 years. Adding in operating expenses would 

bring the approximate total to $12–16 billion over 10 years. The FCC also estimated 

that constructing a stand-alone public safety network would require approximately 

$16 billion over 10 years and that adding in operating expenses would bring the 

total to approximately $34.4 billion over 10 years. A Verizon study for the Southern 

Governor’s Association back in 2007, suggested that a network would cost $61 billion over 10 years for construction and maintenance. 

If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety, would public safety look 

to build its own network, utilize existing commercial infrastructure, or a hybrid, or 

both? Would it be one nationwide network or a compilation of regional/state networks, or virtual networks over existing carrier’s networks? 

Answer. These issues are the subject of ongoing discussions among the various 

stakeholders. No final decision has been made at this time. The NYPD is not opposed to partnering with commercial wireless networks to share radio sites and 

backhaul facilities as a means of reducing costs and expediting network deployment, 

nor would we be opposed to partnering with commercial networks to extend coverage into areas not yet covered by the public safety broadband wireless network. 

Question 5. Who would maintain the network—would it be centralized, regional 

or state operated? How would new users be authenticated and granted access to use 

50 

the network? Also how many additional personnel would be needed to maintain it 

on a day to day basis? 

Answer. These issues are the subject of ongoing discussions among the various 

stakeholders. No final decision has been made at this time. 

Question 6. When will there be a greater and more detailed discussion on planning and governance issues related to the broadband wireless network? Are these 

issues critical to addressing interoperability as well as overall design of the network 

and subsequent costs? 

Answer. Planning and governance are critical issues. Some of this work is already 

underway; discussions are ongoing within the public safety community, the Obama 

administration, federal government agencies and industry experts regarding these 

very issues. Preliminary public safety requirements are defined by the NPSTC 

Statement of Requirements document issued July 2009. The National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) is engaged with the waiver recipients, the Public 

Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) numerous LTE vendors and other stakeholders to 

further define public safety’s requirements. The optimal public safety network design is a topic being actively discussed by public safety stakeholders, industry experts and the FCC. 

Question 7. The 9/11 Commission report found that ‘‘the inability to communicate 

was a critical element’’ at each of the ‘‘crash sites where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.’’ Even with the lack of interoperability clearly highlighted, efforts to improve this significant problem have fallen short and at best 

have only been incremental. 

To remedy this problem, the FCC established the Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) to ensure that the applications, devices, and networks that 

public safety groups utilize all work together, so that first responders nationwide 

can communicate with each other seamlessly. ERIC is supposed to hold its first 

meeting very soon. 

The National Broadband Plan noted that past efforts to create a public safety 

narrowband network failed and that many public safety radio systems lack basic 

interoperability. It also found that most jurisdictions that have improved their systems still only have an ‘‘intermediate’’ level of interoperability at best—not the advanced level of interoperability that is required for truly seamless communications 

in the event of a major emergency. Should those with industry expertise in designing and building nationwide networks have a greater voice in the development of 

interoperable systems? 

Answer. The failures in communications that you describe above are the result 

of disparate frequency assignments and the lack of a common air interface. The migration of public safety communications to a single frequency band and a common 

wireless platform over time are key elements in providing native interoperability between public safety agencies nationwide. The selection of LTE technology by the 

FCC and public safety is a first step in achieving this goal. 

Industry experts are currently engaged in preliminary discussions related to the 

design of the public safety wireless broadband network. The NIST Public Safety 

Communications Research Program (PSCR) is overseeing the deployment of two test 

LTE networks, one in a radio quiet zone at Table Mountain, Colorado just north 

of the NIST facility in Boulder and one in Washington, D.C. The results of these 

test networks coupled with ongoing dialog between public safety, industry experts 

and federal officials will further define the network architecture. 

Question 8. Wouldn’t we more properly address this if public safety outlined the 

operational requirements and services that needed to be provided by the network 

and then private sector experts develop the standards and network design to meet 

those needs? 

Answer. Much of this work is already underway. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is engaged with the waiver recipients, numerous LTE 

vendors and other stakeholders to further define public safety’s requirements. The 

optimal public safety network design is a topic being actively discussed by public 

safety stakeholders, industry experts and federal agency officials. The choice of LTE 

as the wireless transport technology by the FCC in consultation with public safety 

was an encouraging first step in this process. 

Question 9. Last year, the FCC granted more than 20 waivers to public safety entities to begin building out wireless broadband networks using the existing 10 MHz 

that is already assigned to public safety in the 700 MHz band. 

Public safety officials have noted that these waiver build-outs will provide data 

important in the deployment of the proposed national network. A New York public 

safety official was quoted as saying ‘‘We have always made the argument that 

granting these waivers will further the ability to understand what it is that we 

51 

2See NYC Filing under FCC Docket 06–229 posted 02/23/2010 entitled ‘‘700 MHz Broadband 

Public Safety Applications And Spectrum Requirements’’ available on the FCC website 

(FCC.gov). 

want to build and how to build it.’’ How can public safety say it definitely needs 

the additional 10 MHz of spectrum from the D Block if these waivers are being used 

for determining what to build and how to build it? 

Answer. Granting the waivers set a process in motion that engaged industry experts and federal government agencies to more clearly articulate the minimum network requirements. The waivers provided an incentive for equipment manufactures 

to become involved in two test networks sponsored by NIST. The NYPD has never 

doubted that the D Block will be required to support the broadband needs of public 

safety, particularly if these requirements include the eventual migration of mission 

critical voice to the public safety broadband wireless network. The City of New York 

submitted a white paper to the FCC supporting this contention.2

The same forces driving commercial network operators to seek additional spectrum will drive public safety. As wireless broadband capabilities become available 

commercially, the demand for these features will increase. Public safety officials will 

seek ways to tailor these capabilities to meet their mission requirements. The waivers are designed to allow early builders to deploy public safety broadband wireless 

networks in advance of the planned nationwide network. Long Term Evolution 

(LTE) provides a suite of standards to which the network will be built. Public Safety 

national organizations, such NPSTC in consultation with federal agencies such as 

the FCC and NIST will establish minimum network requirements, not the waiver 

recipients. 

Question 10. The FCC and others have suggested giving public safety the option 

to use 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband in order to provide additional 

broadband capacity. Is this feasible? If not, why? 

Answer. The 700 MHz public safety narrowband spectrum will continue to be required for off network tactical (unit-to-unit) voice communications. In addition, 

many public safety entities have just recently deployed, or are in the process of deploying, P25 radio systems on the 700 MHz narrowband channels and expect an appropriate return on their investment. Narrowband voice networks will continue be 

needed until mission critical voice over LTE becomes a reality that is accepted by 

the public safety community as a viable alternative to existing public safety land 

mobile radio networks. 

Wireless networks traditionally are built from urban cores and extended outward 

over time to less populated areas. Public safety agencies generally, and those in 

rural and sparsely populated areas in particular, must be given sufficient time to 

transition from existing legacy narrowband radio networks to the proposed nationwide public safety wireless broadband network. The transition will not be quick nor 

will it be easy. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is that at the end 

of this transition period public safety will have a reliable wireless broadband nationwide network that supports video, voice and data with native interoperability. 

Question 11. It is my understanding that there are several federal departments 

and agencies involved with public safety communications—including the FCC, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of 

Justice. I’m concerned there isn’t one agency responsible and with all the agencies 

involved it presents challenges to making progress and proper planning. 

In addition to this bureaucracy, I am concerned about the funding challenges that 

have existed and will likely continue to exist with public safety interoperability. It 

is my understanding that more than $7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent 

over the past seven years in federal grants without proper planning and coordination. As a result, only incremental improvements have been made—many experts 

state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved. This includes 

Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC) grant program and about 

$4.3 billion DHS has spent to improve interoperability. 

My concern is that we are hastily providing resources to public safety without 

proper planning to ensure those assets, whether it is funding or spectrum, are properly utilized. What can we do differently this time to ensure we achieve the goals 

necessary for public safety to sufficiently respond and communicate in emergencies 

and ultimately protect our Nation’s citizens but upholding our fiscal responsibilities 

to taxpayers to ensure their hard earned money is widely used and responsibly? 

Answer. The lack of radio interoperability among public safety agencies today is 

largely a result of past mistakes. The two salient obstacles to seamless interoperability are: short-sighted public safety land mobile radio frequency allocations across 

multiple frequency bands, and a failure to agree on a single air interface. Prior to 

52 

the advent of digital land mobile radio communications, the air interface was simply 

analog. However, beginning in the 1970s, when trunked radio systems were introduced, the air interface quickly became an issue. Although the voice channels in 

these early trunked radio systems were analog, the control channels were not and 

competing vendors developed their own proprietary systems. The result was that 

there were now two barriers to interoperability, disparate frequency assignments 

and non-compatible air interfaces. APCO Project 25 is an attempt to solve one of 

these problems, the non-compatible air interface. However, it does not solve the 

problem of disparate frequency assignments. The NYPD is aware that there are numerous external devices available that patch channels from different frequency 

bands together to enable basic voice interoperability during an emergency; we have 

several of them. However, these devices sacrifice spectrum efficiency in order to 

achieve their goal. Furthermore, they are expensive and often cumbersome to set 

up during an emergency. Public safety would be served best by migrating over time 

to a broadband network on a single frequency band using a common air interface 

that provides native interoperability without relying on external devices. Consolidating public safety communications onto a contiguous spectrum of sufficient bandwidth and adapting a global standard air interface are key elements to controlling 

future costs and ensuring native interoperability. 

Question 12. If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety then it would 

utilize 34 MHz of spectrum as its primary spectrum for both narrowband and 

broadband communications. While this wouldn’t necessarily present a problem in 

the event of a natural disaster, there is a concern about over reliance on this band 

during a disaster or terrorist attack. 

If public safety principally relies on a relative narrow band of spectrum, then a 

coordinated attack could disrupt, or worse cripple, public safety communications 

through the use of high-power wireless jammers. For example, a recent University 

of Pennsylvania report highlighted the susceptibility of the P25 System to active 

traffic analysis and selective jamming attacks. 

Is this a serious concern that needs to be addressed? Wouldn’t the public safety 

network be more resilient by utilizing the existing public safety spectrum in 400 

MHz, 800 MHz and 4.9 GHz by using technologies such as dynamic spectrum access, cognitive radio and spectrum aggregation as well as just greater interoperability with commercial systems, which operate in various bands? 

Answer. Broadband networks are inherently more resistant to frequency jamming 

than narrowband networks. LTE is much more technically advanced than Project 

25. LTE utilizes thousands of sub-carriers. The LTE network constantly monitors 

the RF channel for interference and schedules transmissions accordingly, choosing 

sub-carriers that are free from interference while avoiding those where interference 

exists, adjusting power levels accordingly to ensure the transmission will be successfully received. 

The University of Pennsylvania study points out the ability for an adversary to 

monitor Project 25 conversations and determine the approximate location of the 

users. In addition, it illustrates the ability for an adversary to use this information 

to selectively jam such conversations. The vast majority of public safety radio networks in use today are subject to vulnerabilities similar to those described in the 

University of Pennsylvania report. Most public safety radio networks are 

unencrypted narrowband networks that are easy to monitor and are vulnerable to 

jamming. Broadband networks are far more difficult to jam than narrowband networks. The vulnerability of narrowband networks to monitoring and jamming is one 

of the reasons that the NYPD advocates the eventual migration of public safety 

radio communications (including mission critical voice) to 700 MHz LTE. 

Spectrum aggregation generally refers to aggregating channels within the same 

frequency band, since aggregating channels from disparate bands results in different propagation patterns. Dual or triple band user devices are either extremely 

expensive or they compromise performance specifications to meet size constraints, 

or both. The most cost effective high performance user devices are single band devices. 

Question 13. What impact would greater interoperability with commercial systems 

across the entire 700 MHz band have upon the costs and time to market of providing mobile broadband capabilities and end user devices for first responders? 

Answer. One of the preliminary requirements of the public safety broadband wireless network is interoperability with commercial systems. Mobile broadband capability is available to first responders today in many jurisdictions if they choose to 

use the commercial networks; however, mission critical communications require networks built to public safety standards. Public safety requires its own network to ensure adequate network capacity for first responders and to ensure that the network 

53 

infrastructure meets public safety standards for reliability and availability. Nevertheless, we are not opposed to partnering with commercial networks provided that 

they meet public safety requirements, particularly during the early stages of network deployment as a means to extend coverage into areas not yet covered by the 

public safety broadband wireless network. 

We would also advocate partnering with commercial wireless networks to share 

radio sites and backhaul facilities as a means of reducing costs and expediting network deployment. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO

HON. JACK MARKELL

Question 1. The Wireless Initiative that the President has put forward is a plan 

that is worth strong consideration. As I stated in a forum that I held in Missouri 

last year with the FCC Chairman, it is paramount that rural and unserved areas 

have access to broadband. The President has stated that his plan would reduce the 

deficit by $9.6 billion and that about $28 billion would be raised through incentive 

auctions. However, I want to get a better handle on these calculations. How are we 

determining that $28 billion would be raised? 

Answer. The $28 billion revenue estimate was prepared by the White House. 

Questions regarding the analysis used to reach this number would best be directed 

to White House staff. 

Question 2. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much spectrum would be voluntarily given up for auction—do we have assurances that we can actually reach 

this figure? 

Answer. The President’s Wireless Initiative and the Federal Communications 

Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Plan highlight the possibility of not only 

improving the efficient use of spectrum but also raising revenue to fund important 

communications initiatives through the use of incentive auctions. By sharing a portion of auction proceeds with existing spectrum license holders, the FCC believes 

significant portions of spectrum may be voluntarily freed up for new purposes. The 

FCC may be able to provide greater detail regarding how much spectrum is suitable 

for auction. 

Question 3. Conversely, I have concerns about how we would pay for a public safety network under the FCC’s plan. The estimate is that we can raise $3 billion by 

auctioning off the D Block. I realize that this would be a different type of auction 

than what was attempted a few years ago, but how do we know we’re going to get 

$3 billion? 

Answer. The $3 billion estimate was prepared by the FCC. Questions regarding 

this analysis would best be directed to them. 

Question 4. If we donate more spectrum to public safety agencies, can you give 

me any assurance that interoperability between different jurisdictions would work? 

And that you would have economies of scale to get good technology at a good cost? 

Answer. One of the reasons public safety agencies from different jurisdictions lack 

interoperability is because they operate on different bands of spectrum that have 

been assigned over the years by the FCC. Without a sufficient section of spectrum 

in the same bandwidth that can accommodate public safety users, true interoperability will be very costly and complex. This is why reallocation of the D Block is 

so important. An additional 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz range will provide 

the opportunity to consolidate public safety communications on a single network as 

it is developed and deployed, as opposed to our current communications capabilities 

that have been patched together over the years to achieve cross-jurisdictional 

connectivity. 

When combined with the existing 10 MHz of public safety spectrum, the D Block 

would allow greater flexibility for state and local governments to develop innovative 

means to fund the deployment and maintenance of the network. With 20 MHz instead of only 10, it may be possible in many areas to allow other government services such as transportation officials to utilize the network or to engage in publicprivate partnerships to reduce costs. Furthermore, the additional spectrum would 

allow more users on the network, which would increase demand for devices and further reduce costs through economies of scale. 

Question 5. If the spectrum is auctioned off, the non-profitable public safety partnership of this deal could slip as commercial demand grows. How do we ensure that 

private entities will ensure that the needs of public safety are met? 

Answer. In order to ensure that public safety’s needs are met, the network must 

be dedicated for public safety and cannot be a shared network with commercial 

54 

users. Public safety control of the network will ensure it is designed and built to 

mission-critical standards. It will also remove uncertainty regarding when and how 

first responders will be granted priority access to the network, which is a significant 

cause for concern in the FCC’s proposal to have public safety users share the network with commercial customers. 

Question 6. There is a lot of discussion about upfront costs of maintaining a public 

safety network but not a lot about ongoing operating costs. How much is this going 

to cost in 10 years? Or in 20 years? How will that be paid for? 

Answer. For detailed information regarding the costs to build the network, please 

refer to the analyses conducted by the White House and the FCC. These analyses 

propose several different mechanisms to fund network construction and maintenance, including through the proceeds from incentive auctions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

HON. JACK MARKELL

Question 1. The 9/11 Commission report found that ‘‘the inability to communicate 

was a critical element’’ at each of the ‘‘crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.’’ Even with the lack of interoperability clearly highlighted, efforts to improve this significant problem have fallen short and at best 

have only been incremental. 

To remedy this problem, the FCC established the Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) to ensure that the applications, devices, and networks that 

public safety groups utilize all work together, so that first responders nationwide 

can communicate with one another seamlessly. ERIC is supposed to hold its first 

meeting very soon. 

The National Broadband Plan noted that past efforts to create a public safety 

narrowband interoperable voice network have failed and that many public safety 

radio systems lack basic interoperability. It also found most jurisdictions that have 

improved their systems still only have an ‘‘intermediate’’ level of interoperability at 

best—not the advanced level of interoperability that is required for truly seamless 

communications in the event of a major emergency. Should those with industry expertise in designing and building nationwide networks have a greater voice in the 

development of interoperable systems? 

Answer. To be successful, those with industry expertise must work closely with 

public safety officials to ensure the network is interoperable. While industry expertise is important, industry experts may lack a full understanding of public safety 

requirements and how communications capabilities may be used in the field. This 

public safety field expertise is critical to ensure the network is designed and built 

to meet the needs of public safety. 

Question 2. Wouldn’t we more properly address this if public safety outlined the 

operational requirements and services that needed to be provided by the network 

and then private sector experts developed the standards and network design to meet 

those needs? 

Answer. To ensure the network is successful, public safety officials and industry 

experts should work together to design and implement the network. These discussions are important to ensure that all parties share the same understanding of what 

is feasible with the technology as well as what will be the required and desired capabilities of the network. 

Question 3. Last year, the FCC granted more than 20 waivers to public safety entities to begin building out wireless broadband networks using the existing 10 megahertz of spectrum that is already assigned to public safety in the 700 MHz band. 

Public safety officials have noted that these waiver build-outs will provide data 

important in the deployment of the proposed national network. A New York public 

safety official was quoted as saying ‘‘We have always made the argument that 

granting these waivers will further the ability to understand what it is that we 

want to build and how we want to build it.’’ 

How can public safety say it definitely needs the additional 10 megahertz of spectrum from the D Block if these waivers are being used for determining what to build 

and how to build it? 

Answer. Current research shows that with over 55,000 public safety jurisdictions 

in existence nationwide, reallocation of the D Block to form a contiguous band of 

20 MHz of spectrum will be necessary to ensure that all jurisdictions will be able 

to utilize the network and gain access to the kinds of video and data services that 

many Americans currently enjoy. The waivers to begin construction on the existing 

55 

1Sandy Clark and others, Security Weaknesses in the APCO Project 25 Two-Way Radio System, CIS Technical Report MS–CIS–10–34, University of Pennsylvania, November 18, 2010. 

10 MHz of spectrum are important to test the new technology and ensure that it 

will meet public safety’s needs as the network is further developed. 

Question 4. The FCC and others have suggested giving public safety the option 

to use 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband in order to provide additional 

broadband capacity. Is this feasible? If not, why? 

Answer. The FCC’s suggestion to use narrowband spectrum for broadband communications is not technologically feasible at this time. The 700 MHz narrowband 

spectrum is being used for interoperable voice communications that are critically important to our Nation’s first responders. The flexible use of narrowband spectrum 

for broadband services could produce interference with current radio communications and poses too great a risk to the safety and well-being of citizens and first 

responders. While there may be potential for migration of existing narrowband systems to broadband technologies in the future, there is currently no guarantee that 

both can be supported at the same time on the same network. 

Question 5. It is my understanding that there are several federal departments and 

agencies involved with public safety communications—including the FCC, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice. I am concerned there isn’t one agency responsible and that with all the agencies involved it presents challenges to making progress and proper planning. 

In addition to this bureaucracy, I am concerned about the funding challenges that 

have existed and will likely continue to exist with public safety interoperability. It 

is my understanding that more than $7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent 

over the past 7 years in federal grants without proper planning and coordination. 

And as a result, only incremental improvements have been made—many experts 

state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved. This includes 

the Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC) grant program and about 

$4.3 billion DHS has spent to improve interoperability. 

My concern is that we are hastily providing resources to public safety without 

proper planning to ensure those assets, whether it is funding or spectrum, are properly utilized. What can we do differently this time to ensure we achieve the goals 

necessary for public safety to sufficiently respond and communicate in emergencies 

and ultimately protect our nation’s citizens but upholding our fiscal responsibilities 

to taxpayers to ensure their hard-earned money is used wisely and responsibly? 

Answer. It is important to note that the reallocation of the D Block is time-sensitive and must be a top priority. The FCC is under legal obligation to auction the 

D Block to commercial providers unless Congress removes this requirement. Once 

an auction takes place, the spectrum will be gone and the nation will have missed 

perhaps its greatest opportunity in decades to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public safety communications. 

Once sufficient spectrum is allocated for the network, establishing a governance 

structure for the development and maintenance of the system will be necessary. Beginning with the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant program, Congress required that state and local officials work together to create and 

implement communications plans to guide investments and measure progress in 

achieving interoperability. These plans, as well as the National Emergency Communications Plan, have improved governance and helped ensure coordination necessary 

for the effective use of taxpayer funds. 

These plans should be leveraged in the development of the nationwide broadband 

network for public safety. Doing so will ensure that various Federal, state and local 

agencies work together and avoid duplication of effort. By including all appropriate 

agencies, it will also ensure that the network ultimately meets various agencies’ 

mission requirements and will help reduce spending on multiple communications 

systems. 

Question 6. If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety then it would 

utilize 34 MHz of spectrum as its primary spectrum for both narrowband and 

broadband communications. While this wouldn’t necessarily present a problem in 

the event of a natural disaster, there is concern about possible overreliance on this 

band during a disaster or terrorist attack. 

If public safety principally relies on a relatively narrow range of spectrum then 

a coordinated attack could disrupt, or worse cripple, public safety communications 

through the use of high-power wireless jammers. For example, a recent University 

of Pennsylvania report highlighted the susceptibility of the P25 System to active 

traffic analysis and selective jamming attacks.1

56 

Is this a serious concern that needs to be addressed? Wouldn’t the public safety 

network be more resilient by utilizing the existing 700 MHz assignment with existing public safety spectrum in 400 MHz, 800 MHz, and 4.9 GHz by using technologies such as dynamic spectrum access, cognitive radio, and spectrum aggregation? As well as just greater interoperability with commercial systems, which operate in various bands? 

Answer. Governors and our public safety officials share your concerns regarding 

network security and reliability. As the network is developed, it must be ‘‘hardened’’ 

against attack and include redundancies to ensure the ability to communicate during an emergency. Technologies such as dynamic spectrum access and spectrum aggregation are still considered developing technologies and are therefore unreliable 

in the event of disaster. In addition, some of these technologies, like dynamic spectrum access, require additional software for interoperability, which would increase 

costs. 

It should be noted that the reason the 700 MHz band is so valuable is because 

of its ability to reach users through buildings, concrete and even underground. This 

is a characteristic of the 700 MHz band that would prove invaluable to the public 

safety network. Additionally, spectrum in other bands will still be required for some 

time for voice communications until the LTE technology has been proven capable 

of reliably supporting first responder voice communications. 

Question 7. What impact would greater interoperability with commercial systems 

across the entire 700 MHz band have on the costs and time to market of providing 

mobile broadband capabilities and end users devices for first responders? 

Answer. While greater interoperability with commercial systems might ultimately 

be beneficial, it cannot be a substitute for reallocation of the D Block to public safety. Public safety must have a dedicated 20 MHz of spectrum for a nationwide network in order to ensure public safety’s critical requirements are met. By their nature, commercial systems must serve their customers and would have little incentive to prioritize first responder communications over those of their customers during an emergency. 

Furthermore, sharing commercial systems could be dangerous. In the event of a 

bomb scare, for instance, law enforcement may need to shut down wireless communications within a specified area. If public safety uses those same networks to communicate, this would mean disabling critical first responder communications, which 

is unacceptable. 

Question 8. In your opening testimony you stated ‘‘almost 10 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th and despite a great deal of national attention to 

first responders’ communications needs, we continue to lack a nationwide network 

that can provide these capabilities to first responders.’’ However, a set of standards 

known as Project 25 (P25) was initiated back in 1989 by public safety agencies and 

manufacturers to ensure radio interoperability with emergency communication systems but to date only a portion of the standard set has been developed. It is also 

my understanding that there has been only one single demonstration of interoperability and that was between Motorola and Harris land mobile radio handsets. 

In your opinion, what have been the key reasons 21 years later we still don’t have 

nationwide radio interoperability? How will public safety approach this issue with 

broadband so as not to repeat the same mistakes? My concern about this is that 

the European standard (TETRA) was successfully completed in only a few years and 

its handsets are significantly cheaper than P25 devices. 

Answer. A key reason the nation lacks true interoperability is the manner in 

which public safety radio communications have developed over the decades. Over 

time, public safety users have been allocated small segments of spectrum in different frequency bands, none of which can communicate directly with each other 

and none of which were coordinated as they were developed across multiple jurisdictions. Without a single contiguous section of spectrum to accommodate all public 

safety users, achieving interoperable voice communications has often required first 

responders to carry multiple radios or use gateway systems to patch together different radio networks. The reallocation of the D Block to public safety can help 

avoid repeating these mistakes as we move to broadband. In addition, there has 

been significant progress in establishing effective governance structures to coordinate the development of communications systems that will greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the broadband network’s deployment. 

Question 9. Is the P25 standard based on open standards? How many companies 

are involved in the development of P25 equipment and devices? How does this affect 

the cost of P25 equipment? 

Answer. For questions regarding P25 standards, please refer to the Office of 

Emergency Communications at the Department of Homeland Security. 

57 

Question 10. In your testimony you mention Congress can ensure that public safety controls the design and construction of network facilities sufficient to meet their 

exacting standards of performance by directly allocating the D Block and providing 

funding mechanisms. You also mention that no commercial operator builds to meet 

those same standards. Can you elaborate on what standards you are referring to? 

Are they codified somewhere and how were these standards developed? 

Answer. The standards I was referring to are the ‘‘mission critical’’ requirements 

of first responders and are the standards to which public safety radio communications systems are built. These requirements include more rigorous features for safety and redundancy and do not tolerate dropped calls as occur on systems built for 

commercial purposes. 

Question 11. How much experience does public safety have in general in designing 

and building wireless broadband networks? If that experience is limited, then is 

public safety actually capable of managing a new, complex technology such as LTE 

(Long Term Evolution)? If not, who should? Should there be a greater group of industry parties involved in the standards and technology development—wouldn’t that 

help reduce costs? 

Answer. Public safety officials have been designing and building communications 

systems for years. LTE is a new technology that is just now being tested in both 

the commercial and public sectors. To ensure this technology is developed to include 

public safety requirements, public safety must have a seat at the table and must 

be a key player in efforts to design and build a nationwide broadband network. 

Without public safety leading efforts to design the network, it would likely fail to 

meet the somewhat unique and rigorous requirements of our Nation’s law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency medical service providers. 

Question 12. You also mention state and local budget strains and the importance 

of improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of critical public services. Isn’t the 

lack of uniform standards contributing to the excessive cost in public safety communications? 

Answer. Public safety communications are costly today in part because they lack 

interoperability. As discussed above, the disparate segments of spectrum that have 

been allocated to public safety over the years has led to the development of multiple 

communications systems that cannot talk to each other. Achieving interoperability 

has required first responders to often carry two, three or even four different radios 

to communicate across jurisdictions. This increases equipment costs and also requires additional personnel costs to maintain these systems. By devoting resources 

to one network, we can greatly reduce the costs incurred at the local, state and federal level. 

Question 13. Wouldn’t it be more cost effective if public safety utilized one network for both voice and data communications? 

Answer. While it might be more cost-effective in the future, unfortunately the 

technology doesn’t allow flexible use without risk at this time. While Governors and 

their public safety officials support the eventual migration of both voice and data 

to one system, we must ensure that the network will be able to support both before 

we fully devote ourselves to that premise. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO

CHIEF AL H. GILLESPIE

Question 1. The Wireless Initiative that the President has put forward is a plan 

that is worth strong consideration. As I stated in a forum that I held in Missouri 

last year with the FCC Chairman, it is paramount that rural and unserved areas 

have access to broadband. The President has stated that his plan would reduce the 

deficit by $9.6 billion and that about $28 billion would be raised through incentive 

auctions. However, I want to get a better handle on these calculations. How are we 

determining that $28 billion would be raised? 

Answer. First it’s important to understand that S. 28 does not rely solely on incentive based auctions. Like its predecessor, S. 3756, as well as Senator Lieberman 

and McCain’s legislation, S. 3625, it includes spectrum proceeds from other auctions 

as well. This language was also part of the House Bipartisan Commerce Committee 

Discussion Draft that was circulated last year. It is our understanding that commercial carriers and industry experts provided the estimate on the amount of money 

the incentive auctions will raise. Public safety is not in a position to agree or disagree with the projections. We believe that as Congress and the administration 

work together to clear additional spectrum, there is sufficient spectrum to auction 

in order to pay for the build out and maintenance of the public safety broadband 

58 

network while allocating the D Block to public safety. Furthermore, a recent study 

by the Phoenix Center clearly establishes that the allocation of D Block to public 

safety will realize greater deficit reduction and $3.4 billion more in value than its 

commercial auction. 

Question 2. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much spectrum would be voluntarily given up for auction—do we have assurances that we can actually reach 

this figure? 

Answer. We agree there is a lot of uncertainty, but again there are also a lot of 

other spectrum bands that can be repurposed for commercial services. We understand that in order to free up additional spectrum, Congress must start somewhere, 

and the FCC and the Obama Administration join with Chairman Rockefeller and 

others to include incentive based auctions as part of that equation. When Congress 

passed legislation that established the hard date for the DTV transition, there was 

no certainty that the auction would raise the $12 billion that was required by law, 

however, the auction raised nearly $20 billion, $8 billion more than estimated. And 

that was without the D Block, which was originally calculated within the $12 billion 

estimate. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to believe that the current projections 

will meet or even exceed current estimations as projected in the President’s plan. 

Question 3. Conversely, I have concerns about how we would pay for a public safe- ty network under the FCC’s plan. The estimate is that we can raise $3 billion by 

auctioning off the D Block. I realize that this would be a different type of auction 

than what was attempted a few years ago but, given that that effort failed, how we 

know we’re going to get $3 billion? Answer. The President’s budget plan provides an offset of $3.2 billion for reallocating the D Block to public safety and moving it away from a commercial auction. 

We believe that is more than what any auction would receive, particularly if potential bidders were restricted from participating and/or even limited public safety requirements/provisions were included in the auction rules. A good analysis of the 

questions related to D Block auction vs. allocation are provided in the new paper 

by the Phoenix Center (http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB26 

Final.pdf). The Phoenix Center report makes it clear that the cost of not allocating 

D Block to public safety, and then having public safety have to build out two separate infrastructures in two different spectrum bands for their current and future 

broadband needs would well exceed any revenue derived from a potential commercial auction of D Block now. 

Question 4. If we donate more spectrum to public safety agencies, can you give 

me any assurance that interoperability between different jurisdictions would work? 

And that you would have economies of scale to get good technology at a good cost? 

Answer. Yes, public safety is united on ensuring that the network is interoperable 

and provides seamless roaming across the country to first responders. While the 

number of public safety users on the network might be around 2 million, the number of devices and other users will exceed all predictions, which will exponentially 

increase the need for spectrum resources. Device-to-device communications will 

eventually outpace the actual number of users on the network. In addition, adoption 

of LTE technologies by the U.S. and global public safety communities will create a 

market demand that lowers cost of equipment, networks and applications by creating greater market demand, competition and innovation. Indeed, the U.S. public 

safety community adopted LTE as its standard for public safety broadband in order 

to leverage commercial technology and build out, to ride the commercial market, 

and create efficiencies, drive down costs and spur competition and innovation within 

the marketplace. 

Question 5. If the spectrum is auctioned off, the non-profitable public safety partnership of this deal could slip as commercial demand grows. How do we ensure that 

private entities will ensure that the needs of public safety are met? 

Answer. If the spectrum is auctioned, public safety will not be able to rely on commercial systems for mission-critical services. To ensure private entities meet the 

needs of public safety, Congress and the FCC will need to place considerable requirements (as they did for the last auction) on commercial providers to ensure systems are reliable, redundant, secure, and provide a higher level of priority access, 

specifically ruthless preemption, to public safety at times of emergency. Commercial 

carriers will need to give up control of their networks to public safety during emergencies. These conditions would make it impossible for commercial carriers to create 

a profitable business model to bid for the spectrum and provide mission-critical services to public safety. They have told us as much. 

Question 6. There is a lot of discussion about upfront costs of maintaining a public 

safety network but not a lot about ongoing operating costs. How much is this going 

to cost in 10 years? Or in 20 years? How will that be paid for? 

59 

Answer. FCC’s National Broadband Plan states that the build-out of a 10-MHz 

broadband network will cost approximately $6 to $10 billion over the next 5 years. 

The cost of building a 20-MHz network is practically the same, if not less, as there 

are some efficiencies that would be gained in building out 20 MHz versus 10 MHz. 

The difference is who will pay for it. The FCC’s plan requires the Federal Government to pay for the build-out. However, if public safety were able to leverage the 

excess network capacity, utilize existing public safety infrastructure when building 

out the network, and secure partnerships with other public and private industry 

partners, the actual cost to local, state, tribal and Federal Governments would be 

less. 

A combination of leasing excess capacity, prioritized Federal grant programs and 

revenue from other auctioned spectrum would help build and sustain the nationwide 

interoperable public safety broadband network, while creating a budget neutral 

funding model. 

There are a number of funding models to support the build-out of the network. 

While no single solution will pay for the entire network, a flexible program will 

make it possible to offset many of the costs associated with its construction. Some 

of the funding mechanisms include: 

1. Excess network capacity not utilized by public safety can be leased out to 

commercial providers or other users on a secondary basis. This will ensure efficient use of the spectrum, while still giving local public safety agencies control 

over who is able to use the spectrum and when they are able to use it. The lease 

revenue of the network would offset a portion of the build-out and maintenance 

of the network. 

2. Proceeds from other spectrum auctions are proposed to finance the establishment of a grant program that will fund the build-out and maintenance of the 

network. 

3. Current Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation and other Federal 

grants could be authorized and prioritized by Congress to assist state and local 

governments in building a broadband network. 

4. Universal Service Funds (USF) can also be prioritized to help local and state 

government deploy broadband networks in underserved and unserved areas. 

5. A nominal monthly fee can be imposed on consumers of commercial 

broadband services to aid local and state governments in building the network. 

6. Public safety agencies can partner with private industry such as utilities to 

share the cost of building the network. 

7. Funding will also come from state and local public safety operational expenses. 

If the D Block spectrum is auctioned, then the cost of building out the 10-MHz 

of public safety broadband network will need to rely solely on Federal grant dollars. 

Given that scenario, public safety will not be able to leverage the excess capacity 

of the network in order to create flexible partnership and funding programs. 

The long-term strategy and vision is for public safety to migrate to converged IP 

systems that are capable of mission-critical voice, as well as data and video. Therefore, the long-term costs of maintaining traditional Land Mobile Radio networks, as 

well as future public safety broadband networks, will evolve into converged missioncritical voice capable broadband networks. The only unanswered question is not if, 

but when? The interim cost is the real challenge. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

CHIEF AL H. GILLESPIE

Question 1. Beginning with the Radio Act of 1927 and continuing with the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Government began defining the public airwaves, or radio spectrum, as a resource that must be used in the public interest 

and, more specifically, ‘‘for the purpose of the national defense’’ and ‘‘for the purpose 

of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.’’ Since 1927, local, county, state and regional public safety organizations 

across the nation have built, maintained and updated their individual communications facilities. To meet those communications needs, it is my understanding that 

public safety entities utilize approximately 100 Megahertz of spectrum—including 

24 megahertz of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band for both broadband 

and narrowband services. Can you elaborate on the existing spectrum utilized by 

public safety such as what frequency bands are used, how much spectrum in each 

band is used, and what communications services are supported in those bands? 

60 

Answer. Today, more than ever, our nation’s public safety agencies must have the 

tools they need to perform their critical tasks. Appropriate radio spectrum is at or 

near the top of the list of those essential tools. The lack of sufficient radio spectrum 

for public safety has several significant consequences including channel congestion, 

overloading of systems, and lack of capacity. The lack of spectrum during incidents. 

Current allocation of public safety spectrum is compartmentalized across various 

spectrum bands. 

Public Safety Narrowband Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Spectrum 

29–50 MHz 

The spectrum is non-contiguous and it is interleaved with other uses. Total spectrum allocation in the block is 7.2 MHz. 

Frequencies Amount of Spectrum (MHz) 

30.98–31.98 1 

33.02–33.98 0.96 

35.02, 35.64, 35.68 0.06 

37.02–37.42 0.4 

37.90–37.98 0.08 

39.02–39.98 0.96 

42.02–42.94 0.92 

43.64, 43.68 0.04 

44.62–46.58 1.96 

47.02–47.66 0.64 

Total 7.2 

150–174 MHz 

The spectrum allocation is non-contiguous and it is interleaved with other uses. 

Total spectrum allocation in the block is 3.8 MHz. 

Frequencies Amount of Spectrum (MHz) 

150.7750–150.8050 0.03 

150.9950–151.4975 0.5025 

152.0075 0.02 

153.7400–154.47875 0.73875 

154.6500–156.2400 1.59 

157.45 0.02 

158.7225–159.4725 0.75 

163.25 0.01125 

166.25 0.01125 

170.15 0.01125 

170.425 0.006 

170.475 0.006 

170.575 0.006 

171.425 0.006 

171.475 0.006 

171.575 0.006 

172.225 0.006 

172.275 0.006 

172.375 0.006 

173.075 0.006 

173.20375 0.006 

173.21 0.006 

173.2375 0.006 

173.2625 0.006 

173.2875 0.006 

173.3125 0.006 

173.3375 0.006 

173.3625 0.006 

173.39 0.006 

173.39625 0.006 

Total 3.805 

450–470 MHz 

The spectrum allocation is non-contiguous and it is interleaved with other uses. 

Total spectrum allocation is 3.7 MHz. 

Frequencies Amount of Spectrum (MHz) 

453.0125–453.99375 0.98125 

458.0125–458.99375 0.98125 

460.0125–460.64375 0.63125 

465.0125–460.64375 0.63125 

61 

Frequencies Amount of Spectrum (MHz) 

462.9375–463.19375 0.25625 

467.9375–463.19375 0.25625 

Total 3.7375 

470–512 MHz 

The spectrum allocation is made up of 6 MHz contiguous and is interleaved with 

other uses. Total spectrum allocation varies by geographic area from 6 MHz to 18 

MHz. 

16 MHz Spectrum 

Block 

Number of Licenses 

Issued Major Metro Areas 

470 to 476 1,133 public safety licenses Boston, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, 

New York City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh 

476 to 482 376 public safety licenses Chicago, Detroit, New York City, 

Cleveland 

482 to 488 1,133 public safety licenses San Francisco, Los Angeles, Detroit, 

Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth, New York 

City 

488 to 494 140 public safety licenses San Francisco, Houston, Washington, 

D.C. 

494 to 500 41 public safety licenses Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh 

500 to 506 278 public safety licenses Philadelphia, Southern NJ, Northeastern NJ, Nassau County, NY 

506 to 512 171 public safety licenses Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Southern 

NJ 

768–775/798–805 

The spectrum allocation is contiguous. Total spectrum allocation is 14 MHz. 

806–809/851–854 MHz 

The spectrum allocation is contiguous. Total spectrum allocation is 6 MHz. 

809–815/854–860 MHz 

The spectrum allocation is non-contiguous and it is interleaved with other uses. 

The total spectrum allocation is 3.5 MHz. 

Wide Area Broadband 

763–768/793–798 

The spectrum allocation is contiguous. Total spectrum allocation is 10 MHz. 

Hot Spot and Microwave Broadband 

4940–4990 GHz 

The spectrum allocation is contiguous. Total spectrum allocation is 50 MHz. 

Question 2. Progress has clearly been made in the assignment of or availability 

of spectrum for public safety addressed directly to the issue of interoperability. However, within each spectrum there are a multitude of issues that affect licensing, coverage, operability, and interoperability. What services, if any, will migrate to the 

new wireless broadband network? How many first responders in the field are expected to be supported by this wireless broadband network? 

Answer. The initial services that will migrate to broadband networks are data and 

video. Eventually, when voice over LTE equipment is available, which can provide 

the same level of mission-critical voice services as existing LMR systems, then we 

expect public safety systems to begin migrating their LMR systems to the wireless 

broadband network. The goal will be to support every first responder and those who 

provide support and logistical services to first responders. 

The number of first responder users might be over two million, the number of 

equipment that might access the network could easily be over ten million. Industry 

experts believe that device-to-device or machine-to-machine equipment and applications will quickly outpace the actual number of users on the network. This is especially true when you consider monitoring services and situational awareness applications. 

Question 3. If there are radio-based services that will migrate to the wireless 

broadband network or aren’t required anymore due to the new enhanced services 

that will be possible on the wireless broadband network would public safety work 

with the Commission to develop a transition plan to relinquish underutilized spectrum over a certain period of time? 

62 

Answer. Yes, if the migration of LMR systems to broadband networks would increase efficiency, improve interoperability and reduce cost for the agencies. Agencies 

that migrate their systems to broadband networks should release their licenses in 

the lower bands as currently required of the existing RPC process. 

Question 4. The FCC estimates expenses for its plan of constructing a public safety network through partnerships with commercial providers and infrastructure will 

total approximately $6.3 billion over 10 years. Adding in operating expenses would 

bring the approximate total to $12–16 billion over 10 years. The FCC also estimated 

that constructing a stand-alone public safety network would require approximately 

$16 billion over 10 years and that adding in operating expenses would bring the 

total to approximately $34.4 billion over 10 years. A Verizon study for the Southern 

Governors Association back in 2007, suggested that a network would cost $61 billion 

over 10 years for both construction and maintenance. 

If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety, would public safety look 

to build its own network, utilize existing commercial infrastructure, or a hybrid of 

both? Would it be one nationwide network or a compilation of regional/state networks, or virtual networks over existing carriers’ networks? 

Answer. Public safety strongly believes that it needs to work together with multiple public and private partners to build the nationwide broadband network. We 

will utilize existing public safety, commercial, and private infrastructure to build out 

the network. Commercial carriers will play a big role in helping to build out the 

nationwide network, and they will be critical partners to public safety. 

This will reduce cost and create efficiencies. The nationwide network architecture 

will allow local, regional and statewide systems to be built to a national standard 

that ensures nationwide roaming and interoperability. 

Question 5. Who would maintain the network—would it be centralized, regional, 

or state operated? How would new users be authenticated and granted access to use 

the network? Also, how many additional personnel would be needed to maintain it 

on a day-to-day basis? 

Answer. Like any other network, there will be multiple levels for network maintenance. This function could vary from a localized (single tower maintenance) to a regional core that is maintained by a commercial or industry partner. 

At this time, we do not have information on the number of personnel that would 

be needed to maintain the network, but we are confident that building out and 

maintaining such a network will create thousands of new and sustainable high paying professional jobs. 

Question 6. When will there be a greater and more detailed discussion on planning and governance issues related to the broadband wireless network? Are these 

issues critical to addressing interoperability as well as overall design of the network 

and subsequent costs? 

Answer. Yes, this discussion is underway within the Administration and within 

public safety. The current governance will most likely need to change, however, the 

change should not undo the great work that has already been done by public safety. 

Question 7. The 9/11 Commission report found that ‘‘the inability to communicate 

was a critical element’’ at each of the ‘‘crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.’’ Even with the lack of interoperability clearly highlighted, efforts to improve this significant problem have fallen short and at best 

have only been incremental. 

To remedy this problem, the FCC established the Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) to ensure that the applications, devices, and networks that 

public safety groups utilize all work together, so that first responders nationwide 

can communicate with one another seamlessly. ERIC is supposed to hold its first 

meeting very soon. 

The National Broadband Plan noted that past efforts to create a public safety 

narrowband interoperable voice network have failed and that many public safety 

radio systems lack basic interoperability. It also found most jurisdictions that have 

improved their systems still only have an ‘‘intermediate’’ level of interoperability at 

best—not the advanced level of interoperability that is required for truly seamless 

communications in the event of a major emergency. Should those with industry expertise in designing and building nationwide networks have a greater voice in the 

development of interoperable systems? 

Answer. We strongly rely on industry experts to inform us on how to build out 

the nationwide network; however, we must ensure that the network is designed and 

built to meet the needs of first responders and public safety. In other words, while 

we will strive to ensure industry experts have a greater voice in the development 

of the interoperable systems, we must recognize that the voice of public safety users 

must be primary. 

63 

Question 8. Wouldn’t we more properly address this if public safety outlined the 

operational requirements and services that needed to be provided by the network 

and then private sector experts develop the standards and network design to meet 

those needs? 

Answer. That is what we tried to do with the Project 25 standards, but after 25 

years, we are still struggling to develop standards and network design to meet public safety needs. That is why public safety endorsed LTE standards, and now we 

are working with the Public Safety Communications Research program (PSCR), to 

ensure public safety requirements are considered in the IEEE standards setting 

process. 

Question 9. Last year, the FCC granted more than 20 waivers to public safety entities to begin building out wireless broadband networks using the existing 10 megahertz of spectrum that is already assigned to public safety in the 700 MHz band. 

Public safety officials have noted that these waiver build-outs will provide data 

important in the deployment of the proposed national network. A New York public 

safety official was quoted as saying ‘‘We have always made the argument that 

granting these waivers will further the ability to understand what it is that we 

want to build and how we want to build it.’’ How can public safety say it definitely 

needs the additional 10 megahertz of spectrum from the D Block if these waivers 

are being used for determining what to build and how to build it? 

Answer. It is public safety’s industry partners that are saying we definitely need 

an additional 10 MHz of spectrum. These industry partners are the ones that are 

building out the systems for the waiver entities, and they are the ones that are determining that 10 MHz systems built today will not meet the future needs of public 

safety. 

Question 10. The FCC and others have suggested giving public safety the option 

to use 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband in order to provide additional 

broadband capacity. Is this feasible? If not, why? 

Answer. No. FCC’s recent NOI clearly shows that network flexibility is not going 

to be possible because of the potential interference it will cause to existing 

narrowband systems and future broadband systems. Industry experts have refuted 

this notion and have provided a clear argument as to why this will not work. 

Question 11. It is my understanding that there are several federal departments 

and agencies involved with public safety communications—including the FCC, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of 

Justice. I am concerned there isn’t one agency responsible and that with all the 

agencies involved it presents challenges to making progress and proper planning. 

In addition to this bureaucracy, I am concerned about the funding challenges that 

have existed and will likely continue to exist with public safety interoperability. It 

is my understanding that more than $7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent 

over the past 7 years in Federal grants without proper planning and coordination. 

And as a result, only incremental improvements have been made—many experts 

state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved. This includes 

the Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC) grant program and about 

$4.3 billion DHS has spent to improve interoperability. 

My concern is that we are hastily providing resources to public safety without 

proper planning to ensure those assets, whether it is funding or spectrum, are properly utilized. What can we do differently this time to ensure we achieve the goals 

necessary for public safety to sufficiently respond and communicate in emergencies 

and ultimately protect our Nation’s citizens but upholding our fiscal responsibilities 

to taxpayers to ensure their hard-earned money is used wisely and responsibly? 

Answer. More and better planning and learning lessons from prior failures. 

Public safety shares these concerns and we would like to work with you to find 

the solution to that will provide proper oversight and accountability to ensure efficiency and maximum utilization of all the resources. 

Question 12. If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety then it would 

utilize 34 MHz of spectrum as its primary spectrum for both narrowband and 

broadband communications. While this wouldn’t necessarily present a problem in 

the event of a natural disaster, there is concern about possible over reliance on this 

band during a disaster or terrorist attack. 

If public safety principally relies on a relatively narrow range of spectrum then 

a coordinated attack could disrupt, or worse cripple, public safety communications 

through the use of high-power wireless jammers. For example, a recent University 

of Pennsylvania report highlighted the susceptibility of the P25 System to active 

64 

1Sandy Clark and others, Security Weaknesses in the APCO Project 25 Two-Way Radio System, CIS Technical Report MS–CIS–10–34, University of Pennsylvania, November 18, 2010. 

traffic analysis and selective jamming attacks.1 Is this a serious concern that needs 

to be addressed? Wouldn’t the public safety network be more resilient by utilizing 

the existing 700 MHz assignment with existing public safety spectrum in 400 MHz, 

800 MHz, and 4.9 GHz by using technologies such as dynamic spectrum access, cognitive radio, and spectrum aggregation? As well as just greater interoperability with 

commercial systems, which operate in various bands? 

Answer. Jamming, regardless of what spectrum band public safety operates on, 

is a serious concern. However, a jammer can be used to cripple networks on multiple 

bands and brute force jamming does not distinguish between public safety spectrum 

and commercial spectrum. If a jammer is being used to block a public safety network, then most likely it will also cripple a commercial network, as well. In order 

to utilize multiple spectrum bands, in any given area, you will need to build out 

a network on all the spectrum bands, which will increase the cost of the network 

astronomically. It is not economically feasible or efficient utilization of spectrum resources to build a 700 MHz, 400 MHz, 800 MHz, and 4.9 GHz network. 

Question 13. What impact would greater interoperability with commercial systems 

across the entire 700 MHz band have on the costs and time to market of providing 

mobile broadband capabilities and end users devices for first responders? 

Answer. Commercial services providers can answer this question better than public safety, but it is our understanding the technology is currently not available. We 

are very interested in having the ability to roam across the entire 700 MHz band 

and would like to see this technology come to fruition as soon as possible. 

Question 14. In your testimony you stress that the wireless broadband network 

must be mission critical at the outset. You also state, in the beginning, the system 

will only be able to handle data and video, and that mission critical voice is years 

away—some have even indicated that it is decades away. 

This is somewhat confusing because innovation and technological advancement in 

wireless and broadband are measured in months. Also, the Long-Term-Evolution 

standard includes ‘‘voice over LTE’’ capabilities, which will promote scale, reduce 

complexity, and implement roaming—all issues critical to public safety. Also, 

Verizon Wireless announced that it had successfully made the world’s first voice 

over LTE call over its commercial network yesterday morning. So there is rapid advancement in this space. How did you come to this assessment that mission critical 

voice is ‘‘years away?’’ How soon would you prefer to have mission critical voice supported by the LTE-based broadband wireless network? 

Answer. Our preference is to have a mission-critical voice system supported by the 

LTE broadband network today; however, it is not there yet. The technology must 

be proven, reliable and available to public safety at a reasonable cost. It is our understanding that the IEEE standards process has not even begun considering such 

standards, and if and when they are ready to do so, it could take years to finalize 

the mission critical voice standard. The technology also needs to allow for peer to 

peer and one to many communications without the need to go through the network 

(e.g., the talk around or simplex mode). 

We are encouraged that the administration budget provides considerable funding 

for research and development (R&D) for LTE mission critical voice equipment. We 

hope this will considerably shorten the length of time it will take to have the mission-critical voice system on the LTE network. 

Question 15. You also mention that it has to be affordable. Are the current 

narrowband land mobile radios affordable? If not—why not? 

Answer. No, current LMR systems are expensive, but there is no alternative. 

There are a number of reasons why LMR systems cost as much as they do. First 

and foremost, the radios need to be reliable and sturdy. They need to be able to 

work under extreme conditions, and they need to be durable enough to operate after 

being severely damaged. Second, most radios operate only one band. This makes 

LMR systems unique to each agency and jurisdiction and limits competitions and 

variety. Third, many LMR systems are proprietary. In order to operate a radio on 

the network, you have to buy the radio from the network manufacturer. This limits 

completion and interoperability. Fourth, the public safety market is a specialty market. Only very few other public or private entities have the same needs as those 

of public safety. This limits the number of companies that are willing to invest in 

developing products that will meet public safety’s needs. 

Question 16. Wouldn’t the long-term operation of two separate networks—one for 

voice and one for data—be more expensive than operating one converged network 

that carries voice, video, and data and also compound interoperability issues due to 

65 

the required interconnectivity necessary between narrowband and broadband systems? 

Answer. Yes, absolutely, and that is why we do not intend to operate two separate 

systems unless there is no other choice. Having a single system that does everything 

you need at a lower cost is preferable and desirable. However, until we have a system that can do that, we need to operate two systems on a parallel track. When 

public safety is ready to switch tracks, we will. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO

JOSEPH L. HANNA

Question 1. The Wireless Initiative that the President has put forward is a plan 

that is worth strong consideration. As I stated in a forum that I held in Missouri 

last year with the FCC Chairman, it is paramount that rural and unserved areas 

have access to broadband. 

The President has stated that his plan would reduce the deficit by $9.6 billion and 

that about $28 billion would be raised through incentive auctions. However, I want 

to get a better handle on these calculations. How are we determining that $28 billion would be raised? 

Answer. Not being an expert in the auction arena, I have no personal knowledge 

as to the amount of funds that may result from a potential auction. The professional 

literature and information discussed in public forums indicates that spectrum is indeed a premium commodity and commercial carriers are willing to pay considerable 

sums for spectrum. The last round of auctions certainly paved the way for future 

auctions to generate considerable amounts of funds for the Treasury. Dependent on 

the conditions, or lack thereof, on the D Block specifically, valuations are hard to 

predict. As all spectrum in the 700 MHz band is considered beachfront property, an 

unencumbered D Block will bring a premium price. Based on information in the 

trade press, AT&T is currently negotiating with Qualcomm to acquire an unpaired 

6 MHz block of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for a reported $2 billion. 

When looking at a projected $28 billion auction proceed, however, one must also 

consider that the bulk of proposed spectrum to be auctioned would come from an 

incentive-based broadcast pool. Based on the theory behind incentive auctions, a 

considerable portion of the proceeds of the auction would be returned to the carriers 

(thus ‘‘incentive’’). Additionally, funds from the auction would also be required to relocate broadcasters who elected to not auction their spectrum in the same band to 

provide for a clear band. Thus $28 billion does not equal $28 billion to the U.S. 

Treasury. 

Question 2. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much spectrum would be voluntarily given up for auction. Do we have assurances that we can actually reach 

this figure? 

Answer. I have no expertise regarding the probability of the amount of spectrum 

that might be put up for auction. 

Question 3. I have concerns about how we would pay for a public safety network 

under the FCC’s plan. The estimate is that we can raise $3 billion by auctioning 

off the D Block. I realize that this would be a different type of auction than what 

was attempted a few years ago but, given that that effort failed, how we know we’re 

going to get $3 billion? 

Answer. The amount of funds that would result from the D Block will clearly be 

insufficient to pay for the proposed public safety broadband network. It is my understanding that the funding from for this network would come from the large auction 

pool. The larger question is whether the Congress is willing and able to forego the 

funds that have already been scored by the Congress for the D Block. If the D Block 

is not auctioned, that will require the expenditure of future auctions to make up 

for this loss. 

Question 4. If we donate more spectrum to public safety agencies, can you give 

me any assurance that interoperability between different jurisdictions would work? 

And that you would have economies of scale to get good technology at a good cost? 

Answer. Public safety interoperability can indeed be assured if there is a governance and implementation model that is defined at the outset. Unfortunately, no 

such structure has yet been defined. There is currently (as of this past week) some 

disagreement within public safety writ large regarding the governance and nature 

of the proposed public safety broadband network. One element is currently calling 

for a single national network design, with another faction suggesting that failure 

to provide local control over networks will be unacceptable. If a public safety network is built with a nationwide plan that covers urban and rural areas equally and 

66 

provides for a common, centralized governance structure, interoperability can indeed 

be achieved, just as is done in the commercial world. 

Regarding economies of scale, a dedicated public network operating solely within 

the current public safety broadband block and the D Block (thus, Band Class 14) 

will significantly restrict any realistic notion of economies of scale. At final buildout, 

the proposed public safety network will cover and estimated 2.5–3 million users. According to today’s press reports, APPLE sold an estimated 5 million IPad2 devices 

in one week. Samsung reported selling 60 million units of a single device this past 

year. Not only will public safety be plagued with low volume, but specifications for 

ruggedized devices will compound design issues. Without access to commercial 

bands, public safety will be guaranteed low volume, high cost devices. 

Question 5. If the spectrum is auctioned off, the non-profitable public safety partnership of this deal could slip as commercial demand grows. How do we ensure that 

private entities will ensure that the needs of public safety are met? 

Answer. If the D Block remains in the auction pool as required by current law, 

the FCC clearly has the ability to mandate conditions or restrictions on that spectrum. Thus, a winner of the D Block could be mandated to provide public safety 

with access to the band on a priority basis. Less clear, although desirable from my 

perspective, is whether the Commission has the authority ex post facto to require 

similar access in carriers in the 700 MHz band who have already acquired spectrum 

in previous auctions. 

Question 6. There is a lot of discussion about up-front costs of maintaining a public safety network but not a lot about ongoing operating costs. How much is this 

going to cost in 10 years? Or in 20 years? How will that be paid for? 

Answer. The rule of thumb across most wireless networks runs approximately 10 

percent of the cost to build a system. Most of the bills introduced in both the House 

and Senate appear to propose a maintenance fund that would cover some of these 

costs, but I would suggest that public safety should be prepared to cover these costs 

on an ongoing basis. Currently, a substantial number of public safety entities either 

build non-interoperable broadband systems or, more commonly, pay for commercial 

services through major carriers. I happen to subscribe to a school of thought that 

state and local entities have a responsibility to pay for a portion of their services, 

as they do today. Given the magnitude of the initial build out costs for a national 

broadband network, however, exclusive use of local and state funds will not provide 

for the initial deployment of a national infrastructure. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

JOSEPH L. HANNA

Question 1. Beginning with the Radio Act of 1927 and continuing with the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Government began defining the public airwaves, or radio spectrum, as a resource that must be used in the public interest 

and, more specifically, ‘‘for the purpose of the national defense’’ and ‘‘for the purpose 

of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.’’ Since 1927, local, county, state and regional public safety organizations 

across the nation have built, maintained and updated their individual communications facilities. To meet those communications needs, it is my understanding that 

public safety entities utilize approximately 100 Megahertz of spectrum—including 

24 megahertz of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band for both broadband 

and narrowband services. 

Can you elaborate on the existing spectrum utilized by public safety such as what 

frequency bands are used, how much spectrum in each band is used, and what communications services are supported in those bands? 

Answer. Public safety is currently allocated 97 MHz of spectrum. This spectrum 

is spread throughout the VHF (both low band and high band), UHF, 700 MHz, 800 

MHz, and 4.9 GHz bands. Much of the spectrum in the VHF and UHF bands are 

shared with other non-public safety radio services. To date, the overwhelming use 

of public safety spectrum has been limited to narrowband voice communications, 

with limited narrowband data services utilized by some public safety entities. As a 

result of waivers issued this past year by the FCC, 20 jurisdictions have been given 

approval to implement early deployments of broadband operations in the 700 MHz 

band. Due to the nature of the spectrum, public safety uses of the 4.9 GHz band 

have generally been limited to short range broadband operations. 

Question 2. What services, if any, will migrate to the new wireless broadband network? How many first responders in the field are expected to be supported by this 

wireless broadband network? 

67 

Answer. Few existing services used by public safety will migrate from existing 

bands to the public safety broadband platform in the 700 MHz band in the foreseeable future. An extensive array of high speed applications that have been outlined 

in numerous documents, including, but not limited to, document transfer, video, telemetry, and sensors, are not currently available on the narrowband frequencies 

currently licensed to public safety and will thus find a home in the broadband network. While broadband spectrum in the 4.9 GHz is allocated to public safety, this 

spectrum is limited to short range applications and is not suited to large area mobile applications. 

Mission critical voice communications may, at some point in the future, migrate 

to the broadband network. At this time, however, public safety has not yet addressed the requirements for mission critical voice communications over broadband. 

Once public safety completes such a set of requirements, these requirements will 

have to be standardized in the worldwide 3GPP standards process, manufacturers 

will have to ramp up for these standards, and user equipment will have to be designed around these standards. While mission critical voice capabilities appear 

promising, several mission critical capabilities, including peer-to-peer (i.e., calls that 

can be made from one device to another off network) create challenges in an architecture designed for network-based communications. Additional issues related to 

local command and control within dispatch centers will create challenges for the 

widespread use of mission critical voice over broadband services. 

A number of jurisdictions have deployed proprietary mobile broadband networks 

on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. The fragmented and proprietary nature of 

these deployments do not allow for interoperability outside the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions who have deployed these systems have done so at considerable costs, but out 

of necessity due to the lack of a nationwide public safety network. 

According to most studies, first responders, if defined as police, fire, and emergency medical personnel, can load a national network with 2.5–3 million users. The 

number of devices may ultimately exceed that number, as sensors and fixed equipment could add to that total. That said, it will take a number of years before a nationwide network will be completed, with a resulting level of system loading considerably lower than the 2.5–3 million users in the early years of deployment. Additionally, the low number of potential users (low in comparison to the several hundred 

million commercial customers served by commercial carriers), will significantly impact the number of devices made available to the public safety community in the 

early years of the network. 

Question 3. If there are radio-based services that will migrate to the wireless 

broadband network or aren’t required anymore due to the new enhanced services 

that will be possible on the wireless broadband network, would public safety work 

with the Commission to develop a transition plan to relinquish underutilized spectrum over a certain period of time? 

Answer. While several legislative proposals currently being considered in both the 

House and Senate have proposed spectrum give backs once a national broadband 

network is deployed in the 700 MHz band, I would argue that such give backs come 

with substantial drawbacks. First, the spectrum used for narrowband voice operations in the 150 MHz and 400–512MHz are generally scattered and interleaved 

with other radio services, including, but not limited to, amateur radio services and 

the business, industrial and transportation categories. Clearing of only the public 

safety channels will not provide any clear blocks of spectrum suitable for future auctions. 

Additionally, all current public safety users operating in spectrum below 512 MHz 

have either completed or are in the process of narrow banding their land mobile 

radio systems to comply with a FCC mandate for narrow band operations by January 1, 2013. Hundreds of millions of dollars, all funded by the licensees, have been, 

or are being, spent to meet this mandate. Any forced migration from these narrow 

banded systems will substantially impact the return on investment for this migration. 

More significantly, lower frequency bands in the 150 and 400–512 MHz have excellent propagation characteristics for suburban and rural areas, as well as excellent 

in building penetration in urban environments. As noted above, almost all users of 

these frequency pools have either just completed, or are in the process, of spending 

hundreds of millions of dollars to meet an FCC mandate to narrowband these frequencies. Additionally, the cost to replace these systems with 700 or 800 MHz channels will be many times higher than the spectrum currently in use, as 700 and 800 

MHz systems require far more radio sites than required for lower-band systems. 

Rural users (e.g., Western Texas, Arizona, North Dakota, Nevada and most of the 

western United States) would face massive costs to replace existing lower band systems with 700–800 MHz systems. No such transition from lower band systems to 

68 

700–800 MHz systems could be contemplated without massive expenditures in the 

billions of dollars range coming from the Federal Government, thus offsetting any 

potential future auction proceeds from reclaimed spectrum. 

If relinquishing spectrum in the lower bands is the price for reallocation of the 

D Block to public safety, it is my strong opinion that this cost is both harmful to 

the vast majority of public safety entities, is a poor return on investment, and sacrifices the financial investments and best-use of spectrum for far too many public 

safety entities. During a recent meeting (February 28–March 1, 2011) of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, its Governing Board passed a resolution citing its opposition to the giveback of spectrum below 512 MHz in recognition of the adverse impact on public safety and other users in the band. 

Question 4. The FCC estimates expenses for its plan of constructing a public safety network through partnerships with commercial providers and infrastructure will 

total approximately $6.3 billion over 10 years. Adding in operating expenses would 

bring the approximate total to $12–16 billion over 10 years. The FCC also estimated 

that constructing a stand-alone public safety network would require approximately 

$16 billion over 10 years and that adding in operating expenses would bring the 

total to approximately $34.4 billion over 10 years. A Verizon study for the Southern 

Governors Association back in 2007, suggested that a network would cost $61 billion 

over 10 years for both construction and maintenance. If the D Block were directly 

allocated to public safety, would public safety look to build its own network, utilize 

existing commercial infrastructure, or a hybrid of both? Would it be one nationwide 

network or a compilation of regional/state networks, or virtual networks over existing carriers’ networks? 

Answer. While many within public safety have advocated a network controlled 

and operated by public safety, I will argue that broadband networks should be build 

and operated by companies or commercial operators who do this on a daily basis. 

In the current public safety governance structures (Public Safety Spectrum Trust, 

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, APCO, etc.), there is no indication of any expertise in the design, operation, or maintenance of highly sophisticated 

broadband networks. This is not to say that public safety should not have a strong 

voice in the design of functional requirements, procurement and governance of such 

a network. 

Unfortunately, public safety has a relative poor record in designing, building, or 

managing large scale telecommunications networks beyond the local level. Project 

25, for example, has been in existence for over 20 years, yet still has a significant 

number of standards yet to be completed. The national record is replete with documentation regarding the lack of interoperability between existing P–25 systems in 

spite of the billions of dollars that have been spent on these systems to date. 

Ten years following FCC requirements for wireless carriers to deliver location and 

subscriber information to public safety answer points for persons placing 9–1–1 

calls, a significant number of SAPS throughout the United States have yet to upgrade their internal systems to accommodate receipt of location/subscriber identification data. 

In terms of network design, i.e., a single national network or a network of networks, is currently being debated within the public safety community. During sessions at the International Wireless Conference and Exposition in Las Vegas during 

the week of March 7–11, 2011, there was considerable dialog that demonstrated that 

this issue clearly has no definitive agreement within public safety writ large. I 

would suggest that any hope of delivering true nationwide interoperability, as well 

as fundamental operability within a substantial part of the United States (particularly in rural areas) will only be accomplished through the deployment of a single 

nationwide network. As long as local jurisdictions demand control over their portion 

of a network, the silo mentality that has prevented interoperability in the land mobile radio environment to date will simply be perpetuated. 

Last, it is hard to imagine any network design that does not take advantage of 

the commercial deployments throughout the United States. Technology in place 

today allows for the co-location of various users, either through site sharing or virtual division of common equipment. Failure to follow this path guarantees poor use 

of valuable Federal funds. 

Question 5. Who would maintain the network—would it be centralized, regional, 

or state operated? How would new users be authenticated and granted access to use 

the network? Also, how many additional personnel would be needed to maintain it 

on a day-to-day basis? 

Answer. Until such time as a governance model can be defined and made operational, this question will remain challenging. To date, the National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council has advocated a centralized model of governance. WithVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:19 Dec 09, 2011 Jkt 071532 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71532.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
69 

out a strong, centralized model, I would argue, as noted above, that the fundamental issues of interoperability, maintenance, refresh, and other essential requirements of a true, nationwide effort, will be made considerably more difficult. 

There should be no mistake that additional personnel will be required to administer, operate, and manage a national broadband network. The underlying question 

is whether public safety is best equipped to perform administration, operation, 

maintenance of this network, or whether this task is best left to experienced network operators (existing or new), with public safety’s role better focused on the policies related to the use of this network. 

Question 6. When will there be a greater and more detailed discussion on planning and governance issues related to the broadband wireless network? Are these 

issues critical to addressing interoperability as well as overall design of the network 

and subsequent costs? 

Answer. Following the Senate Commerce hearing on this topic on February 16, 

2011, the topic of governance has become a central topic of conversation. It is somewhat regretful that a number of public safety leaders still argue that legislation providing spectrum reallocation and funding should precede the final determination of 

a governance structure. Sadly, however, there is no consensus within public safety, 

nor has there been any articulated plan for this ultimate governance structure, nor 

has there been any definitive document regarding the plans for the design, deployment, management, operation, or maintenance of the ultimate network. Again, without a governance plan in place prior to passage of legislation, we guarantee unwarranted and unnecessary delays in the implementation of a network for the Nation’s 

first responders. 

One need look no farther than the San Francisco Bay Area to confirm this argument. A consortium within the San Francisco Bay area was granted a waiver for 

early deployment of a public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz broadband 

allocation. Additionally, TOP funds were granted for this construction. Due to internal issues within this regional effort, however, considerable questions have been 

raised regarding governance, authority, purchasing decisions, etc. Similar regional 

issues were faced by the National Capitol Region when deploying a trial broadband 

network several years ago. While both regions are to be commended for their initiative and desire to deploy broadband networks for their first responders, an essential 

lesson has been presented for the need of a well-defined governance model at the 

front end, not the back end, of the process. 

Question 7. The 9/11 Commission report found that ‘‘the inability to communicate 

was a critical element’’ at each of the ‘‘crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.’’ Even with the lack of interoperability clearly highlighted, efforts to improve this significant problem have fallen short and at best 

have only been incremental. 

To remedy this problem, the FCC established the Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) to ensure that the applications, devices, and networks that 

public safety groups utilize all work together, so that first responders nationwide 

can communicate with one another seamlessly. ERIC is supposed to hold its first 

meeting very soon. 

The National Broadband Plan noted that past efforts to create a public safety 

narrowband interoperable voice network have failed and that many public safety 

radio systems lack basic interoperability. It also found most jurisdictions that have 

improved their systems still only have an ‘‘intermediate’’ level of interoperability at 

best—not the advanced level of interoperability that is required for truly seamless 

communications in the event of a major emergency. Should those with industry expertise in designing and building nationwide networks have a greater voice in the 

development of interoperable systems? 

Answer. Without question, industry expertise should be an integral component in 

the design and implementation of the proposed network. 

Question 8. Wouldn’t we more properly address this if public safety outlined the 

operational requirements and services that needed to be provided by the network 

and then private sector experts develop the standards and network design to meet 

those needs? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 9. Last year, the FCC granted more than 20 waivers to public safety entities to begin building out wireless broadband networks using the existing 10 megahertz of spectrum that is already assigned to public safety in the 700 MHz band. 

Public safety officials have noted that these waiver build-outs will provide data important in the deployment of the proposed national network. A New York public 

safety official was quoted as saying ‘‘We have always made the argument that 

granting these waivers will further the ability to understand what it is that we 

70 

1Sandy Clark and others, Security Weaknesses in the APCO Project 25 Two-Way Radio System, CIS Technical Report MS–CIS–10–34, University of Pennsylvania, November 18, 2010. 

want to build and how we want to build it.’’ How can public safety say it definitely 

needs the additional 10 megahertz of spectrum from the D Block if these waivers 

are being used for determining what to build and how to build it? 

Answer. Unfortunately, there has been no engineering analysis or documentation 

from the public safety community regarding the amount of spectrum that will be 

required. 

Question 10. The FCC and others have suggested giving public safety the option 

to use 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband in order to provide additional 

broadband capacity. Is this feasible? If not, why? 

Answer. Per my testimony during the February 16 hearing, I believe that flexible 

use within the 700 MHz narrowband public safety allocation should include a flexible use capability. While flexible use is not a simple element, it can be accomplished 

with proper coordination. Without such flexible use, large jurisdictions such as New 

York City who have made public statements about their lack of intent to deploy any 

narrowband technologies in the future, we will see extremely valuable spectrum lie 

fallow for years to come. If the predictions for mission critical voice capabilities are 

realized, this flexible use of the narrowband channels will provide automatic access 

to 10 MHz of prime spectrum. 

Question 11. It is my understanding that there are several Federal departments 

and agencies involved with public safety communications—including the FCC, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of 

Justice. I am concerned there isn’t one agency responsible and that with all the 

agencies involved it presents challenges to making progress and proper planning. 

In addition to this bureaucracy, I am concerned about the funding challenges that 

have existed and will likely continue to exist with public safety interoperability. It 

is my understanding that more than $7 billion of taxpayer money has been spent 

over the past 7 years in Federal grants without proper planning and coordination. 

And as a result, only incremental improvements have been made. Many experts 

state it may be several more years before it is completely resolved. This includes 

the Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC) grant program and about 

$4.3 billion DHS has spent to improve interoperability. 

My concern is that we are hastily providing resources to public safety without 

proper planning to ensure those assets, whether it is funding or spectrum, are properly utilized. What can we do differently this time to ensure we achieve the goals 

necessary for public safety to sufficiently respond and communicate in emergencies 

and ultimately protect our Nation’s citizens but upholding our fiscal responsibilities 

to taxpayers to ensure their hard-earned money is used wisely and responsibly? 

Answer. This question is well advised. As noted above, there is no doubt that 

America’s first responders require and deserve a world-class broadband network. 

Without a well defined governance structure and implementation model (nationwide 

vs. jurisdiction based, public safety vs. commercial operator, etc.), there will be no 

way to avoid long term delays in implementation. 

Of equal concern, there appears to be an emerging tug of war within the Federal 

Government regarding control of the proposed public safety broadband network. 

While the FCC has provided initial guidance and leadership through its National 

Broadband Plan, the Office of the Vice President, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Commerce/NTIA have all 

emerged with interests in this issue. Each of these entities has a valid interest and 

contribution to the effort, but the potential for fragmentation and control issues is 

increasing as time passes. 

The key is to balance the development of a firm governance model and implementation plan within a reasonable timeframe. 

Question 12. If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety then it would 

utilize 34 MHz of spectrum as its primary spectrum for both narrowband and 

broadband communications. While this wouldn’t necessarily present a problem in 

the event of a natural disaster, there is concern about possible over reliance on this 

band during a disaster or terrorist attack. 

If public safety principally relies on a relatively narrow range of spectrum then 

a coordinated attack could disrupt, or worse cripple, public safety communications 

through the use of high-power wireless jammers. For example, a recent University 

of Pennsylvania report highlighted the susceptibility of the P25 System to active 

traffic analysis and selective jamming attacks.1

Is this a serious concern that needs to be addressed? Wouldn’t the public safety 

network be more resilient by utilizing the existing 700 MHz assignment with existVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:19 Dec 09, 2011 Jkt 071532 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71532.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
71 

ing public safety spectrum in 400 MHz, 800 MHz, and 4.9 GHz by using technologies such as dynamic spectrum access, cognitive radio, and spectrum aggregation? As well as just greater interoperability with commercial systems, which operate in various bands? 

Answer. An underlying principle of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan was the 

ability to provide a diverse path for public safety. As the question notes, systems 

operating in a single band may well be more prone to failure than through diverse 

paths. While commercial sites may not always be built to public safety grade standards, there are hundreds of thousands of commercial sites currently in play. In any 

given catastrophic situation such as Hurricane Katrina, or the more recent events 

in Japan, diverse infrastructure can only be viewed as an asset. 

Question 13. What impact would greater interoperability with commercial systems 

across the entire 700 MHz band have on the costs and time to market of providing 

mobile broadband capabilities and end users devices for first responders? 

Answer. This question creates a two sided sword for consideration. As noted in 

my initial testimony on February 16, a network dedicated only to public safety users 

is faced with the underlying issue of economies of scale, or the lack thereof. With 

a user base of less than 3 million first responders, handset providers are challenged 

with providing specialized terminal products at price points realized in the commercial market. According to recent press reports, Apple sold more than 5 million IPad2 

devices in less than a week. With no access to other commercial bands, whether the 

D Block operated by a commercial entity or other spectrum within the 700 MHz 

band, devices will unquestionably be limited in variety and will come at a premium 

price. 

This point, should, however, be tempered with the fact that making devices that 

can operate across the entire 700 MHz band will present engineering challenges. It 

is my understanding that there are no such devices available today. That said, if 

public safety is unable to build out a network with the speed that commercial operators have been able to demonstrate, failure to have access to commercial systems 

in the lower portions of the band may well preclude nationwide access to broadband 

services by first responders. 

Question 14. One of the problems that has been raised about auctioning off the 

D Block spectrum is the uncertainty surrounding public safety preemption and 

prioritization over commercial rules in a public-private shared broadband network 

and that the FCC current recommended rules for the D Block do not require cooperation between the public and private sectors. Has this been a major sticking 

point attributable to the unsuccessful attempt to auction the D Block? How can the 

FCC resolve this issue properly? 

Answer. Without question, the issue of access to, and priority access within, commercial systems has been a sticking point for public safety. Recent technical papers 

have demonstrated beyond any question that LTE technology allows for shared access and priority access (including the functional equivalent of preemption). The 

issues of public safety access to commercial systems and priority access within that 

access is indeed tied to FCC rules, not technical restraints. If the D Block is not 

allocated to public safety, I would continue to argue, as I did in my original testimony, that, as a minimum, public safety should be guaranteed access on a priority 

basis within the D Block. In the ideal world, commercial operators in the 700 MHz 

band would embrace a public service mindset and allow for this same priority access. Based on public statements of several of the Nation’s largest carriers, however, 

this voluntary public service does not appear imminent. To the extent that the 

FCC’s authority would allow for the mandatory access to networks across the 700 

MHz band could be permitted, I would argue that this action would be in the 

public’s interest. 

Question 15. If the D Block were directly allocated to public safety, what impact 

would that have on public safety’s ability to take advantage of lower handset prices 

and more feature-rich equipment? 

Answer. Per my original testimony on February 16, it is my strong opinion, and 

one that has not seen a response to the contrary from any manufacturers, is that 

providing the D Block to public safety will have the unintended (but predictable) 

consequence of creating an island technology that will result in greatly increased 

pricing and limited availability of user equipment for first responders. While public 

safety should never expect to see ‘‘feature rich’’ handsets available at the pricing at 

levels consumers have become accustomed, devices created for a band class 14-only 

market will, without question, come at a premium price and in limited variety. This 

concept alone can substantially negate many of the benefits that were the cornerstone of the concept of a dedicated public safety broadband network. With prices 

considerably above those realized by commercial consumers, the logical question is 

72 

whether we perpetuate a distinction between haves and have-nots within public 

safety. 

Question 16. Could public safety also use other 700 MHz commercial systems on 

the same basis? Would that provide even greater coverage and redundancy benefits? 

Answer. While I believe that commercial systems offer a great deal to public safety, I will continue to argue, as I have for the past 6 years, that public safety requires a core, dedicated infrastructure. Given the loading on commercial systems, 

it is unlikely that public safety will ever be able to receive guarantees of access, not 

to mention preemptive priority access, on these commercial systems. I strongly believe that public safety requires and deserves a dedicated core network that can provide the levels of access they need on a daily basis. That said, I equally believe that 

the FCC’s analysis and recommendations within the National Broadband Plan regarding access to commercial networks for overflow situations during major emergencies is the optimum solution when considering the economics of the day and the 

demands for spectrum throughout other communities. 

Question 17. Public safety has built and operated its own communications systems 

for decades. What is public safety’s track record on the implementation of those systems and the technology they use? What are the advantages of having public safety 

partner with commercial providers in the development of a 700 MHz broadband network? 

Answer. As noted above, public safety has done a relatively good job of building 

and managing voice systems within their own jurisdictions. It is interesting to note, 

however, that a considerable number of these entities have turned over the maintenance of these systems to commercial providers. That said, the record is equally 

harsh regarding public safety’s inability to realize interoperability beyond the jurisdictional level. Interestingly, however, many of these same entities never blink at 

using nationwide, shared systems from commercial providers for broadband services. 

For many years, public safety users have purchased CDPD, 1XRTT, EDDO, EDGE, 

and HSAA/HSAA+ services from commercial providers. Each of these purchases utilizes the nationwide offerings of commercial carriers. While none of these commercial offerings will provide the quality of service guarantees that public safety needs 

and requires, the existing model does demonstrate that commercial providers and 

be valuable partners in the delivery of broadband services. 

Question 18. In addition to the direct allocation of the D Block to public safety, 

the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act Chairman Rockefeller introduced also provides the FCC with incentive auction authority—allowing existing 

spectrum licensees to voluntarily relinquish their airwaves in exchange for a portion 

of the proceeds of the commercial auction of their spectrum—and primarily relies 

on incentive auction revenue to raise the funds for the construction and maintenance of the public safety broadband network. 

In order to raise the necessary funds, there may have to be significant voluntary 

participation by broadcasters. However, if there is less than expected participation 

then the network runs the risk of being underfunded. 

Is this a valid concern and how should it be addressed? Also, even though this 

is voluntary for broadcasters, if there were less than expected participation, could 

there be pressure applied to broadcasters to participate given the reliance on funds 

from incentive auctions to pay for the public safety network? How might we prevent 

this from happening? 

Answer. As stated in my testimony of February 16, I am not able to speak as an 

auction expert. From reading extensively on the subject, however, I can offer some 

thoughts on this question. Clearly, no person or entity has a crystal ball that can 

make valid predictions about the extent to which broadcasters will participate in the 

proposed auctions. Nor can anyone make a valid estimate on the value of spectrum 

that may come up for auction. The more spectrum that might appear available for 

auction, the less dollars per MHz that will be offered. The less spectrum that might 

appear, the higher the potential value of that spectrum. Both assumptions, however, 

may well be tempered by the status of the national economy at the time of the auction. 

Equally to be considered with any discussion on auctions is the amount of funds 

that will ultimately result from said auction. If, for example, an auction were to result in $30 billion of bids, the rules of an incentive auction would require the return 

of a portion of those funds to the entity offering up the spectrum-no (or low) incentives equals little spectrum being offered. Second, once the incentives were returned 

to the original licensee, additional funds would then be required nationwide to move 

incumbent carriers that did not provide spectrum for auction to allow for clear 

bands of spectrum. Needless to say, this will result in considerable expense. Thus, 

$30 billion is not equal to $30 billion to the treasury. 

73 

Question 19. In your opinion, how long will it take to raise the necessary funds 

for the construction and maintenance of the public safety network, if the primary 

funding mechanism were auctions? Might multiple auctions need to take place and 

how long does it typically take to set up and execute a spectrum auction? 

Answer. Again, while I have no expertise in auctions, the record is relatively clear 

that the path for realization of auction proceeds is longer than it is short. That said, 

the time to begin meaningful construction for a public safety broadband is now, not 

years down the road. 

Æ