U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

25–782 2017

REALIZING NATIONWIDE NEXT-GENERATION 911 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29, 2017 

Serial No. 115–21 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Member 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 4 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES

Trey Forgety, III, Director of Governmental Affairs, National Emergency 

Number Association ............................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Walt Magnussen, Director, Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center, Texas 

A&M University ................................................................................................... 19 

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

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Mary Boyd, Vice-President, Regulatory, Policy and External Affairs, West 

Safety Services, on Behalf of Industry Council for Emergency Response 

Technologies ......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Barry Ritter, Executive Director, Statewide 911 Board, State of Indiana ......... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Steve Souder, Former Director, Fairfax County 9-1-1, Maryland Emergency 

Number (9-1-1) Systems Board ........................................................................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Article entitled , ‘‘Update to 911 issue in Dallas,’’ Dallas City News Releases, 

March 16, 2017, submitted by Mr. Long ............................................................ 81 

Statement of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, submitted 

by Mr. Long .......................................................................................................... 84 

(1) 

REALIZING NATIONWIDE NEXT–GENERATION 

911 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, 

Latta, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, 

Brooks, Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, 

Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Eshoo, Engel, and Matsui. 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Chuck Flint, Policy Coordinator, Communications and Technology; Gene Fullano, 

Detailee, Communications and Technology; Theresa Gambo, 

Human Resources/Office Administrator; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection/Communications and Technology; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief Energy 

Advisor; Mark Ratner, Policy Coordinator; David Redl, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Alex Debianchi, Minority Telecom Fellow; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and 

Technology; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; and Dan Miller, Minority Staff Assistant. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Technology will now come to order and the 

chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

The evolution in communications technology continues to change 

the lives of Americans and for the better. The transition to the 

internet protocol technology underlying next generation 911 service 

from the circuit-based networks of yesterday is a compelling example of this. 

Traditional 911 services permitted a voice call through the local 

phone company switch to be transferred directly to a public safety 

answering point, or PSAP. 

2 

Next-Gen 911 takes advantage of the robust capabilities of today’s and tomorrow’s digital networks and will allow the lifesaving 

call to take the form of voice, text or video from any wired, wireless, or IP-based device routed over a broadband network. 

Realizing Next Generation 911 services throughout the nation is 

critical, but as with any large-scale transition there are challenges 

to overcome. Issues regarding such matters is funding, governance, 

ensuring the security of the network are a few and the cost will be 

significant. 

Yet, while funding is a challenge, studies reveal a troubling pattern whereby some states divert money collected from consumers 

intended for 911 services that could assist with the transition. The 

FCC reports that approximately $220 million, or 8.4 percent, of the 

total amount of fees collected by the states to fund 911 were diverted for non-911 purposes. This was in 2015 alone. 

Every member of this committee should agree to work aggressively on this issue. 

Our witness from the state of Indiana, Mr. Ritter, tells us in his 

testimony that a state’s approach to governance is an important 

component of a successful transition. 

The majority memorandum notes that approximately have of the 

states have established 911 boards or similar entities. I look forward to a better understanding of how this coordinated command 

may facilitate transition. 

And we are all aware the IP-based networks will be vulnerable 

to cyberattack. The FCC has said that additional work must be 

done to protect these networks including encrypting data to ensure 

the integrity of traffic. 

What more can be done and what is the best approach? With 

that said, we should recognize that this transition is underway and 

these challenges are not insurmountable. 

According to an FCC report, 12 states report that NG911 is operational in 100 percent of the state. My home state of Tennessee is 

among those 12. A solid start for our nation but well short of where 

we ought to be. 

We have taken steps to facilitate the transition. Most recently in 

2012 this committee under Chairman Walden’s leadership was instrumental in passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which not only created First Net to bring state of the art 

communication capabilities to our nation’s first responders but also 

sought to further the NG911 transition. 

Republicans and Democrats must agree that having a modern 

911 emergency repose system is a national necessity. I look forward 

to our conversation today and I yield the remaining time to Ms. 

Brooks for an introduction. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Welcome to the Communications and Technology Subcommittee’s hearing titled: 

‘‘Realizing Nationwide Next-Generation 911.’’ Also, thank you to our witnesses for 

appearing here today to offer your expertise. 

The evolution in communications technology continues to change the lives of 

Americans, and for the better. The transition to the Internet Protocol technology underlying Next Generation 911 service from the circuit-based networks of yesterday 

is a compelling example of this. Traditional 911 services permitted a voice call 

3 

through the local phone company’s switch to be transferred directly to a Public Safety Answering Point or ‘‘PSAP.’’ Next Gen 911 takes advantage of the robust capabilities of today’s and tomorrow’s digital networks and will allow that lifesaving call 

to take the form of voice, text, or video from any wired, wireless, or IP based device 

routed over a broadband network. 

Realizing NG911 services throughout the Nation is critical, but as with any largescale transition there are challenges that must be overcome. Issues regarding such 

matters as funding, governance, ensuring the security of the network are but a few. 

The cost will be significant. Yet while funding is a challenge, studies reveal a troubling pattern whereby some states divert money collected from consumers intended 

for 911 services that could assist with the NG911 transition. The FCC reports that 

approximately $220 million—or 8.4 percent of the total amount of fees collected by 

the states to fund 911 was diverted for non-911 purposes in 2015. Every member 

of this Committee should agree to work together to tackle this issue aggressively. 

Our witness from the state of Indiana, Mr. Bitter tells us in his testimony that 

a state’s approach to governance is an important component of a successful transition. The majority memorandum notes that approximately half of the states have 

established 911 boards or similar entities. I look forward to a better understanding 

of how a ‘‘centralized command’’ may facilitate the transition. 

And we are all aware that these IP-based networks will be vulnerable to 

cyberattack. The FCC has said that additional work must be done to protect these 

networks, including encrypting data to ensure the ‘‘integrity’’ of traffic. What more 

can be done? What is the best approach as we move forward? 

With that said, we should recognize that this transition is underway and these 

challenges are not insurmountable. According to an FCC report, twelve states report 

that NG911 is operational in 100 percent of the state—my home State of Tennessee 

among them. A solid start for our Nation but well short of where I think we need 

to be. 

We have taken steps to facilitate the transition. Most recently, in 2012, this Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Walden, was instrumental in passage of 

the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act which not only created FirstNet 

to bring state-of-the-art communications capabilities to our Nation’s first responders, but also sought to further the NG 911 transition. In addition, to more in grant 

funding, we called for a study of the costs to move to NG911 and annual reports 

to keep us informed of progress. Unfortunately, we are still waiting. Republicans 

and Democrats can both agree that having a modern 911 emergency response system in place is a national necessity. As our witnesses today share their stories and 

expertise, we have an opportunity to learn what works best, what is most efficient, 

and what will get us there quickly. I look forward to working with my colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle. Thank you. 

Ms. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to welcome a Hoosier to Washington, Barry Ritter, the executive director 

of Indiana 911. 

Along with Mr. Ritter, Kelly Mitchell, the Indiana state treasurer 

also in attendance, and Treasurer Mitchell chairs the state 911 

board and is actually the only treasurer in the country in this role. 

And so welcome, Ms. Mitchell. 

Mr. Ritter originally joined the state as the director of the Wireless 911 Advisory Board in 2010. He was an active participant in 

the 2012 session of the legislature which brought about fundamental changes in the funding model in Indiana and operational 

responsibilities for 911 in Indiana, most notably the creation of the 

statewide 911 board. 

Prior to joining the board he served for 4 years as the director 

of the Wayne County Consolidated Communications Center in 

Richmond, Indiana. 

He came into the world of 911 after serving more than 20 years 

as a police officer for the city of Richmond, and during his career 

he held several assignments in the agency, eventually serving as 

deputy chief of police. 

4 

Mr. Ritter earned his degree from Vincennes University and received his emergency number professional designation through the 

NENA Institute in 2009. 

We welcome your testimony today, Mr. Ritter, and appreciate 

you being here to provide this panel and to provide the other members here with your background and expertise. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, thank you to the witnesses for being here today 

and thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this hearing. 

The state and future of 911 systems in this country is a critical 

issue. As we move forward with the deployment of the national 

public safety broadband network for first responders we need to 

recognize the importance of 911 service and then need for modernization for both the people that take 911 calls and those that 

are sent to respond to them. 

While Congress has allocated billions in funding in spectrum to 

leverage the construction and deployment of FirstNet, we have only 

allocated $115 million for Next-Gen 911. 

And while states and localities have an important role to play, 

we need to ensure that they have a strong partner in the federal 

government that is able to direct funding, expertise, and scale at 

this challenge. 

I am disappointed that we are sitting here today without a clear 

idea of how much upgrading our nation’s 911 infrastructure will 

cost or what the ongoing cost will be of sustaining world class 911 

infrastructure throughout the country. 

I think what’s clear is that the current funding mechanisms are 

not sufficient to meet current needs or to fund the next generation 

of upgrades. 

I would call on the majority to work with us to advance legislation to address these issues. And while I commend the work being 

done by the witnesses here to attack the problem, we need national 

solutions because citizens will not adopt these new technologies if 

they are not uniformly deployed and uniformly functional on a national basis. 

We are far past the time when localities should have a patchwork of solutions where some accept text messages, pictures, and 

videos and others are still working with technology from the ’70s. 

Smart phones and smart devices are the present and the future 

of emergency communications. As the testimony shows, the future 

of Next Gen 911 are vehicle collision notifications being sent to 911 

call centers, and companies like Nest and other smart home safety 

and security products which are already warning consumers about 

incidents in their homes. 

We need to be sure that both consumer, commercial and municipal IOT infrastructure can communicate effectively with first responders. 

5 

Recently, there have been a number of 911 outages in our country. This month roughly 46 million AT&T customers lost access to 

911 service for five hours. Approximately 12,600 people tried to dial 

911 and weren’t able to get through. 

More than AT&T’s outage, a Dallas call center was overwhelmed 

by abandoned 911 calls and we have reports of similar cases 

throughout the country. 

Some of these instances seem due to understaffing while others 

the root causes are still not clear. What is clear is that we are still 

facing challenges in places meeting basic service standards. 

I would just add that compromised smart phones have already 

been used to attack the nation’s 911 system. As the witnesses point 

out, moving the 911 system to an IP-based system opens up call 

centers to great cybersecurity challenges also. 

Deploying Next-Gen 911 services isn’t just about expanding the 

ways people access emergency services. It’s also about making sure 

these services are more redundant, more reliable and more useful. 

I hope this hearing is educational to our members. I look forward 

to hearing the testimony of the witnesses and I would be happy to 

yield the remainder of my time to any member of the subcommittee 

that wants to use it. 

Seeing none, Madam Chair, I’ll yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back and the chairman 

of the full committee, Mr. Walden, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank you very much and I thank you for holding 

this very important hearing as we move forward in our work in 

this area. 

This morning we convene to examine the progress in the deployment of Next Generation 911. As a matter of coincidence, the timing could not have been better. 

Yesterday, FirstNet announced that it took the next step in its 

competitive bidding process. It’s expected FirstNet will soon execute a contract to form a public-private partnership in order to deploy a single nationwide wireless broadband network for our first 

responders. 

Nearly 13 years after the 9/11 commission reported highlighted 

grave deficiencies in the first responder communications, the most 

up to date communications capabilities will finally be at the fingertips of our brave men and women who protect us daily. 

Today, we all carry devices in our pockets. They allow us to communicate by voice, by text, by email, by video and now that we are 

at the threshold of deployment of FirstNet our nation’s first responders will have a dedicated network to do the same. This is 

really important work. 

But our 911 networks, which are based on the technologies of the 

past, do not provide the seamless connection between the two. 

Only by bringing IP-based technology to the nation’s public safety answering points, the professionals that are the first voice you 

hear when you call for help, can we bring the full promise of modern technology to serve us in times of emergency. 

6 

In 2012 when we passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act, which created FirstNet, we also took steps to facilitate the deployment of Next Generation 911. 

We engaged the 911 implementation coordination office to work 

with the state and local authorities, asked for a report on the cost 

of NG911 and established a matching grant program. We did all 

that as the work of this committee. 

Unfortunately, for reasons that were never made clear, in response to our bipartisan inquiries the prior administration did not 

get that funding out the door nor did they produce the report. They 

failed on both counts. 

Today, I hope we can get a measure of how far the transition to 

NG911 has come and some ideas about how to accelerate it. We understand there will be costs involved in the efforts of this magnitude. 

This is big stuff. I realize that. We have done a lot of oversight 

hearings over FirstNet and all of this along the way. 

But FirstNet and its participating states have shown there are 

smart ways to approach such complex public safety undertakings. 

Some states report they are already Next Generation 911 capable 

and many others are pursuing the transition. 

So these states should be applauded for their efforts. However, 

while nearly every state collects money from their citizens for 911, 

some states have taken moneys collected for 911 and then used it 

for other unrelated purposes. This cannot continue, period. 

Aside from the fact that this erodes the public trust, it ultimately 

impairs the transition to NG911 for the nation as a whole. 

I look forward to the hearing, your testimony today. My thanks 

to all of you for sharing your experiences and wisdom with us and 

I hope we will leave with a better understanding of what works 

and how we can use these lessons to move forward in a manner 

that best delivers Next Generation 911 services to our nations and 

our communities. 

And I apologize in advance. I have got two subcommittees meeting simultaneously and will be bouncing between the two. Your testimony was terrific. We look forward to working with you. 

And I don’t see Mr. Flores. I know he may be on his way but he 

wanted to introduce one of our witnesses, Madam Chair. But in absence of that if anybody wants the remainder of my time I am 

happy to yield it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

This morning we convene to examine the progress in the deployment on 

NextGeneration 911. As a matter of coincidence, the timing could not be better. Yesterday, FirstNet, announced that it took the next step in its competitive bidding 

process. It is expected FirstNet will soon execute a contract to form a public-private 

partnership in order to deploy a single, nationwide wireless broadband network for 

our first responders. Nearly 13 years after the 9/11 Commission Report highlighted 

grave deficiencies in first responder communications, the most up-to-date communications capabilities will finally be at the fingertips of the brave men and women 

who protect us daily. 

Today we all carry devices in our pockets that allow us to communicate by voice, 

by text, by email, and by video. And now that we are at the threshold of deployment 

of FirstNet, our nation’s first responders will have a dedicated network to do the 

same. But our 911 networks, which are based on the technologies of the past, do 

7 

not provide a seamless connection between the two. Only by bringing IPbased technology to the Nation’s Public Safety Answering Points—the professionals that are 

the first voice you hear when you call for help—can we bring the full promise of 

modern technology to serve us in times of emergency. 

In 2012, when we passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which 

created FirstNet, we also took steps to facilitate the deployment of next-generation 

911. We engaged the 911 Implementation Coordination Office to work with state 

and local authorities, asked for a report on the cost of NG911, and established a 

matching grant program. Unfortunately, for reasons that were never made clear in 

response to our bipartisan inquiries, the prior administration didn’t get that funding 

out of the door nor did they produce the report. 

Today, I hope we can get a measure of how far the transition to NG911 has come 

and some ideas about how to accelerate it. We understand that there will be costs 

involved in an effort of this magnitude. But FirstNet and its participating states 

have shown there are smart ways to approach such complex public safety undertakings. 

Some states report that they are already NG911 capable and many others are 

pursuing the transition. These states should be applauded for their efforts. However, while nearly every state collects money from their citizens for 911, some states 

have taken monies collected for 911 and used it for other purposes. This cannot continue. Aside from the fact that this erodes the public trust, it ultimately impairs 

the transition to NG911 for the nation as a whole. 

I look forward to hearing today’s testimony. My thanks to all of you for sharing 

your experiences and wisdom with us today. I hope that we will leave with a better 

understanding of what works and how we can use these lessons to move forward 

in a manner that best delivers NG911 services to our nation’s communities. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Does anyone seek the time? 

Mr. WALDEN. Seeing none, I yield back to the chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And we know that Mr. Flores wanted to introduce this good Texas Aggie we have before us. But we are going 

to welcome him anyway. 

Ms. Matsui, you are recognized on Mr. Pallone’s 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you very much for holding this hearing today, and I want to thank 

the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to your testimonies. 

This morning’s hearing highlights the challenges facing our 911 

system. Not only are we under funding our current 911 infrastructure, we are also failing to make investments to make Next Generation 911 a reality. 

As consumers, all of us have seen the incredible advances in 

technology. In just the last decade we used our smart phone to do 

so much more than make phone calls. These devices can take pictures, send text messages and record video. 

These tools could give first responders critical information. But 

today, very few 911 call centers can receive them. 

It is critical that we accelerate deployment of the Next Generation 911, 9-1-1, because it could improve access to emergency services for so many Americans, like people with disabilities and victims of domestic violence. 

We need to work together because this technology could truly 

save lives. At this time I’d like to yield time to my colleague from 

New York, Mr. Engel. 

8 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I thank my friend from California for 

yielding to me. Earlier this month, millions of wireless customers 

had to deal with the cascading nationwide failure of 911 service in 

my district in New York all the way to Washington and California. 

I look forward to the results of the FCC’s investigation into this 

incident. But it speaks to a much larger problem. Our 911 infrastructure is outdated, bordering on obsolete. 

For some time now we have had the technology to do a much better job of pinpointing the location of callers even within buildings. 

911 call centers could take texts and other media and secure 

ESInets, could share information and even calls across 911 systems. 

But we haven’t made these leaps in part because there has been 

no commitment and in part because there has been no funding. So 

this gets into an even broader story about aging infrastructure 

across the board. 

From roads and bridges to the energy grid to our national 

cyberdefense, we need to make major investments in any number 

of different areas. 

Tax cuts and credits alone aren’t going to cut it. We need to 

make serious investments. I know that a lot of our witnesses here 

today will be or less unanimous on the question of whether we 

should be taking these steps on Next-Gen 911 and I hope the subcommittee can come to some agreement about a smart way to move 

forward with some of those much needed advances. 

But it’s important to remember through all this that e-911, the 

main federal grant program that supports 911 services across the 

country, is a joint program of the Department of Commerce, specifically NTIA, and the Department of Transportation, specifically 

NHTSA, and the White House’s budget proposal would slash these 

two departments by 16 percent and 13 percent respectively. 

Massive cuts at a time when we need to be making smart investments, to me those two things aren’t smart and don’t go together. 

So I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and their 

commitment to helping keep Americans safe. I hope that this hearing today can continue the conversation that we need to have about 

investing in our infrastructure and I hope that this subcommittee 

can take the lead on moving our infrastructure into the 21st century. 

I believe that support of our infrastructure should be, can be, and 

will be a bipartisan move and I hope we can do that. 

I thank you. I yield back, unless Ms. Matsui wants her time back 

or anybody else. 

Ms. MATSUI. Anyone else want to have time? 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back and that concludes 

our opening statements. 

I remind all members that pursuant to committee rules all members’ statements will be made a part of the opening statements 

record. 

With that, we want to thank all of our witnesses for being here 

today and for taking your time to testify before the committee. 

I also want to thank you for submitting your testimony well prepared. Today’s hearing will consist of two panels. Each panel of 

9 

witnesses will have the opportunity to deliver statements and to 

answer questions. 

So we will begin why welcoming Mr. Trey Forgety who, by the 

way, has Tennessee ties. We like that. And Mr. Magnussen, I 

would suggest that, being a Texan, you get to know the young man. 

Wouldn’t be a Texas without Tennessee. 

So glad you all are seated next to each other and—well, or Kentucky either. That’s exactly right. We volunteer to do—somebody’s 

giving me the hook ’em horns back there. So put your hand down. 

I saw it. 

Mr. Forgety is the director of governmental affairs and regulatory counsel at National Emergency Number Association. Mr. 

Walt Magnussen serves as the director of the Internet to Technology Evaluation Center at Texas A&M University. 

Ms. Mary Boyd, who is the VP of regulatory policy and external 

affairs at West Safety Services, Ms. Boyd is testifying on behalf of 

the Industry Council for Emergency Technologies. 

Mr. Barry Ritter, who was so ably introduced by Congresswoman 

Brooks, and she is leading our effort, Mr. Ritter, as we look at 

NG911, she is leading that effort on behalf of your subcommittee 

and the committee at large and we thank her for that and we 

thank you for doing such a great job helping to—her to understand 

and to grow and to know all about this issue. 

Mr. Steve Souder, who is representing the Maryland Emergency 

Number 911 Systems Board—he was previously the former director 

at Fairfax County 911. 

We appreciate all of you being here. We will begin the panel with 

you, Mr. Forgety. You are now recognized for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF TREY FORGETY, III, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER ASSOCIATION; WALT MAGNUSSEN, DIRECTOR, INTERNET2 TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION CENTER, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY; 

MARY BOYD, VICE-PRESIDENT, REGULATORY, POLICY AND 

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, WEST SAFETY SERVICES, ON BEHALF 

OF INDUSTRY COUNCIL FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES; BARRY RITTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE 911 BOARD, STATE OF INDIANA; STEVE SOUDER, 

FORMER DIRECTOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY 9-1-1, MARYLAND 

EMERGENCY NUMBER (9-1-1) SYSTEMS BOARD 

STATEMENT OF TREY FORGETY 

Mr. FORGETY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking 

Member Doyle for hosting this hearing. It’s a great pleasure for me 

to appear before you and an honor to appear beside such an August 

panel here. I mean, you really have all of the heavy hitters from 

the 911 industry sitting next to me here. So it’s great to appear 

with them. 

The reason we are here, ultimately, is the way that we communicate in the United States has changed radically over the last 30 

years. 

We are now a nation that has more wireless connections, more 

devices, more gadgets, more things that can connect to a network 

10 

than we have people. And all of those devices are being used by 

consumers in ways that we could not have imagined only a few 

short decades ago. 

Already text and video communications, things like FaceTime 

and WhatsApp and Facebook are overtaking voice. People don’t 

communicate with a telephone call anymore. For people in my generation and younger, that is not our first instinct. When we want 

to reach out and touch somebody we are more likely to make a 

video call or send a text. 

But 911 has not changed at the same time. Today’s 911 systems 

are still using technology that was invented in the ’60s and ’70s 

and deployed in the ’80s and ’90s. 

These systems make it very difficult to move calls around to ensure the availability and to defend networks against new kinds of 

attacks. 

The unfortunate thing about this, when you get right down to it, 

in today’s modern networks we don’t move things around my moving wires anymore. But for most 911 systems, if you want to make 

a change that is literally what it takes. 

Someone’s got to physically go down to a telephone company office and move some wires around on a panel. That’s terribly disappointing. It ought to be a lot simpler than that. 

Well, NG911 changes all of that. It makes it a lot simpler. 

NG911 has native support for voice, video, text, pictures, and data 

and built-in resiliency and reliability features that allow us to do 

things like reroute calls, efficiently visualize and map where they 

are coming from in three-dimensions, which is a big deal in bigger 

cities. And it also gives us new tools to defend these networks, 

modern tools, that as long as we live in the telephone network we 

simply won’t have access to. 

Another great point about NG911, this is homegrown high-tech 

innovation-focused technology. It uses the same technology, the 

same internet era technologies, that Apple and Google and 

Facebook and Snap use underlying all of their services like 

iMessage and Snapchat and Facebook Messenger. 

That’s a really powerful thing because if you want the citizenry 

to have access to 911 in the way that they communicate you’ve got 

to make it easy for the technology developers and cheap to implement. It’s got to be inexpensive. 

If you can’t do those two things you won’t have widespread adoption and you won’t get the full advantage of these new technologies 

that we have. When our folks went and looked at how do we design 

Next Generation 911 for the future that was a key design element. 

It was let’s make it easy, let’s make it the commercial off-theshelf technologies that these folks use every day and let’s make it 

as inexpensive as possible. 

This also represents a new export for the United States. Already 

Next Generation 911 has been adopted as the target goal, as the 

standard in Canada to our north and it’s being modified a little bit 

for use in the NG 112 systems that’ll be deployed throughout Europe. 

So this is something that—our homegrown technology is now 

being exported around the world in a way that will benefit our industry and our global public safety community. 

11 

We need this technology now. We need NG911 now. The transition costs for local governments if this transition is delayed are 

going to explode. 

Maintaining legacy infrastructure that you can’t get parts for 

anymore, that you can’t get technicians who even remember ever 

being trained on how to operate it, doing those things long term is 

going to be devastating for the more than 2,000 counties and cities 

that operate the 6,800-plus public safety answering points, or 

PSAPs, in the country. 

Not only that, but delaying the transition will also darken the 

outlook for our nation’s field responders. A number of members of 

the committee mentioned in their opening statements FirstNet. 

FirstNet is built on the same sorts of technologies as NG911 and 

as consumer networks that are transitioning very rapidly to all-IP 

basis whether it is wireline or wireless. 

So we need to make sure that we have got the system in the middle that sits between the IP networks for consumers and the ones 

for FirstNet. Those need to be NG911. 

They need to be all IP and they need to be that now. Congress 

can accelerate this transition with a one-time injection of federal 

capital to ensure a coordinated efficient rollout of shared databases, 

networks, and systems and avoid wasteful duplication and proprietary noninteroperable technology deployment. 

Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for holding the hearing and I 

welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forgety follows:] 

12 


25782.001
13 


25782.002
14 


25782.003
15 


25782.004
16 


25782.005
17 


25782.006
18 


25782.007
19 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Magnussen, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WALT MAGNUSSEN 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Good morning, Chairwoman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle and esteemed committee members. 

It is a real honor for me to be here today and as was mentioned 

earlier I’ve been the director at Texas A&M University of the center since 2004. 

And while it’s seen a lot of progress over those years we still 

have a long ways to go. However your support can and will make 

a big difference in accelerating the nationwide NG911 transition. 

I would also like to begin my testimony here this morning by noting that my center does have a contract with the United States Department of Justice for the NIJ, the National Institute of Justice, 

and while I am testifying today on behalf of my work at Texas 

A&M University, none of the statements that I make today represent the policies of the United States Department of Justice. 

Other witnesses have either or will likely talk about what is 

NG911 and why is it important. I would like to take my time to 

discuss areas where the efforts of this committee and of Congress 

can really have the most impact. 

This information is based on a study that we did in 2004 that 

was funded by the ICERT, the same organization mentioned a few 

seconds ago, and in essence there were four findings that I have 

in my recommendations that were based on that study and really 

two recommendations that come as subsequent issues. 

So those six issues are number one again is to incentivize states 

to establish an oversight coordinating authority. Most states have 

already done this. Most states have coordination within the states. 

However, in some states the function of NG911 is simply a matter of collecting the fees from the telephone companies and passing 

it on down. 

While it’s possible for a state to implement NG911 within the 

state without central coordination, it’s actually very, very difficult. 

So, again, anything you could do to resolve that we would greatly 

appreciate it. 

As Mr. Forgety, who, by the way, we have worked together for 

10 years now—it’s been a fantastic relationship so a very good person—the second one is really to require federal or require federally 

assisted-provided funding to link to the NENA I3 standard. 

The I3 standard we began work on it in 2004. It’s been adopted 

by the majority of the 911 industry associations. It is standardsbased. 

It is based on other standardized technology such as standards 

that are adopted by the internet community and by other standards organizations and in that sense it will ultimately reduce costs 

and ensure interoperability and that is very important for public 

safety. 

Number three, provide interim funding. As Mr. Forgety also just 

mentioned, while many of the states have been able to go ahead 

and then get through the process of supporting e-911 on their own, 

there is little doubt that in essence the transition to NG911 is 

going to incur additional costs during the transition process. 

20 

We probably can survive on our own once we get through that 

transition but in essence getting through that transition could require a little bit of additional support. 

Number four is to establish a national authority and fund a national NG911 network to provide interconnectivity between the 

states. 

The states are doing a fantastic job of managing resources within 

the states. However, voice over IP is a national issue. It’s a national service, and there is a requirement in essence for these state 

networks to be interconnected. 

While simply peering between states is possible, it’s not the best 

solution. It’s not practical. 

The fifth one is one that basically comes out of a recent FCC recommendation in the TFOPA document and it basically calls for the 

establishment of a centralized or some centralized cybersecurity 

centers. 

The unfortunate reality today is that there’s a significant shortage of cybersecurity experts in the United States. There’s also 

6,500 PSAPs and managing cybersecurity at the PSAP level probably is not possible. 

And then lastly is to coordinate international 911 efforts between 

Canada and Mexico. Today, with the e-911 system we actually have 

calls being routed to the wrong country as a citizen that is close 

to the border is having lunch on the other side of the border, makes 

a call and actually the call gets routed to the wrong country. That’s 

costing time and, obviously, in emergency response time is money— 

or time is lives. 

Yesterday, as was noted earlier, was a big day for FirstNet. 

FirstNet, in essence, now that they’re going forward, in essence 

they appreciate the fact—in fact, we were talking about it on a 

panel yesterday—they appreciate the fact that services that will 

come to them that will be delivered to first responders, a lot of that 

information is going to come from the citizens. 

It will come through NG911. FirstNet is designed to be voice, 

video, text. NG911 would be the mechanism to deliver that. 

So it is important that this effort happen. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to talk today 

and look forward to question. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magnussen follows:] 

21 


25782.008
22 


25782.009
23 


25782.010
24 


25782.011
25 


25782.012
26 


25782.013
27 


25782.014
28 


25782.015
29 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Boyd, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARY BOYD 

Ms. BOYD. Good morning, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Microphone, please. 

Ms. BOYD. Oh, thank you. My apologies. 

Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the committee. I am Mary Boyd, vice president of regulatory 

policy for West Safety Service. 

But I am honored to be here this morning really on behalf of the 

Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies, often we 

call ICERT. 

ICERT is appreciative of your interest in NG911 and assisting in 

the advancing of this technology. I’d also speak to you this morning 

from my heart. 

I have been in this business 35 years at local state government 

levels as well as the private sector but, more importantly, my 

household is public safety. 

My husband spent his career in law enforcement and our youngest son, Derry, climbs in an Aerovac helicopter to respond to rural 

Texas emergencies. So if we can give them the technologies that 

keep them alive as well as the people they’re trying to save, let’s 

partner to get this done. 

We have talked this morning about the benefits of Next-Gen 911 

but I’d like to just focus on a few of the elements that could really 

help public safety do their job a little bit easier. 

The simple fact we talked about text, we take it for granted that 

we can text to one another, text to our kids, our grandchildren’s 

photos. But, unfortunately, very few of our 911 centers in the country have the ability to receive a text to 911 call. 

But yet our speech and hearing impaired community rely on that 

communication to talk to their families but they also need to talk 

to public safety. 

We have very few, probably a thousand in the country, of PSAPs 

that have deployed that. A Next-Gen infrastructure would make 

that much easier to deploy throughout the community. 

The technology companies are ready to do that. We just need the 

partnership of government. Also, in an era of increased sensitivity 

to security, national safety, first lines of defense, information is 

critical. 

So imagine the ability for a PSAP to receive the photo of a suspect. I suspect any law enforcement entity in this country would 

value that piece of information instead of getting the verbal description of perhaps they were wearing a t-shirt with blue jeans 

and a ball cap. 

We have that technology available today to send the photos in as 

well as video. Another benefit of Next-Gen on an IP network is information about the scene. 

A helicopter if flying into a rural area in your state in the middle 

of the night. It would be wonderful for them to know whether they 

were going to hit utility lines. 

Are they going to have a fuel storage tank that they’re unaware 

of? Are your volunteer firefighters responding to the same? 

30 

Next-Gen 911 affords our first responders wonderful information 

when it is partnered with FirstNet. Another most valuable benefit 

of an IP network is the redundancy, resiliency, and basically the 

ability to move networks’ voice and data around. 

Today, our 911 centers are tethered with outdated technology 

from the ’70s. We cannot move voice and data easily. 

So if you have an overburdened 911 center with a spike of call 

volume or you have a natural disaster—Vermont is a perfect example with their Next-Gen system. When the hurricane hit Vermont, 

they did not lose one 911 call but yet they did have a PSAP impacted. So they easily changed the traffic to a backup facility. 

But as I said, unfortunately most of our technologies today are 

outdated throughout our public safety agencies and they do pose a 

risk when we are trying to advance technologies and aid public 

safety. 

ICERT believes that Congress can take a leadership role in a 

consensus legislation that makes NG911 funding and implementation a national priority and we applaud your efforts to take this 

subject on. 

We would also encourage you that if you have a much larger discussion about broadband and funding that you place NG911 at the 

core of those discussions. 

It is important, as you indicated, that we do recall Congress 

played a critical role in our country for the initial deployment of 

911. In fact, some of my systems we updated in Texas were from 

the LEAA funds. 

So we think it is very appropriate that you look at Next-Gen 911 

funding as indicated by Walt and Trey just for the capital upfront 

cost for local—state and local government. 

We are not asking Congress to endure the entire cost but we do 

know that we have an impediment today because funds are lacking 

at the state level to cover the upfront implementation. 

So members, we want to thank you for your time this morning. 

I know I am running very short and feel like I’ve just given you 

a drink out of a fire hose. 

But 911 cannot fall behind. FirstNet and NG911 should be 

partnered. We thank this committee for this opportunity. We look 

forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Boyd follows:] 

31 


25782.016
32 


25782.017
33 


25782.018
34 


25782.019
35 


25782.020
36 


25782.021
37 


25782.022
38 


25782.023
39 


25782.024
40 


25782.025
41 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you so much. 

And Mr. Ritter, you are recognized. Five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY RITTER 

Mr. RITTER. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today. I am honored to share the story of success in the great state 

of Indiana. Thank you, Ms. Brooks, for that kind introduction. 

In 1996, the General Assembly created the Wireless Advisory 

Board, predecessor to the now statewide 911 board. Established as 

a body corporate and politic, it is separate from state government. 

However, the board’s powers constitute an essential government 

function. This board is chaired by the state treasurer, a single 

elected official which we credit for the success that we have shared 

in Indiana. 

As the state’s 911 authority, the board has two primary responsibilities. The first is to oversee the statewide 911 system that has 

been and will be deployed across the state. 

The second is to administer the funding that supports that uniform statewide 911 program. Established as a state trust fund, the 

funds have a targeted use authorized by statute. 

Our funds have never been diverted or raided in the state. This 

governance model permitted the board to deploy wireless 911 service and now Next-Gen 911 service on a very aggressive schedule. 

Generation One of the original wireless network began in 2004 

and was completed in 2006. This work brought the cost of wireless 

911 under control and began the goal of uniform service. 

Completed in 2010, Generation Two included the build out of our 

ESInet and established connectivity to all bordering counties in 

Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. 

Those bordering PSAPs now have the ability to transfer calls and 

handset location information across state lines. In 2013, as part of 

the board’s strategic plan for Next-Gen services, the board commissioned a statewide study of the PSAP’s legacy networks and call 

processing equipment. 

The estimated cost to replace the networks and the PSAP equipment county by county was enormous. The decision was made to 

manage the transition to Next-Gen 911 networks as a statewide 

project under the authority of the board. 

In 2014, the board published their first request seeking proposals 

for Next-Gen service compliant with NENA’s I3 standard. 

In 2015, the board awarded contracts for dual networks. The new 

IN911 network will operate as a public-private partnership with 

two private vendors. 

The dual network design was a cost effective solution and leveraged efficiencies from two providers. ESInets operate independently and are responsible for specific service areas. 

However, they connect at the core to provide redundant services. 

The board also required the primary vendor to deploy a third tier 

disaster recovery service. This further ensures that calls can be delivered statewide anytime. 

And finally, the board contracted with a third party network for 

monitoring and data analytics. Scheduled for completion in the 

42 

fourth quarter of ’17 all PSAPs will be served by the new Next-Gen 

networks. 

Purchased as a service, the board’s annual cost will only be approximately $15 million to serve all 92 counties. Indiana’s statewide 911 program benefits from the efficiencies provided by modern 

technologies such as hosted solutions. We believe that our design 

and implementation can serve as a model for other state and/or regional programs. 

Our next priority will be to assist local government in replacing 

their legacy call processing equipment, some of which is not capable of processing the many types of emergency calls that can be 

generated by the public today. 

It is important to understand that funding alone is not enough 

to achieve Next-Gen in the U.S. Leadership, collaboration and cooperation between local, state, and federal government and between industry partners and industry associations is a must. 

That leadership needs to start here at the federal level. 911 will 

continue to be a local service but it needs strong leadership and a 

spotlight on the methods that are proven to get results. 

Sustainable funding, strategic planning, and advocacy for nonproprietary standards support Next-Gen initiatives. We recognize 

that Next-Gen networks, while separate from FirstNet, will serve 

a critical role in the larger public safety initiative. 

Citizens reporting an emergency could improve public safety 

using video, pictures, or other data which can be processed and delivered to the PSAP. 

A FirstNet-connected PSAP could then relay the same information to and receive from first responders’ data to improve public 

safety. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here and I look forward to 

answering any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritter follows:] 

43 


25782.026
44 


25782.027
45 


25782.028
46 


25782.029
47 


25782.030
48 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Ritter.Mr. Souder, you are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE SOUDER 

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, good morning. Members of the 

committee, good morning. Thank you again for having me here. It 

is my pleasure to be here. 

I am pleased to say, I am proud to say that I have been in 911 

since the first 911 call was made on February 16th of 1968. I could 

replicate by reading my testimony many of the remarks that my 

colleagues have made before me. But I am instead, with your permission, going to speak from my heart. 

In the 20 minutes that we have been testifying here, there have 

been 5,000 911 calls made in the United States of America. By the 

end of this day, there will be 240,000 calls made and by the end 

of this year, 87 million calls made. 

911 is the most recognized number in the United States. It is a 

go-to number every time there is an emergency. It is predicated 

upon technology that was developed in the 1960s. If any of us had 

an antique car that was built in the 1960s we would be proud to 

have a license plate that had adorned to it antique. 

That’s exactly what our system is today. It is old, it is still reliable but it no way is as good as it needs to be. In my hand and 

in your pocket we probably have a smart phone. Residing in that 

smart phone is computing power greater than was used to launch 

Apollo 11 to the moon in 1969, one year after 911 was deployed. 

And yet for all of us here if we had to call 911 from this room 

we would simply put 9-1-1 and all we would get would be a voice 

connection. We could not in any way utilize this technology which 

each of us and each of our citizens across this nation have to identify where we are, to send photographs or videos or medical data 

that is relative to where we are or a patient’s condition. 

Yesterday morning at the Commerce Department auditorium I 

had the privilege with other public safety professionals to attend 

the FirstNet authority’s board of directors meeting when they approved the awarding of an award that will allow the FirstNet network to be built out. 

After that was announced, a number of public safety law enforcement, fire rescue, EMS chiefs and so forth got up to speak and each 

of them said that with this technology they will be able to in the 

future provide a higher level of information and technology to field 

forces that are responding to an emergency and that is absolutely 

true. 

But 911 has to stay paced with that and Next Generation 911 

gives the 911 community and your citizens the ability to access and 

to provide that information in the future. 

How much it will cost I do not know. I do know this, that in 1972 

the United States government as a means of promoting and advocating and encouraging the deployment of basic 911 back then established, as Mary Boyd said, through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration a grant program that would allow for communities to be funded so that they could kickstart their initial 911 

system. 

49 

That was then and this is now, and I would suggest to you that 

America’s 911 systems need another kickstart, the kickstart that 

can start right here in the Congress of the United States. 

To Mr. Walden’s comments earlier, I noted with interest his comment about fee diversion. There is a list of those states that divert 

fees. 

I know when I get my phone bill and probably when you get 

yours there is listed a 911 fee, a charge or a tax. It’s called different things in different communities. But the expectation is by 

you, me, and us that that 911 fee or tax is going to go to funding 

and improving the 911 systems. 

If that money is being diverted for whatever the reason that is 

not good and I, like my colleagues, welcome your remarks in the 

future and thank you again for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:] 

50 


25782.031
51 


25782.032
52 


25782.033
53 


25782.034
54 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir. 

At this time I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions 

as we begin that part of our hearing. 

Mr. Souder, I want to stay with you, if I may. You talk a little 

bit about the antique model that we have existed under and needing to kickstart something to boost the NG911 and in your testimony you talked a little bit about economy of scale and the deployment of NG911. 

I want you to talk just a moment about that economy of scale 

and why you think that is important to the discussion. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. 

Yes, economy of scale—we all know what is behind that term. 

But as it applies to 911 it means this. Currently, there are 6,800 

911 centers in the United States. By and large, each of them have 

within their facility equipment that drives the 911 system within 

that 911 center, if you will. 

When we move to Next Generation 911 through various technologies there is the ability to have those same centers now simply 

provide the service but have it hosted by a computer, a router or 

whatever the equipment would be that would be centrally located 

and really providing the connectivity and the network to those 911 

centers that ultimately use it. 

So if we think smart and go about this in a way that capitalizes 

upon the power that we have today with technology, we can deploy 

Next Generation 911 in a more cost effective way and that we 

won’t have to replicate every single piece of equipment in every 

PSAP that exists today. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Magnussen, you mentioned cost studies in your testimony 

and the FCC did one in 2011. It wasn’t comprehensive but I noted 

that there was a substantial difference in outcomes between the estimate based on the current 911 system at the time and one where 

there was a consolidation of the PSAPs and the PSAPs opted for 

hosted solutions. And I think the dollar difference was $2.68 billion 

versus $1.44 billion. 

I would love for you to talk for a moment about hosted solutions, 

what that means in context and how that will help to drive the cost 

lower. 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Consolidation has been a controversial term in 

the 911 community for a long time because there’s always been a 

desire to have the call takers be locally hosted, locally available. 

However, as was just mentioned a second ago by my esteemed 

colleague, in essence by putting the technology in a cloud architecture in that sense you can still do the local call receiving, local call 

taking but you’re really doing resource sharing and that is really 

what it’s all about. 

The technology is all about—it’s the bigger part of the cost. Keep 

in mind that most of the costs borne in the PSAPs actually from 

the staffing level and the building level is really done locally anyway. It’s not typically out of the funds that we are talking about 

that really end up funding 911 here. 

So, realistically, being able to provide the local control of the people and another big difference needs to be understood in this too 

55 

and what we are talking about doing cloud services for the most 

part these are done in what we call a private cloud. 

It really scares the public safety community when you start talking about doing it on the internet because of the security issues 

and everything else there. 

The emergency services’ IP networks that we are talking about 

are based on the same technology and infrastructure as the internet but they’re not the internet. 

It’s a private internet connection. So, in essence, we can still 

manage the security and reliability but have the benefits of the resource sharing. That’s the whole premise of NG911 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So you’re tying back to what Mr. Souder said 

on economies of scale? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Exactly. Yes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Forgety, I saw you shaking your head 

as if you wanted to add something to the discussion. 

Mr. FORGETY. So I want to completely agree with and associate 

myself with the remarks made both by Mr. Souder and by Mr. 

Magnussen. We have evidence already that economies of scale can 

tremendously benefit the 911 community. 

In the state of Washington they have deployed an existing sort 

of e-911 solution but they’ve moved it into a hosted kind of fashion 

where instead of buying 80 or 90 widgets they buy three of them, 

put them in secure high-reliability data centers, connect folks to 

them with redundant connectivity and their connectivity costs, 

even engineering that for redundancy and so forth, fell by half. 

That is a tremendous, tremendous, tremendous savings and a 

tremendous benefit to public safety by moving to hosted systems, 

shared services, shared databases. These things don’t have to be 

unique around the country. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you for that. 

And in Tennessee we would say that falls in the category if it 

ain’t broke don’t fix it. 

Mr. FORGETY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right. My time has expired. 

Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. My first question is to Ms. Boyd specifically or also to anyone else on the panel that feels qualified to answer. 

What are the major challenges to integrating emerging internet 

of thing technologies into our 911 systems? Do you think that the 

current and emerging standards will support the types of technologies and volumes of data that are being anticipated? 

I know that, for example, technologies like Nest Home Protect, 

while the device will notify the consumer of an accident it’s still up 

to the consumer to call 911. 

How do you see this dynamic evolving and do you anticipate 

Next-Gen 911 systems being able to accommodate these technologies? 

Ms. BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. Doyle, the IP infrastructure in a NextGen environment allows the technologies that you’ve just mentioned to be able to come into the 911 network or into the public 

safety communications center. 

56 

Today in that analog world it’s very limited just to a telephone 

number and an address, basically. When you have a collision, the 

crash notification data that can all come in through the network 

in secure and also manageable ways so that the communication 

centers are not overwhelmed with the amount of data. 

That is the concern you might hear from public safety is how do 

I manage all this additional information. It will be basically parsed 

and perhaps the street doesn’t need that information right now as 

first responders but yet it’s available to perhaps investigators that 

need it later. 

So an IP infrastructure really allows in a secure protected private network environment the transmission of alarm system information, crash notification data, personal medical information. Did 

I answer your question, sir? 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. Does anyone else want to add to that? Mr. 

Forgety? 

Mr. FORGETY. I will jump in here just to say that—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Forgety. Sorry. 

Mr. FORGETY. That’s all right. I will jump in just to say that the 

internet of things is something that for a long time has generated 

a lot of angst in public safety. 

We are worried about, do we really want every smoke detector 

out there able to call 911, and I think historically the answer would 

have been no simply because the only thing it could do was detect 

whether two wired had crossed or a beam of light had been broken 

or something like that. 

Today, though, we are getting to the point where sensors don’t 

work on a one-off basis. We are getting to the point where you can 

have a collection of sensors in a house or an apartment that notice 

with high confidence that there’s a fire. 

If the sprinkler water is flowing, if you see a heat flare, if there’s 

smoke detectors and so on, you put all those things together and 

you can come to the conclusion that yes, there might really be a 

fire there. 

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done on that but we 

absolutely believe that in the future we’ll have that ability to take 

in IOT alerts like that and process them intelligently. We have to 

make sure that we do that so that the PSAPs are not overwhelmed, 

as Mary said. We’ve got to bring in those new automation tools into 

public safety as well. NG911 allows us to do that. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Ritter—oh, I am sorry. Mr. Souder, did you want to add to 

that? 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Doyle, thank you. 

Two years ago the Federal Communications Commission established the task force on optimal PSAP—public safety answering 

point—architecture. It had nothing to do with brick and mortar but 

it had everything to do with the technology infrastructure that 

would allow for the very items that you talk to be accommodated 

in a Next Generation world. 

That task force is comprised of 40 people from the 911 profession 

and industry representing 800 years of 911 experience, and they 

produced in December of last year a road map for all practical purposes—a road map for any elected, appointed or local official to folVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:26 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-21 CHRIS
57 

low to help in deploying Next Generation 911 and to consider and 

accommodate all of the various points that you made, and thank 

you for making it. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Souder. 

Mr. Ritter, in your testimony you noted that while Next-Gen 911 

is separate from FirstNet, the two are somewhat connected in the 

larger public safety broadband initiative. I believe Next-Gen 911 is 

an essential link in this chain. You have people who, more often 

than not, are contacting 911 through a smart phone and you will 

have first responders using FirstNet smart technology on the other 

end. 

The 911 call center is what connects these two pieces together. 

Could you elaborate a little bit more on what Indiana is doing with 

its FirstNet project and how that fits into your state’s Next-Gen 

911 plans? 

Mr. RITTER. Yes. Thank you. 

The state of Indiana, through their single point of contact, is led 

through the Integrated Public Safety Commission that is responsible for the LMR system across the state and through that agency 

I serve on the executive committee as we have began to do our 

analysis and the draft of the state plan that has been submitted 

for review. 

We anticipate that in the future should the Indiana governor 

make the decision to opt in or opt out of this initiative. Our Next 

Generation system will be in place and operable for citizens to be 

able to communicate the technologies that has been spoken of here 

today to the PSAP. 

We envision then the FirstNet network, or broadband initiative, 

to be the tool that delivers the data from the PSAP to the first responders and in turn what a first responder may encounter back 

to the PSAP. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right. Mr. Latta, you’re recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very 

to our witnesses for being here today. It’s a very important topic 

and I would like to start, if I could, Mr. Ritter. 

I have five counties that run parallel or I should say are down 

the Ohio-Indiana line. I was kind of interested when you were talking about the counties across the state line with Indiana, how 

you’re working with them. 

Now, how does that work so—for calls coming in and out? Because, again, just about halfway down the state of Indiana that I 

have a border with you all. 

Mr. RITTER. Yes. The current vendor who operates the original 

wireless network in the state at the request of the counties not 

only in Indiana but those in Ohio we are encountering a large 

number of transfers from the motoring public when the call comes 

from a wireless device and we had no way to transfer other than 

voice. And between the PSAP managers and elected officials in 

those jurisdictions we agreed to build our existing network to those 

individual PSAPs in Ohio that would provide the telecommunicator 

the opportunity to not only transfer the voice in a 911 call but the 

associated call data today, the ANI and the ALI, to that adjoining 

PSAP in the event that the motorist was to travel into Ohio. And 

58 

we are limited to the ability to transfer that specific data today on 

our existing network. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Now, does the existing or does the county have 

to have—years ago I was the county commissioner in Ohio and we 

were also responsible for 911 systems and working with them. 

Do they have to have the equipment or how—what else does an 

Ohio county have to have? 

Mr. RITTER. So they were able to use their existing equipment 

through their 911 system service provider and the connection occurs between our vendor and Indiana and the service provider in 

Ohio. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Thank you. 

If I could ask Mr. Souder a follow-up, when you were talking in 

regards to our more antiquated system that we have out there you 

said if you have a vehicle back from 1968 being antique—actually, 

in Ohio after you hit 25 years you get an antique plate. 

But how do we go forward? Because you were mentioning especially, again, with if you’re out someplace and let’s say there’s an 

accident, can’t you triangulate from a cell phone through an enhanced 911 to that spot today under the existing system that we 

have? 

Mr. SOUDER. The existing system that we have today relative to 

mobile phones, who, by the way, are the source of about 80 percent 

of 911 calls received in the United States, in a way it was one of 

the greatest things that ever happened to 911—wireless phones. 

But it also had its own drawbacks because now instead of getting 

one call reporting a traffic accident on an interstate now you get 

a hundred phone calls reporting a traffic accident on an interstate. 

But in this case, more is better than less. 

But to your point, the cellular tone today integrates very well 

into the legacy network. However, and this is a big however, it does 

not bring with it the absolute location of that particular call. 

If you were to call 911 from your home wireline phone, if you had 

one, there’s no doubt about it that the 911 call will be received with 

the exact address from which that wireline went. 

But in a wireless world that’s not the case at all. At a previous 

hearing in this building in this room I tried a 911 call from within 

this chamber and it identified me as being on Independence Avenue Southeast. 

Not a very good thing if you’re having a heart attack, and that 

is one of the big drawbacks that goes with wireless 911 calls in a 

legacy network. Wireless 911 calls in a Next Generation network 

will bring to you the absolute location of that phone. 

Today, you might not or maybe would be surprised to hear that 

if you were to call a pizza in to Papa John they would know where 

you are. But if you were to call 911 they may not know where you 

are. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Well, it’s a very, very important topic and when 

I was a commissioner we worked very closely with our sheriffs because our sheriffs were the ones that run the 911 system in the 

State of Ohio and, again, as you say, we have an interstate highway system that runs through our county and my district and so 

in order to get those calls it’s so important for our law enforcement 

and especially our sheriffs because they are the ones that are runVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:26 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-21 CHRIS
59 

ning it. But I really appreciate you all being here and your testimony today. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you to each 

one of the witnesses for the work and the experience of your life 

that you bring to us. It’s very rich and it is enriching to us in your 

testimony. 

There are a couple of things that I want to mention that I am 

really very, very proud of. John Shimkus was here earlier but has 

left. At that time it was called the E-9-1-1 Caucus in the House 

and it was also established in the Senate with Senator Conrad and 

Conrad Burns and Senator Clinton at that time. 

So we are still the originals around here for that caucus and 

proud of it, and we have been able to bring many of the issues that 

we are talking about today forward. 

I also am proud of the fact that while Congress had dealt with 

the recommendations of the 9/11 commission there was one that 

Congress had not made good on and that was to establish a nationwide interoperable public safety network, and I carried the legislation successfully and it became law. 

So now here we are. We have got different parts of different systems and different technologies and there is something unsettling 

to me about it because it’s 2017. 

And I don’t think that we have made the headway that we 

should. This is not fault or blame. I would recommend, Madam 

Chair, that at some point we have a hearing where we bring in the 

NTIA and NHTSA and FirstNet because they are the implementers 

of this. 

And I think it needs a revving up. I really do. 

So having said that, we have 6,800 PSAPs in the country, I 

think. I think it is someone’s testimony or maybe the committee 

memo. 

Let me ask, Mr. Souder, how would you characterize the progress 

being made over that landscape—the 6,800? 

Mr. SOUDER. Each state and each community within it has the 

option as to how they will utilize 911, as we have noted in the past, 

and I would suggest to you, looking to the future, that control of 

911 should still be a local effort, whether it be at the county at the 

local level. 

Ms. ESHOO. Where I come from—I come from county government 

so I am very familiar with the operations locally. 

Mr. SOUDER. Right, and it is for them to decide whether or not 

they need whatever they have currently, if you will. To several of 

our witnesses that commented that you can continue to have your 

local 911 center staffed by local people. However, it can be hosted 

by technology that is far removed from that. 

So you have the dual benefit, if you will, of local engagement but 

at the same time an economy of scale by nature of the way you deploy the hardware. 

Ms. ESHOO. I was going to repeat the story of your making the 

telephone call from the Rayburn Building. And your call was answered but you were told by the public safety operator that your 

location could not be determined. 

60 

Now, this is from a traditional landline multi-line telephone system. This is not uncommon in our country, and I think Congress 

really needs to push hard on location technology because we comfort ourselves that we have an emergency system in the country 

but if the first responders can’t find the person that’s experiencing 

the emergency, really, what kind of a system is that? What kind 

of a system is that? 

So I think we need to ride hard on that. Mr. Souder, what would 

you recommend to us to do about fee diversion? 

Mr. SOUDER. The issue of fee diversion is monitored closely by 

the Federal Communications Commission, again, because 911 is 

funded locally. It is the decision of local policy makers as to what 

to do with that money. 

I would only imagine that various statutes that give rise to the 

figure of the tax or the surcharge can be interpreted one way or 

another at a local level as to whether or not they really have to 

divert all of that money into 911 or maybe they can redivert it into 

something else. 

Clearly, for those states that have that interpreted flexibility I 

would ask that they go back and they look at that with a close eye. 

We all know the economy that we work in. We all know how tight 

funds are. But it’s very, very important that as a taxpayer if you 

are paying tax for a particular service that that’s in fact where that 

tax goes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, what would you do, though? You explained how 

it’s working. 

Mr. SOUDER. Well—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. SOUDER. I don’t know what I would do but I could make a 

couple of suggestions, that to the degree that the Congress in its 

wisdom sees fit to establish perhaps a Next Generation grant program that there could be embedded in that grant program criteria 

that would say that if you are eligible for the grant there are certain things that you have to comply with or cease to do and if there 

was current fee diversion going on you’re not eligible for a grant 

until that is addressed. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Magnussen, are you familiar with the FCC’s 2013 report to 

Congress regarding Next-Gen 911? I am sure it was a best seller— 

widely read. 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Yes, sir. I am. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. And so according to that report, some of the 

participants called for the federal government to establish certain 

databases to support Next-Gen 911. Could you briefly describe 

those databases and the function they provide? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. OK. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

One of them actually is what we refer to in the industry as a forest guide. The forest guide gets to the point that I was talking 

about having a national level database that understands the interconnection points between the states. 

Again, it is really important that within the states they manage 

their call routing and everything else. But what is often the case 

61 

today is if, for example, you have a visitor here in Washington, 

D.C. but their home service is back in Texas and when that happens actually that call is routed back to Texas and the Texas service has to understand where that person is. 

So, again, we use the system called the forest guide where at the 

local level they try to determine the PSAP to route it to. If it can’t 

determine at the local level, it goes to a higher level. 

And that higher level then would take it to Washington, D.C. 

and say, where is Walt right now, and the call would be routed appropriately. 

The database that understands the relationships between the 

states and is able to handle the call processing between the states 

is what we call the forest guide and that is something that currently doesn’t exist and, unfortunately, one of the larger issues is 

it really doesn’t have a home today. 

In other words, is it a responsibility of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation through NHTSA? Is it OEC? That hasn’t been determined. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Good. I know that a lot of these reports do get produced and it’s good to have people read them, understand them 

and can give expert testimony. So we appreciate the value of that. 

Mr. Ritter, you mentioned FirstNet. FirstNet is an IP network 

and we were talking about IP networks when we talk about NextGen 911. 

Do you have any thoughts on how these networks should be integrated and do they have to be integrated? 

Mr. RITTER. From Indiana’s perspective, I would envision the integration being at the PSAP level—that our current Next-Gen network would operate independent from a FirstNet broadband and 

the integration is through the workflow in the PSAP to the first responder. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. To the PSAP? So what is that? Could you explain 

that a little bit? 

Mr. RITTER. The 911 center. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. The 911 center. OK. Thank you very much. 

And Ms. Boyd, and when you get a question prepared—Mr. 

Souder almost talked about this but I’d like for you to talk about 

it as well—you said you agree with Mr. Ritter. You seem to agree 

with Mr. Ritter that a greater federal role is needed. 

It seems to me your focus is on the funding side of it and Mr. 

Ritter has testified that funding alone is not the answer. And my 

question is you agree with that and you state that you’re a strong 

supporter of local government control but call for more federal involvement. 

And just is funding alone is not the answer and do you agree? 

And the second one is how do you reconcile a greater federal role 

but keep it local? And then Mr. Souder kind of talked about that 

a minute ago but just to reemphasize. 

Ms. BOYD. Mr. Guthrie, our company and the members of ICERT 

are very large supporters of local control. But what we are void of 

right now is a policy authority that would set a date and a time 

to actually put our country in the Next-Gen 911 technology. 

If you look historically for any deployment of technology, whether 

it was the TTY deployments with the Americans with Disabilities 

62 

Act, whether it was wireless, whether it was void—even our state 

planning, I think Barry would agree. 

We had dates that we had to meet. So Congress could be the policy authority that helps with the initial grant funding and also sets 

the expectation as a policy body that we have to achieve these deployments. So it’s multi-faceted and do that also on a regional and 

statewide coordinated basis so we can get the economies of scale 

and that also works parallel with FirstNet. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I understand the local and the coordinating because as Dr. Magnussen said, if I called 911 now it would go 

through and—I don’t know. 

Somehow it would think I am in Kentucky. That’s my local exchange, and you have to have all these systems work together. We 

appreciate this. It’s been very informative to me, someone who’s 

certainly not a expert in this at all. 

But it’s very informative and I appreciate your testimony. I yield 

back 5 seconds. 

Ms. BOYD. Thank you, sir. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Pallone, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I understand that FirstNet is on the verge of an historic announcement of a private partner, and despite a lot of doubters 

along the way this announcement is the culmination of years of 

work and will begin the next phase of deployment. 

Getting us this far toward a nationwide interoperable public 

safety network was a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration. 

So, Ms. Boyd, I wanted to ask you how important is the successful implementation of FirstNet to the transition to NG911? 

Ms. BOYD. Mr. Pallone, in my opinion, coming both from government and 911 background as well as from the industry perspective, 

they are very important and they should be partnered. 

When our citizens call 911, that’s coming in from a voice or could 

be a text connection. But without integrating into FirstNet, which 

is the radio network, our first responders will not have all that 

wonderful data that we are able to transmit through smart devices. 

So they need to be planned and integrated together. One without 

the other will basically be somewhat ineffective in terms of maximizing the efficiencies of those technologies. Does that make sense? 

So as Barry had indicated, at the 911 center when you have voice 

and data coming in it’s the radio network that’s actually getting 

the information out to the first responders. So through 911 that 

data would be handed off and integrated into the radio communications network. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Ms. BOYD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PALLONE. We have also noted how states put a fee on their 

citizens’ phone bill that says it is for 911 but too many states, including my own, then use that money for different purposes and I 

think that’s deceptive and dangerous. 

So, Mr. Souder, can you please tell us why diverting 911 fees is 

so harmful to the lifesaving transition to Next Generation systems? 

63 

Mr. SOUDER. Anytime a 911 system is dependent upon tax dollars they are dependent upon all of the tax dollars that were intended to be received. 

When you divert funds from that revenue stream, you obviously 

are going to have an impact in one way or another in the operation 

of that 911 center whether it’s technology, whether it’s administration, whether it’s personnel or what it may be. 

So to pinch that revenue stream and reduce it by varying degrees 

has a definite correlation to the efficiency of the 911 center and the 

level of service that they can provide to the very citizen that paid 

that tax, expecting that all of it would go to the center. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks. 

I wanted to ask you another question. In your testimony you indicate that ignoring Next Generation 911 is ‘‘Not an option’’ and I 

agree. I also understand that money alone will not solve the problem. 

But I think adequate funding is the foundation for any serious 

conversation about upgrading our systems and that’s why I think 

passing a national infrastructure bill presents us with a unique opportunity get this done the right way. 

So, Mr. Souder, you mentioned in your testimony ways to fund 

the transition by using an NG operational paradigm model. Can 

you explain to us what that means? 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I would be happy to. 

Generally speaking, Next Generation 911 is viewed as a technology initiative. But the reality is that it is, in my opinion, a 

three-pronged initiative. 

One, technology for sure, and that has consumed most of what 

we’ve talked about today. But the other two parts of that are the 

governance of that and the funding of that. We’ve talked a little bit 

about the funding but very little about the governance. 

So I think it’s very important because Next-Gen 911 is administered locally and should be—you have heard that said many 

times—that we use this opportunity to take a fresh look at the way 

in which we both fund, the way in which we govern and the way 

in which we deploy technology so that the three are working in 

harmony with each other for the collective benefit that they will 

bring. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. I want to get one more question in to Mr. Forgety. Senate Democrats recently unveiled a bill 

that could help finally deliver on the promise of Next Generation 

911. 

Well, tell me what you think about that bill, if you could. 

Mr. FORGETY. Congressman, I think there’s a lot to like in the 

discussion draft that was circulated in the Senate. You know, we 

certainly came out strongly supporting that language. I think there 

are other things, certainly, that we’d like to see, you know, in a bill 

like that as well and we are certainly willing to work with the committee on that. 

One of the things that Chairwoman Blackburn mentioned earlier 

was the success of states that have 911 boards, and I think coming 

from a Tennessean that speaks particularly powerfully to me because in my home State in Tennessee our former 911 director, 

Lynn Questel, wherever she went she would tell people, if you want 

64 

911 to be successful get people from the legislature, from the regulators, from the industry, from public safety professionals, get them 

together and work on it collectively and you’ll be much more successful. So those are the kinds of things we think can make the bill 

even stronger. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back and Mr. Shimkus, 

you are recognized. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It’s great to have 

you all here. 

Mr. Forgety, I want to just follow up on Ranking Member 

Pallone’s question because I don’t know the answer on this. 

But the question is premised on that some states’ regulations are 

based upon legacy technologies. Does the Senate bill address this 

issue or how do you think that challenge can be addressed? 

Mr. FORGETY. The FCC report required by the Middle Class Rax 

Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, something that report addressed based on our comments, actually. 

In your home state, the counties of southern Illinois—I think it 

is a 17-county region—they got together and said we want to put 

together a Next Generation 911 networking system. We want to go 

out and be first on this issue. 

They ran into a regulatory morass. They spent years trying to 

figure out how can we do this as counties—how can we go out and 

build this thing collectively, because they didn’t fit neatly into the 

right boxes. 

They weren’t a telecom. They weren’t a phone company and historically the rules were written so that you had to be a phone company to do some of these things. 

So I think one of the things that we talked about in our comments to the FCC was that we may need some kind of backstop 

in federal regulations that say look, this is new technology and the 

old regulations, if they are not done away with at some point, we’ve 

just got to say look, you can petition the FCC or you can just go 

and build. But you’ve got to be able to deploy these new technologies without these legacy barriers. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much, and I don’t want to beat up 

on my own state but this does give me the platform to do that 

every now and then and I don’t think that’s bad policy sometimes. 

We are one of the diverting states now. We didn’t used to be. We 

held firm. But we are such a dysfunctional state, budgetary wise. 

So I think the report says about 5.2 percent transferred to the 

general fund. So I am just calling my state out on that. 

Mr. Ritter, though, in your testimony, because you’re my neighbor, you mentioned Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. But, obviously, 

you left out interoperability across the state lines in Illinois. 

In fact, I pulled out your Exhibit A and drew this big circle and 

that’s my district—it abuts all of southwestern Indiana. Do you 

want to comment on that? Why are you not helping Illinois out, I 

guess, is—— 

Mr. RITTER. It’s not personal, sir. Much to Trey’s comment, when 

we began to look at Illinois to partner with—as we had the other 

states, we hit regulatory issues and there were limitations that inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:26 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-21 CHRIS
65 

hibited our ability to build our network on our dime into your state 

to provide those critical services. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I guess that’s it. Thank you. 

And let me finish up with Dr. Magnussen. If the federal government were going to be involved even—there is that debate, right? 

We’ve done FirstNet. There is a pot of money. I think their question is, is there going to be another pot of money? 

Do you have any idea, a ballpark soup to nuts, of how much to 

get us to where a lot of people in this sector would like us to be, 

what that would be? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. The center that I direct has been working for 

several recent months on an interim study. 

The interim study basically is what I am going to call a back of 

the napkin type study because of the fact that the challenge we are 

running into is when you start to look at what it’s going to cost you 

really need solid data and, again, so few states have really done 

this and there is so much variance in what it would cost from state 

to state. Coming up with an accurate number is very difficult. 

I would anticipate that probably within about the next three or 

four weeks our interim study will be ready. Now, the interim study 

is only that. 

In essence, right now there is a study being done by the NG911 

office that will be out later on this fall and that will be the authoritative study. 

That one actually has been funded and will in essence really give 

a much, much better determination of what those total costs are. 

I have worked with the people that are doing it. They’ve got 

some really, really very good people working on it. They do have 

the same challenge we did, though, and that’s when you do a study 

and you don’t have a whole lot of solid data to base it on it’s hard. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate it. 

Madam Chair, I yield back my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Ms. Clarke, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. I 

thank our expert witnesses for lending your expertise to this very 

important issue for our nation. 

This question is for Mr. Magnussen. The 911 call centers by design are an interconnect point for the public to first responders. As 

such, they could be an attractive target for possible cyberattacks 

that can have serious repercussions to the public. 

We have already seen current analog systems compromised by 

simple cyberattacks such as telephoning denial of service and radio 

frequency jamming. Next-Gen 911 will not be immune to attacks. 

We must plan for a strong cyberdefense sooner than later. 

And clearly assuring that Next-Gen 911 systems is secure will 

save lives. During your testimony this morning, you made a number of references in this regard. 

Have these issues been taken into account when planning Next 

Generation 911 systems and is there a need for additional funding 

necessary to ensure security is baked into the Next Generation 911 

systems? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Thank you for the question. 

If you look at the architecture that NG911 is based upon, one of 

the devices you have at the edge of the network is called a BCF. 

66 

It stands for border control function, and in lay person’s terms 

that’s basically a firewall on steroids. 

So yes, it is designed into the architecture. Yes, it will be built 

in and a BCF is pretty much a required function of every one of 

ESInets. 

The centralized monitoring facility though that I talked about a 

little bit earlier is really kind of a key function behind that. It’s in 

essence a second layer up, because there will be a large number of 

ESInets. Each one of those ESInets will have one of these border 

functions. 

Unfortunately, hackers are very smart and they seem to have a 

lot of time on their hands. So what in essence the problem is is an 

attack on one hardened area could easily be moved to another area. 

So the function of the central monitoring facilities would have a 

global view and as an attack occurs in essence that attack would 

be understood what’s going on to help shut things down but, more 

importantly, also to make sure that that same attack is not invoked on the neighboring PSAP. 

Ms. CLARKE. And so the concern then becomes information sharing, right? So we witnessed an attack in one part of the system 

that there is a mechanism in place so that that information is 

shared in real time. Is that also part of what you envision or part 

of what is being discussed and planned? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Exactly, because, again, attacks typically are 

almost like a virus. They keep changing themselves to do what 

they were intended to do, which is damage, and in essence you 

have to stay—it has to be a real time active process. 

Ms. CLARKE. Did anyone else want to add any comments to that? 

Mr. Forgety. 

Mr. FORGETY. So I appreciate your asking about cybersecurity 

because this is something our organization has been focused on for 

about the last 2 years very intensely. 

Even before that, our standards developers created something 

called the NG–SEC, or Next Generation 911 security standard. 

It goes far beyond just firewalls and border control functions, establishes defense in depth. This is a key point. Today’s telephone 

network systems are vulnerable to attack. For a long time we 

thought they weren’t and we acted like they weren’t in the PSAP 

community and we didn’t defend them. 

The challenge is we don’t have tools to defend them in the telephone network. People have said well, won’t the move to IP introduce new vulnerabilities, new attack surfaces, and so forth and the 

answer to that is yes, of course it will. 

But the other thing that it does, the most important thing, is it 

gives us tools to fight back. It gives us tools to defend our networks 

that in the telephone world we simply don’t have and that’s another reason it’s so important that we move to Next Generation 911 

soon. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. This question is for Ms. Boyd. In your 

testimony you discussed the need for Congress to take a bipartisan 

approach to develop legislation to make Next Generation 911 a national priority. 

Can you please elaborate on what this legislation should look 

like and how Congress can take the appropriate steps? 

67 

Ms. BOYD. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question. 

If I were going to frame the policy I would establish, one, the 

grant system that allows for the upfront non-recurring capital investment for the areas. 

I would also consider that in that you establish planning time 

frames and deployment time frames working with the states. It’s 

always partnered with the states and local government. 

But I would also encourage Congress not to just focus funding 

the initial up front for areas that haven’t deployed. I think it’s only 

fair that you also look to perhaps Mr. Ritter in Indiana. 

He may have elements that are still needed within his Next Generation 911 infrastructure that he could use funding and grant assistance for. 

So the policy framework really would be enabling grant distribution, setting a time frame for deployment and the expectation that 

our country is going to be NG911. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I want 

to thank the panel for being here as well today. 

I am the former chairman, as is Ms. Brooks as well, of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness Response and Communications under the Homeland Security Committee. So we really are interested in this subject. 

Mr. Forgety, can you briefly explain the particular benefits of the 

Next Generation 911 for the blind, deaf, visually impaired, hearing 

impaired that are not currently available through the analog 911 

services? 

Mr. FORGETY. That’s an incredibly important question, Mr. Bilirakis, and I really appreciate your bringing it up. 

In the United States today there are more than 38 million, I believe, deaf, hard of hearing or speech-impaired individuals. 

Historically, their access to emergency communications was 

greatly restricted by limitations of networks and systems. It was 

only after the federal government mandated that TTY technology, 

the ability to type characters over the telephone line using analog 

tones—only after that was required that that service became available over 911. 

The great thing is if you look at the work that our standards developers did with NG911, they baked those functionalities in deeply 

into NG911, support not only for message-based texts but for real 

time texts character by character that has the same conversational 

flow as a TTY, the ability to do multi-party video calling so you can 

have a sign language interpreter available so that you can do 

things like interact with someone who is blind and sort of be their 

eyes for them if need be. 

All of those things are natively supported in NG911 and from the 

standpoint of the PSAP community it makes it far easier for our 

members to provide service to these more vulnerable aspects of our 

population in the ways that they communicate already and that’s 

the key thing is we want to make 911 service available to people 

in the way that they’re used to communicating. 

68 

It shouldn’t be some rare oddball thing. It should just happen the 

way you do it every day and that’s very important to us. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. My district represents a significantly 

large population—in the Tampa Bay area—of seniors, as compared 

to most congressional districts. 

What benefits do the Next Generation 911 provide for our nation’s seniors who are most likely to request emergency call centers 

and need emergency services? 

Mr. FORGETY. So I will point to two things in particular. Contrary to some media characterizations, senior Americans are some 

of the fastest technology adopters. 

They actually end up using video calling and text messaging just 

as quickly as the average teenagers do and love the technology. 

I mean, you know, video calling with your grandmother is now, 

you know, a common everyday thing. So these technologies will 

benefit seniors. 

The other thing that was mentioned before is the internet of 

things. We are seeing a phenomenal growth in new wearable technologies that principally focus on health and security. I mean, 

these are things that Americans care about and that our innovators 

are building products for. 

As that happens, as more of those things come online and as we 

get used to them in the 911 community, I think there is going to 

come a point where because the standards allow for it we are going 

to start to see alerts coming in from those things so that we can 

respond and so that we can know, for example—and this is a big 

NG911 feature—if a consumer wants to make health data available 

when they call 911, something like hey, I am a diabetic, hey, I am 

a hemophiliac, I have a heart condition, whatever that is, they can 

do that securely through a trusted third party. 

They don’t have to share their data with the government up front 

and that makes it much easier for responders in the field to provide good service. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Anyone else want to respond to this 

subject matter, whether it’s disabled in general, senior population, 

what have you? Anyone else want to—— 

Ms. BOYD. Could I just—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. Please go ahead. Yes. 

Ms. BOYD. I think another benefit as we do have an aging population and want to live at home, right, added to the medical information that they can personalize and send to 911 and the first responders is also the ability to notify a third party if they wanted 

to. 

So you say, my parents, if they were living, they dial 911, I could 

know they had called and they could set that up in pre-plan. 

So, once again, the Next Generation technology affords so much 

added benefit and data. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is that technology available currently? 

Ms. BOYD. Yes, sir. It is. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Oh, great. Sorry to interrupt. 

Ms. BOYD. No, no, no. That’s fine. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Keep going. 

Ms. BOYD. So as Trey had indicated, it’s the ability if you choose 

to share the information with first responders we can arm them as 

69 

they’re en route to know that I have medical emergencies or that 

I have a third party to be notified and that would help them as 

they are also trying to find loved ones and notify them. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Absolutely. Anyone else? 

Yes, please. 

Mr. SOUDER. I did. Thank you. Health care is changing in the 

United States of America, legislation aside. There are technologies 

presently available and on the horizon that will allow and mandate 

that health care of the future is as different in the future as 911 

will be different in the future. 

It is incredibly important that as that technology advances, for 

all segments of our population that they can take full advantage 

of that technology when they need to call 911. 

Whether it’s body-worn technology, whether it’s pre-entered profile technology, whether it’s medication technology, whatever it 

may be but the next generation of 911 when deployed will be able 

to communicate that both to the first responders that we spoke 

about earlier through the FirstNet network but also to the hospital 

staff so that when a patient arrives at the hospital there are many 

things about that patient that will already be known by the attending people in the ER. Very, very important. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Long for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. Boyd, your testimony mentions the benefits of Next Generation 911 including providing increased reliability and resilience of 

the network, particularly in times of emergency and high use, and 

I know that in my district that when we had a tornado that killed 

161 people in a town of 50,000, right. 

After I had been here for 5 months I know how important the 

911 is and you explained how Next Generation 911 could provide 

such increased reliability and resilience. 

Ms. BOYD. Yes, sir. In an IP advanced architecture different than 

what we have today with the legacy analog, today’s networks are 

very tethered. That’s the best way to explain them. They are fixed. 

They are not dynamic and they don’t move. 

So in a Next-Gen world, in an IP world, we regionally plan or 

statewide plan in Missouri for Next-Gen. If you have another unfortunate event, as the tornado, that impacted PSAP, one, has its 

neighboring communities that can help back it up both from call 

volume or if you had to abandon that PSAP, that 911 center. 

They can already have pre-planned backup from your neighboring counties. You have redundancies in these IP networks that 

do make them more resilient but at the same time they also add 

that flexibility. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you. 

And also another question for you. 

Ms. BOYD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LONG. Your testimony mentions the dangers of technological 

obsolescence of the current 911 network, which often rely on 1970s 

technology and, yes, I remember the ’70s. 

70 

You mentioned that—you mentioned that these data technologies 

pose significant public safety risks due to higher maintenance 

costs, system malfunctions and outages and increased cybersecurity 

vulnerability. 

Focussing on the cybersecurity, can you explain how Next Generation 911 technology is less vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks 

than the legacy 911 network? 

Ms. BOYD. Yes, sir. 

In a Next Generation environment, it’s also vulnerable but the 

difference is, once again, the intelligence. It’s either putting cybersecurity detection devices at the edge of those new IP networks or 

it’s also with the work Steve Souder and I did with the FCC 

TFOPA work we actually have a full report that we published this 

past December that speaks to cybersecurity for public safety and 

the risk and we make a recommendation to introduce an added element not only just for 911 purposes but also for general public safety systems where they can have the added protection, detection, 

aversion, and also the notification feature. 

Oftentimes, I think, as Mr. Forgety mentioned, our public safety 

agencies don’t know they’re even in an attack today. Those companies that do networks for 911 we have cyber elements and we monitor and detect that they can actually infiltrate the PSAPs themselves. And so in an IP world we can actually strengthen that ability to hopefully divert those attacks on the systems. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you. 

And Mr. Forgety, my next question is for you. The Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act required a report on the legal and 

regulatory framework surrounding Next Generation 911. 

Do you agree with that report’s recommendations? 

Mr. FORGETY. And that’s been some time ago so I can’t recall all 

of the recommendations yet. 

Mr. LONG. Four years, I think. 

Mr. FORGETY. But I do recall that quite a few of the recommendations actually in that report followed comments that we 

had provided to the FCC and we certainly support everything that 

we said then just as much as we did then. It’s all very important. 

We need comprehensive liability protection for not just network 

providers but also originating service providers. That was something we mentioned in there. 

If you want folks like Apple and Google and Facebook to get in 

and 911-enable their services, they’ve got to have the same assurances and, frankly, at a national level that telecom carriers and the 

wireline and wireless world get at a state level. That’s very important. 

As Walt mentioned earlier, you’ve got to have things like a national forest guide, an ability to credential PSAPs with a cryptographic certificate authority. 

There are things like that that the FCC took our recommendations on, reported those to Congress. We agree with all of that. 

Mr. LONG. Do you think the 911 coordination office needs to submit the cost study required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and 

Jobs Creation Act in order for Congress to adequately evaluate the 

needs to be done to complete the transition to Next Generation 

911? 

71 

Mr. FORGETY. That’s a hard question, Congressman. 

I always think it’s better to have a report in hand when you’re 

going to do something. However, the clock is ticking. 

Every day, every week, every month that we wait to get this 

process started the costs for local and state governments are going 

up and the outcomes for consumers and field responders are going 

down. 

That is an untenable state of affairs and it’s one that we need 

to fix. So while I always want that if I can get it, I am not willing 

to say we should just wait continuously. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you. 

Before I yield back, Madam Chairwoman, I have a couple of articles I’d like to submit for the record—update to 911 issues in Dallas and mobile not at fault for ghost 911 calls. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Brooks, the leader of our NG911 efforts, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BROOKS. And thank you, Madam Chair, and as we have 

heard from my colleague from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, we have been 

involved in, as chairs of subcommittees in Homeland Security on 

emergency preparedness response and communications. 

So we have both been involved as have a number of folks on the 

subcommittee and these issues because it’s so very critically important and I look forward to working with each of you in the future 

as we continue to explore these issues. I want to thank all of you 

for coming in. 

I want to, of course, ask Mr. Ritter and I want to applaud your 

leadership in Indiana, and we have prioritized emergency communications in a big way in our state whether it’s from not diverting 

funds out of our trust fund, which I realize now is a much bigger 

deal than maybe I fully appreciated, having a statewide 911 board 

that’s overseeing rapid deployment. 

But you also mentioned public-private partnerships and you were 

the only one that mentioned public-private partnerships. 

You described that as our approach in Indiana do you believe 

that we’ve saved money by pursuing Next-Gen 911 in this deployment model and whether—what other advantages do you believe it 

brings? And then I would be curious in hearing from other experts 

here what their thoughts are on the public-private partnership 

model. Mr. Ritter. 

Mr. RITTER. Yes, thank you. 

You know, when I came to this job seven years ago I was a staff 

of one, and the—to the wisdom of the general assembly when they 

created the wireless board they chose to pursue a version then of 

the public-private partnership. 

My colleagues around the country, there were varying models of 

state-run networks operated within state agencies. However, we 

chose, in Indiana, to maintain the course in this public-private 

partnership and that we did not have the infrastructure build in 

our own state for a public safety grade network to move 911 to. 

We knew that that would be cost prohibitive to start a new initiative to build and therefore we chose to leverage the economy of 

72 

scale, the expertise and technology, if you will, from the private 

sector to provide to us a design as to what they could build and 

provide to meet the needs of our citizens in the state. 

Ms. BROOKS. How many partners would you say you have in the 

system? 

Mr. RITTER. The two primary vendors that will be providing networks are at the top of that list. However, their requirements to 

connect with other systems service providers in the state add to 

that count as well as the vendors who operate the equipment inside 

of the PSAPs. 

So as we build this network the list of those partners continues 

to grow. 

Ms. BROOKS. And have you discussed this model, and I am curious from your other colleagues across the country—is this a model? 

Have we saved money in part because of this? Found efficiencies 

and relied, I would guess, on the expertise from the private sector? 

Mr. RITTER. I’d like to say that yes, we have saved money. When 

the general assembly asked me how much it was going to cost to 

build these networks in Indiana my answer was, I have no idea— 

trust me. 

And it came out at the end of the day that we estimate that it 

will cost us, from the state’s perspective for the networks right in 

the area of $15 million. 

Now, this process required one of the vendors to build a network 

in the state and to participate. Their cost to build that network is 

not a number that they have shared. But I am sure that it was 

quite extensive from a private investment for that company to 

build and the state’s going to reap the cost savings of that. 

Ms. BROOKS. Would anyone else like to comment on whether or 

not states and other areas have contemplated this? Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you for that very insightful question. 

As I attended the FirstNet board meeting yesterday at which 

they announced approval to go ahead with the contract with a private-public partnership, it really struck me as being an excellent 

way in which the deployment of Next Generation 911 could be 

looked at as well. 

We are going to need a new network. In our world, we call it an 

ESInet—an emergency services integrated internet network. 

The ESInet will not be telephone poles and wires between them 

nor manholes in the street. It will be in the cloud, if you will. 

There is no need at all for any 911 center to build its own 

ESInet. There are ways in which they can avail themselves of the 

private sector to deploy that ESInet. 

So I think that there are a lot of opportunities that exist as we 

look to deployment as to how we do that, and I go back again in 

the most cost effective way possible. 

Ms. BROOKS. Thank you, and thank you all for your expertise. 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. And if I could add to that too, the State of 

Texas is doing the same type of thing in that we have selected vendors to work with us and partner in that. 

Rarely is it ever going to be a state employee that’s actually 

going to be running the switches and managing it. There will be 

a vendor or service provider backing us. 

Ms. BROOKS. Thank you all. I yield back. 

73 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for 

being here with us today. We really appreciate it. 

Mr. Souder, as you said earlier, one of the most important components of a successful response to a 911 call is knowing the location of the emergency. 

Responders need to know, for instance, that we are in this room 

if it’s called. You made that clear last time. Do you agree that a 

quicker response times are a benefit of Next-Gen 911 and can you 

describe how Next-Gen 911 can help with location, accuracy and 

mapping for first responders? 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, and unquestionably. 

There are appropriate standards within the 911 world as to how 

quickly a 911 call is answered and once answered how quickly a 

unit that needs to be dispatched is dispatched. 

In an ideal world, if the information that was provided initially 

through networks provided the exact location of the caller it would 

save a huge amount of time. The reality is that on a typical 911 

call in my former position took about 40 seconds of a one-minute 

time frame in which to get the dispatch achieved, 40 seconds to ensure that you had the right address. 

That doesn’t leave a whole lot of time for triaging the call taker 

about the emergency being reported. So yes, in the Next Generation world there will be a very, very large decrease in the amount 

of time to verify and confirm the address from which the call was 

coming and consequently how quickly units can be dispatched to 

that call. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And you also indicated that the cost of Next-Gen 

911 depends on each deployment, and I read that statement to 

imply that some states might wind up with deployments that are 

better than others. 

Given the network architecture underlying Next-Gen 911, would 

that undermine the deployment of Next-Gen 911 nationally? 

Mr. SOUDER. I do not believe so. I think that all of us at this 

table have said repeatedly that 911 should be a local issue, whether local at the state, county, or local level. 

But it’s very important that these principal fundamental guidelines that are already established through the task force on PSAP 

architecture are followed because they are designed in a way to 

give options and alternatives to the way in which Next Generation 

911 is deployed, allowing for differences that exist in different communities. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Magnussen, do you have any thoughts on 

that? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Yes, I do. The location accuracy isn’t necessarily a complete 911 issue. The problem is that our location information depends heavily today upon network equipment and satellite location and, unfortunately, in-building location is a real 

problem. 

There are efforts going on right now within NIST and within the 

FCC and a number of organizations to try to figure out a better 

technological way of increasing or improving in-building location 

accuracy without breaking the bank because, unfortunately, a lot 

74 

of the solutions that are out there today would be exorbitantly expensive and would not be able to be—would not be implemented. 

So while this is somewhat a policy and a funding issue, there are 

also some very significant technical hurdles and, quite frankly, if 

we could find a perfect in-building location solution that was somewhere between next to nothing and free, we would have done it. 

But I don’t think that solution exists. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Keep searching. 

Mr. Forgety, we have heard that a central authority of some type 

at the state level is critical to accomplishing the transition in an 

efficient and timely manner. 

Ms. Boyd suggested in her testimony that the local government 

should be in control. This dichotomy reminds me of some of the discussions around FirstNet. 

What are your observations regarding this? And from what I had 

gathered anecdotally, the single point of contact model at FirstNet 

seems to be working pretty efficiently. 

Mr. FORGETY. So having known Mary for a long time, I think I 

would say that there is no air between us on this issue. We agree 

that local control is very important. State coordination is equally 

important. 

I am a member of FirstNet’s PSAP and I can tell you from firsthand experience that the single point of contact model has worked 

extraordinarily well. 

It has been a feature of FirstNet’s design that allowed states to 

move forward with this process in a coordinated fashion. 

I think you have heard everyone sitting here today say that 

doing things in a shared hosted coordinated environment is far better for us than trying to go out and build 6,800 unique snowflake 

systems. That just isn’t going to work. That’s not the modern way. 

So we absolutely at NENA believe, and I don’t think we’ll get too 

much disagreement from anybody else here, that that model is 

quite effective. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Well, thank you. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Johnson, 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Magnussen, we have been talking about the transition to 

Next-Gen 911 and I want to dig in a little bit more into the transition and how that occurs. 

I assume there isn’t a flash cut. Could you explain what the transition means in terms of the legacy networks that we are now leaving and how that factors into the costs of the transition in the short 

and the long term? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Yes. Thank you for the question. 

And the transition within a local entity really has got four major 

steps that we had identified in the study that we did in 2014, 

again. 

First one is really setting up the organizational structure, making sure that somebody has responsibility for seeing it from beginning to end. 

Second one is transitioning existing databases to NG databases 

because they are fundamentally different and in essence the forVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:26 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-21 CHRIS
75 

mat, and it sounds simple but there’s complications in the way we 

currently read names and streets and things like that. 

And the third one is really to go ahead and actually create the 

state or local ESInets, and then the fourth one is to convert the 

local call centers. 

As you said, that’s not going to be a flash cut. We are not going 

to suddenly wake up next Friday morning and say the state of 

Texas has transitioned over. 

During that transition period one of the really complicating 

issues is the fact that we have to have these things called legacy 

gateways. So if a call originates in this call center and it’s NG but 

it needs to be transferred to this call center and it’s legacy, how 

do I do that transition? 

That’s where a lot of the cost complications are going to come in 

but it’s almost like you’re translating two different languages and 

you got to make sure that you don’t really screw up the translation 

because that, again, is where you start running into problems. 

So—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I am just curious. Do we have companies that 

are building a bridge? I am a software engineer by trade and so 

when we implement large software systems we sometimes have to 

have legacy interfaces from legacy systems to the new systems during the transition period. So do we have capabilities built in now 

to bridge the current 911 systems to the Next-Gen systems so that 

you can make that crossover transition? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Yes, sir. Not only do we have companies that 

are building them but they’re also defined into the architecture. 

One of them is called an LNG, a legacy network gateway. The 

other one is an LSRG, a legacy selective router gateway. So one is 

NG to legacy. The other one is legacy to NG. 

So both of those architectures—both of those transitions are defined and they—there are several companies that are building 

them. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Great. 

Ms. Boyd, your testimony mentions the dangers of technological 

obsolescence of the current 911 network, which often relies on 

1970s technologies. 

You mentioned that these dated technologies pose significant 

public safety risk due to higher maintenance costs, system malfunctions, outages and increased cybersecurity vulnerability. 

Focussing in on the cybersecurity aspects, can you explain how 

Next-Gen 911 technology is less vulnerable to cybersecurity attack 

than legacy 911 networks are? 

Ms. BOYD. Yes, sir. Not that IP networks aren’t vulnerable—I’d 

like to clarify that—I think the difference is when you have an intelligent IP network you have the ability to introduce cybersecurity 

elements. 

That exists today in companies that provide 911 network services. They do a lot of good work to detect and divert. However, the 

public safety agencies themselves don’t have those technologies. 

Recent work that Mr. Souder and I did with the FCC on the 

TFOPA report published we have a full section on cybersecurity 

and the recommendations on what we do in a Next Generation network to ensure that our PSAPs are secure. 

76 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. 

Mr. Forgety, military installations—the people, their families on 

bases throughout the United States—rely on their smart phones in 

many cases just like ordinary citizens do. 

Do you know if the transition to Next-Gen 911 capabilities is underway on military bases and should it be? 

Mr. FORGETY. As a matter of fact, Congressman, it is. In fact, our 

organization is working very closely with the Pentagon to make 

sure that as they do roll out NG911 they are not only looking at 

the technological aspects of it but also the operational pieces of it. 

For the longest time the telecommunicators and dispatchers in 

the military context—the military does operate PSAPs just like civilian jurisdictions do. They have not had standards for training 

and call answering and so forth. We are working with them to fix 

that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Great. Madam Chair, I was a communication 

squadron and deputy commander in the Air Force and I can tell 

you that our military folks will be very concerned about this transition and that it’s done right. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I agree with you on that, and I recognize Mr. 

Flores for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the 

witnesses for joining us today, and Dr. Magnussen, I am sorry I 

wasn’t here to formally introduce you. We had an Energy Subcommittee hearing at exactly the same time. 

But that said, I do appreciate all the great work that you do at 

the Internet 2 Technology Center at Texas A&M and also applaud 

the work you’ve done with public safety LTE and the roll out of 

Next-Gen 911. 

Continuing with Dr. Magnussen, one of the things you discussed 

in your testimony is the need for a national layer to interconnect 

state NG911 networks. Can you explain the national background 

and what it brings to the transition? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. Yes, sir. And the question, basically, I think we 

have addressed already part of it was the fact that we really need 

a method for the state to be able to interconnect and transfer information from state to state. 

But another large, large benefit of having a national backbone or 

a national interconnection point is things like FirstNet—are they 

going to really connect at every PSAP or are they going to connect 

in every region or are they going to connect at three or four places 

across the state. 

Some of our large companies such as our large service providers 

typically have got five or six major call centers across the U.S. So 

if we have to basically require for them to connect in every single 

state which, quite frankly, in an IP world makes no sense, right, 

so if we can really go ahead and have a system that can aggregate 

some of those connections it’ll be more effective for 911, actually be 

more effective—cost effective for the vendors as well and it also 

could serve basically as the—we were talking a little bit earlier 

about the shared services—the private cloud type concept—because, again, if I am going to have my services out in the cloud if 

that cloud is protected and that cloud is basically designed under 

the same types of premises that that Ms. Boyd was talking about, 

77 

then in essence I have a higher level of confidence in it. If it’s 

across a commodity internet you’re going to have a hard time selling that one to public safety. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. Right. 

One of the things I noticed in the research prior to this hearing 

is that there are certain state laws and tariffs and regulations that 

are inhibiting or actually I’d say inadvertently inhibiting the migration to an IP-enabled 911. 

Do you have an example of that and more importantly than an 

example, what would you recommend that Congress consider doing 

to try to help the states alleviate those impediments? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. And, again, some of my colleagues can speak to 

that as well. But one example, again, in the case of Illinois was an 

issue where the state regulations required that 911 services be purchased under a tariff. 

Well, in an era where telephone companies are deregulating, tariffs are going away. So it’s things like that that, in essence, trying 

to check that block just don’t work. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. In your testimony, you talked about the 

missed routing that can occur when you’re calling from close to the 

border on either side of the border. How will NG911 help to alleviate this problem where the calls are misrouted to the wrong country? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. The current system actually is based on a concept where for wireless calls I route on the location of the tower 

and that’s initially how the—how the call routing is performed. 

So the scenario is this. I am a U.S. citizen and I am on a cell 

plan with the U.S. telephone company. I cross over the border to 

go ahead and have lunch. Let’s say I am going into Canada. When 

I make that call, since—if I am right on the border my call could 

actually still be homed to a U.S. tower. 

That call actually could very easily and would in fact be routed 

to a 911 call center, let’s say, for example, in upstate New York. 

Well, if I am sitting in Canada there is nothing the call center 

in upstate New York can really do to resolve that issue. So what 

they are doing right now is what they call a blind transfer where 

I just dial the 10-digit number of the call center on the other side 

of the border, and that’s the thing that Mr. Ritter was saying that 

we are trying to eliminate in the state crossings. 

Well, that’s prevalent across the Mexico and Canadian systems 

as well. Obviously, Canada has implemented 911 and Mexico recently had another number. Mexico recently had actually adopted 

911 as their national number as well. So the dialing sequence is 

the same but, unfortunately, the networks are not interconnected. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. Right. 

And lastly, in your testimony you talked about the need for better interstate connectivity. We know, obviously, why the 

connectivity is needed. 

Now that we have got cloud technology it makes it fairly simple. 

Well, I am oversimplifying simple. But that said, I have run out 

of time. So I would ask you to supplementally answer, if you can, 

what actions Congress should take to help facilitate that interstate 

connectivity. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

78 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Costello is batting cleanup and you are recognized. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

A couple observations and then Mr. Magnussen, I have a question for you. I previously served as a county commissioner and in 

a very populated high-growth county in southeastern Pennsylvania 

where it seemed every year we got a little bit less from the state 

911 fund because more counties are getting in the game of providing their own 911 call centers rather than going to a regional 

approach, and that’s because the state essentially enables counties 

to do what they’d like with it. 

I always felt that you should have some sort of population 

threshold in order to have your own 911 center or some sort of formula because to a point that was made earlier there is just so 

much duplication that it becomes very frustrating because in high 

need counties that do need to operate their own call centers there 

is less revenue in order to draw from. 

The other observation that I had is Pennsylvania is not one of 

the states that does not use their 911 money for what it should be 

used for. I think I saw there’s five or six states. 

And I am just having a little bit of difficulty. I will just put this 

into the record. In a county you have a county controller. At least 

in Pennsylvania it’s referred to that. I am sure in other states it’s 

referred by another title. It’s an elected position. 

And you have to sign off and verify that the funds are being utilized for a lawful purpose. If it’s at the state level I presume it 

would be a comptroller or auditor general or something to that effect. 

So I am having a little bit of difficulty how 911 funds are used 

for something other than 911 purposes. I think that we should all 

scrutinize that a little bit closer because somewhere along the way 

I think somebody is signing a check that they are not allowed to 

sign. 

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the PSAP inventory report from 2016 identified challenges to regionality. In some counties there are frequent interstate mutual aid considerations across 

borders in New York, New Jersey, where I am in south Jersey, 

which is part of New Jersey, but if you’re from New Jersey obviously I think there’s a north Jersey and south Jersey—Delaware 

and also northern Maryland. 

The report also noted that many of the design and deployment 

phases for regional projects involve a sizeable time investment 

which burdens the available administrative staff from each PSAP. 

Mr. Magnussen, I noticed your testimony also focused on collaborative interstate connectivity layers in order to alleviate 911 technology operation and policy issues such as the Midwest’s interstate 

play book. 

One, could this be a model used for other areas of the country, 

specifically in the crowded northeast corridor where my district is, 

and two, can you please further explain how this interstate layer— 

where interstate layers ties into national level service providers? 

Mr. MAGNUSSEN. OK. The collaborative effort that the states 

have done in the play book makes a lot of sense for what they are 

79 

doing today because in fact there is no national interconnectivity 

system to really be able to manage that. 

So what they are really doing is doing a peering relationship 

with bordering states. Two problems with that. Voice over IP is not 

based on bordering states. 

Voice over IP, I could very well be talking to a company that has 

a call center in California even though I am sitting in Texas. So 

the bordering state concept really starts to fall apart there. 

But more importantly, we run into a network and we call it the 

N+1 problem. So everybody that gets those routes needs to propagate the routes across everybody else. 

With four states you can do that. With five states it becomes 

more difficult. With 50 states it becomes impossible because you’re 

having to constantly update all of your information independently 

and that model is just not scalable and that is just across the 

United States. Keep in mind this architecture is really designed to 

go globally. 

So while it would be next to impossible in the U.S., you are not 

going to do it across the entire globe. 

But there is also—and as far as the global efforts—we have the 

honor over the last 3 years of being involved with the CAUSE experiment. CAUSE stands for U.S. Canada Resilience Experiment 

and it involves DHS, SNT and the Canadian DRDC. 

So it involves homeland security of both countries and what we 

do there is actually an experiment where we build networks and 

then we look at cross border issues. 

CAUSE 5 is scheduled for November of this year and it will have 

a significant NG911 component to it because, again, we need to 

better understand how U.S. and Canada are going to be able to 

work together in an NG911 environment. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

That concludes our hearing as we have no further members who 

want to ask questions of our witnesses. And Mr. Doyle and I were 

just sitting here having a conversation based on the comments that 

you have made for us today. 

You have been excellent. We look forward to working with you 

as we continue to move forward and look at how we achieve those 

economies of scale, how we utilize the ability to build on work that 

has been done so that we deploy a little bit faster. And I want to 

thank you all for being with us today. 

I would remind members you have 10 days to submit additional 

questions for the panel and I have no doubt there will be some. 

And I would ask that each of you please respond in writing within 

10 days of receipt of those questions. 

And there being no further business to come before the committee today, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

80 


25782.035
81 


25782.036
82 


25782.037
83 


25782.038
84 


25782.039
85 


25782.040
86 

Æ 


25782.041