H.R. 5785, THE WARNING, ALERT, 

AND RESPONSE NETWORK 

ACT OF 2006 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 20, 2006 

Serial No. 109-125 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

30-532PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

 (EX OFFICIO)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

 Ranking Member 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO)

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Knapp, Julius, Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal 

Communications Commission ...................................................................................... 18 

Lawson, John, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Public 

Television Stations ......................................................................................................... 30 

Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Cellular Telecommunications 

& Internet Association ................................................................................................... 46 

Kelly, Vincent D., President and Chief Executive Officer, USA Mobility, Inc. ............... 52 

Pitts, Billy, President, Government Affairs, The NTI Group, Inc...................................... 59 

Jackson, Sheriff Michael, Vice President, Maryland Sheriffs’ Association ...................... 72 

Allen, Sara, Senior Radio Engineer, Ciara Enterprises, Inc., on behalf of Prometheus 

Radio Project .................................................................................................................. 76 

(III) 

(1) 

H.R. 5785, THE WARNING, ALERT, AND 

RESPONSE NETWORK ACT OF 2006 

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton 

(Chairman) presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Wilson, Pickering, 

Bass, Walden, Terry, Blackburn, Markey, Wynn, Inslee, Eshoo, Stupak, 

and Upton. 

 Staff present: Howard Waltzman, Majority Chief Counsel for 

Telecommunications and the Internet; Kelly Cole, Counsel; Anh 

Nguyen, Legislative Clerk; Johanna Shelton, Minority Counsel; and 

David Vogel, Minority Research Assistant. 

 MR. UPTON. Good morning. Today we are holding a legislative 

hearing on H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, 

also known as the WARN Act. I want to in particular, thank Mr. 

Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for introducing this bipartisan legislation and for 

facilitating discussion of such critical importance on our Nation’s 

emergency alert systems. 

As we experience technological breakthroughs on a near daily basis, 

there is no question that our emergency alert system should also employ 

the growing technologies of the 21st Century. But as we saw on 9/11 and 

during Hurricane Katrina, there do exist many shortcomings in our 

current alert system. 

The first national alert system was first employed in 1951 by 

President Truman, establishing a network that would later become the 

Emergency Broadcast System to provide the President with a direct 

means to directly communicate with the public over the radio in times of 

national emergency. 

 While much has changed during the days of Harry Truman, the alert 

system has only expanded to analog radio and television stations as well 

as wired and wireless cable TV systems. 

However, in October of 2005, the FCC expanded the obligations to 

direct broadcast satellite, digital TV, digital cable, satellite digital audio 

radio, and digital audio broadcasting services. The 2005 rules go into 
2

effect this December 31, except for the direct broadcast satellite rules, 

which take effect on May 31, 2007. This is a very important step for our 

national alert system, but with burgeoning technologies, it seems that 

more can be done to ensure a greater blanket of coverage for the alert 

systems. 

I applaud the WARN Act for looking at the wireless industry to help 

bolster our alert system. With nearly 200 million Americans carrying 

cell phones and other wireless devices it seems only natural to also look 

to the wireless industry to help communicate in times of emergencies. 

This is a priority for the Bush Administration as well, as he issued an 

executive order just 3-1/2 weeks ago declaring that U.S. policy is “to 

have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive 

system to alert and warn the American people.” 

 What we must strive for is an emergency system that leaves no one 

behind. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of 

witnesses to hear how they believe that we can better improve our 

emergency alert system from coast to coast, ensuring that folks in major 

urban areas, as well as small rural communities are all notified in times 

of emergency. 

Again, I want to thank Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for introducing 

this bill and bringing the important issue to the forefront. This literally is 

a matter of life and death. Thank you. I yield to the Ranking Member of 

the subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Markey. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

Good morning. Today we are holding a legislative hearing on H.R. 5785, the 

“Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act,” also known as the WARN Act. I thank 

Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for introducing this legislation and for facilitating a 

discussion of such critical importance on our nation’s emergency alert system. 

As we experience technological breakthroughs on a near daily basis, there is no 

question that our emergency alert system should also employ the growing technologies of 

the 21st century. But as we saw on 9/11 and during Hurricane Katrina, there do exist 

shortcomings in our current alert system. 

The first national alert system was first employed in 1951 by President Truman, 

establishing a network that would later become the “Emergency Broadcast System” to 

provide the President with a direct means to directly communicate with the public over 

the radio in times of national emergency. 

While much has changed since the days of Harry Truman, the alert system has only 

expanded to analog radio and television stations, as well as wired and wireless cable 

television systems. 

However, in October 2005, the FCC expanded the obligations to direct broadcast 

satellite, digital television, digital cable, satellite digital audio radio, and digital audio 

broadcasting services. The 2005 rules go into effect December 31, 2006, except for the 

direct broadcast satellite rules, which take effect on May 31, 2007. This is a very 
3

important step for our national alert system, but with burgeoning technologies, it seems 

that more can be done to ensure a greater blanket of coverage for the alert systems. 

I applaud the WARN Act for looking at the wireless industry to help bolster our 

alert system. With nearly 200 million American carrying cell phones and other wireless 

devices, it seems only natural to also look to the wireless industry to help communicate in 

times of emergencies. 

This is a priority for President Bush as well, as he issued an executive order just 

three and a half weeks ago, declaring U.S. policy is “to have an effective, reliable, 

integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people...” 

What we must strive for is an emergency system that leaves no one behind. I look 

forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses to hear how they believe 

that we can better improve our emergency alert system from coast to coast, ensuring that 

folks in major urban areas as well as small rural communities are all notified in times of 

emergency. 

Again, I thank Mr. Wynn and Mr. Shimkus for introducing the WARN Act and 

bringing this important issue to the forefront. 

This is literally a matter of life and death. 

Thank you. 

 MR. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend 

you for calling this hearing this morning on emergency alert systems. As 

we are in the midst of hurricane season and coming up on the fifth 

anniversary of 9/11, it is appropriate that we analyze and examine 

proposals to enhance warnings for citizens when danger is imminent. 

President Harry S. Truman established in 1951 the first national alert 

system called CONELRAD, which stands for control of electromagnetic 

radiation. This system was used amongst other things to prepare young 

children such as myself in the 1950s to deal with a nuclear attack from 

the Soviet Union. 

 At 640 and 1240 on your dial about once every 3 to 4 months the 

nuns at the Immaculate Conception grammar school would turn on that 

radio, as we had a coordinated system, and initially we all used to just 

put ourselves under our desks to protect ourselves against a nuclear blast. 

And then it was decided we would be better off if all 1,300 boys made it 

to the basement walking very swiftly but not running so we could get 

into the basement, all of us, within 2 minutes as the CONELRAD 

warning went on. 

 I can say this. CONELRAD worked to the extent to which we were 

all in the basement. I am not sure it worked in terms of protecting us 

against the effects of a nuclear blast but that was just a misperception 

that our leaders had, but on this one they had a good idea. The system 

evolved into the Emergency Broadcast System and later into the 

Emergency Alert System or EAS. 

 The EAS provides the President with the ability to address the 

American people in the event of a national emergency. It vests sole 

responsibility to determine when the system is activated at the national 

level to the President, and the President has delegated this authority to 
4

the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Although 

the EAS was developed and implemented with the notion that it would 

transmit presidential messages in times of national crisi,s the EAS has 

never been activated for a national presidential message. Many 

significant emergencies potentially afflicting millions of citizens are 

more localized and occur at the State or regional level. 

 Moreover, since the EAS system was developed America’s 

telecommunications infrastructure has changed. We no longer rely upon 

broadcast television and radio for information as we did in previous 

decades. We now have cable television, satellite radio, the Internet, email, pagers, and over 200 million wireless subscribers across the 

country using wireless phones and all sorts of wireless gadgets. These 

devices and communication systems provide our nation with multiple 

means to reach people in emergencies whether they are at home 

watching TV, listening to the radio, online, in their car, at their office or 

walking down the street. The Administration has begun an initiative to 

explore the use of the public broadcasting system and digital technology 

to provide alerts across various media and communication systems 

including wireless devices. 

 In addition, the FCC is currently working on a proceeding that could 

wind up mandating that wireless providers implement new alert 

technology. The wireless industry has raised some concerns about the 

feasibility of blasting out alerts simultaneously to a specific geographic 

area. They have also noted the cost of upgrades to existing networks and 

the prospect of swapping out consumer hand sets at significant cost and 

suggest that the FCC’s action could constitute an unfunded mandate. 

 On the other hand, it is clear that the Administration is prepared to 

fund the public broadcast project, and the budget passed earlier this year 

included over $100 million for this type of system, and also a tsunami 

warning system. The House Republicans, however, in the 

Appropriations Committee several weeks ago zeroed out the funding for 

infrastructure that public broadcasts will rely on to make this new digital 

Emergency Alert System functional. So it is obvious those members 

didn’t get the same policy alert message the President was sending. 

 And I think we need an over-arching plan here. Again, this is 

supposed to be an alert system for occasions requiring immediate public 

response and action. As a result, I think it is appropriate to revisit the 

voluntary nature of some pending proposals. As bad as an unfunded 

mandate would be, it seems equally problematic to spend potentially 

hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a new alert system 

and a new office in the Government somewhere to administer it and then 

indicate to industry that they don’t have to use it. 
5

 This would represent a funded, non-mandate, the worst of all 

situations. Finally, as we continue to look into these issues and consider 

any legislative proposals, we also need to look closely at the method for 

extending credentials to officials permitted to use the system, the criteria 

for what constitutes an appropriate emergency message, and location and 

operation of any administrative entity at the national or regional level 

and the relationship this system will have with other pre-existing 

complimentary alert or warning systems. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a 

very important subject, and I thank you for having the hearing. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Shimkus. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. I want to thank my good friend, Albert Wynn, for his help 

on this piece of legislation, along with original co-sponsors Mary Bono, 

George Radanovich, Eliot Engel, and Chip Pickering. And I think that is 

a good start. This legislative hearing is important to flush out a lot of the 

questions and see where we are at. I have had a lot of good comments 

from folks coming in upon the dropping of the bill. I am very optimistic 

that it will move us in a better direction than we are. 

 Currently, and as was called upon by the Katrina report, which said 

we’ve got to do a better job, there is a lot of technology out there, there 

are a lot of capabilities. So the real debate is how do you expedite the 

process, how do you move us forward without doing great harm and 

slowing up the process, and I think we have reached a pretty good 

balance. We want to make sure that, one, it is used and it is used 

appropriately. We want to make sure that those who make those 

decisions have been well trained to make sure that so you don’t get the 

cry wolf syndrome and people just disregard the alerts. 

 I look forward to hearing your comments as to how we are 

successfully doing that or maybe there are possible improvements to 

make sure that we can move effectively as possible. Last night tornados 

went through St. Louis, Missouri. I live 15 minutes from St. Louis. 

Lacey Clay, my good friend, just came in and his St. Louis home was out 

of power until 4:00 a.m. Parts of my district were left--I mean there is 

some damage but nothing major. 

 But the article from the Springfield paper says such was not the case 

in St. Louis where a section of the roof at Lambert St. Louis International 

Airport was ripped off, and the windows were knocked out of a rooftop 

restaurant. Three people were reported injured when a building 

collapsed in south central St. Louis. This is why we are here. Major 

events that at least we can get people warned and it is coming down the 

pike, we ought to use all the technology available. And we should not 

hinder new technological development by dictating what that technology 

should be. 
6

 So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing, and I look forward to 

working with you to move the bill forward. 

 MR. UPTON. Well, I just want to say to the gentleman from Illinois 

that I know he is a diehard Cardinal fan despite being from the State of 

Illinois, and as I understand the turf was ripped up at the Cardinal game 

last night. All the windows of the press box were blown out. It was 

pretty serious trouble. I want to at this point put in by unanimous 

consent an opening statement by Mary Bono into the record, and would 

yield now to Mr. Wynn for an opening statement. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Mary Bono follows:] 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Markey, good morning and thank you for 

holding this hearing today. Additionally, I would like to welcome our witnesses and 

thank them for participating in this important hearing on H.R. 5785, the "Warning, Alert, 

and Response Network Act of 2006." 

As a representative of a district prone to natural disasters, like earthquakes, fires and 

floods I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the WARN Act. If enacted, this 

legislation would serve to help us better utilize our national communications capabilities 

for the increased safety of our citizens. This bi-partisan bill, co-sponsored by several 

members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is designed to ensure the 

transmission of alerts across a broad variety of communication technologies, including 

wireless communications devices such as cell phones and PDAs, the Internet, television 

and radio, and other communications resources available in the United States. This 

important step towards improving the safety of our citizens is within our reach. 

I think it is important to note that this legislation parallels the recommendations of 

the FCC's Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on 

Communications Networks and an Executive Order issue by President Bush this past 

June. One of the findings of the FCC Independent Panel was “the use of communications 

networks to disseminate reliable emergency information to the public is critical – before, 

during and after such events.” The Panel also found that our current emergency alert 

system is not where it needs to be. The Panel's dual emphasis on the alert and instruction 

is an important aspect of this bill. 

Additionally, in President Bush's Executive Order issued in June he stated that the 

United States policy is "to have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and 

comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people..." The WARN Act 

supports both of these notions. 

To bring this matter closer to home, I recently co-hosted a roundtable discussion in 

my district with Congressman Ken Calvert. At that roundtable, we discussed 

preparedness, coordination and the response of the federal, state, tribal, and local 

government efforts in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. While there were 

many topics discussed at the roundtable, the issue of providing citizens with information 

was discussed at length. It is perfectly clear that the greater the number of 

communications technologies used to spread alerts and instructions, the greater the reach 

into the public important messages will have. The wisdom of this bill is that it recognizes 

both the value of information itself and the importance of granting citizens access to 

information. 

As we are all well aware, the ability to alert and instruct citizens before, during, and 

after the occurrence of a disaster is essential to the public's safety. An emergency alert 
7

system that has the capability to warn citizens of danger and provide them with 

instructions on how to secure themselves and their families has the potential to be the 

difference between life and death. 

 I would like to once again thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for holding 

this hearing and would urge further action on this important legislation. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

 MR. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank you for holding this very important hearing on H.R. 5785, the 

Warning, Alert and Response Network, WARN Act. I would like to 

begin by thanking my colleague, Congressman Shimkus, for his 

leadership on this issue. He has done a great job, and I want to thank 

him for allowing me to be a co-sponsor on this measure. I think it is a 

very important piece of legislation. He just left, but I also wanted to 

thank my colleague, Mr. Markey, for bringing back nostalgic memories 

of an innocent time when we thought that hiding under a wooden desk 

would save us from a nuclear attack. 

 Also, finally I would like to recognize my good friend and a true first 

responder, Sheriff Michael Jackson, from Prince George’s County. He 

has been extremely diligent in providing an effective voice for law 

enforcement in Prince George’s County, and I would also mention that 

he is an incoming chair of the legislative committee of the Maryland 

Sheriffs’ Association. As a Member of Congress whose district is in 

close proximity to Washington, D.C., a prime target for terrorism, I am 

particularly concerned about having an effective alert system. On 

September 11, 30 of my constituents were killed in the attacks. Many 

congressional staff and the largest number of Federal workers in the 

country, 70,000, reside in my district in Prince George’s and 

Montgomery Counties. 

 Currently, the Emergency Alert System provides emergency 

warnings only for television and radio broadcast. Unfortunately, the 

system has not kept pace with our increasingly mobile and wireless 

society. The WARN Act would establish a network for the transmission 

of alerts through numerous methods of communication technologies 

including wireless communication devices such as cell phones and 

Blackberries, the Internet, digital, analog, cable, satellite television, and 

satellite and analog radio, as well as non-traditional media such as a 

public warning siren. 

 The WARN Act creates a voluntary national alert system to provide 

the public with a reliable communication system capable of warning the 

public in the event of a catastrophic event. An important aspect of this 

bill is that it establishes a national alert system working group which will 

bring together all parties to establish a reliable, comprehensive approach, 

implementing a wide-scale emergency alert communication system. 
8

 We need this input from the folks on the ground. The bill will 

provide Federal, State, and local emergency managers with a tool to 

input alerts into the system and have them directed out to a 

geographically targeted section of the population as necessary. The 

White House Katrina report recommended that we should employ all 

available 21st Century technologies both to update and utilize the 

National Emergency Alert system in order to provide the general public 

with advanced notification and instructions for disasters and 

emergencies. This bill builds on that recommendation. 

 I believe it remains our goal to develop and maintain a 

comprehensive emergency management program. Through planning 

with Federal, State, and local officials and the private sector, I am certain 

that we can develop a coordinated safety and preparedness strategy to 

protect life, property, and the environment from the effects of both 

natural and man-made disasters, including terrorist acts. I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses today, and again, Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for holding this very important hearing. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Albert R. Wynn follows:] 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for holding 

this important hearing on H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response (WARN) Act. I 

would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Shimkus for his leadership and allowing 

me to co-sponsor this bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize one of 

our witnesses, Sheriff Michael Jackson from Prince George’s County, a true first 

responder. Sheriff Jackson has been extremely diligent in helping to provide effective 

voice in law enforcement for Prince George’s County. 

As a Member of Congress whose district is in close proximity to Washington, D.C.- 

a prime target – I am particularly concerned about an effective alerts system. On 9/11, 

thirty of my constituents were killed in the attacks. Many Congressional staff and the 

largest number of federal workers in the country, over 70,000 reside in my district — 

Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties. As evidenced by 9/11 and Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, we need to dramatically upgrade our communications network. 

Currently, the Emergency Alert System provides emergency warnings only for 

television and radio broadcast. Unfortunately this system has not kept pace with our 

increasingly mobile and wireless society. The WARN Act will establish a network for 

the transmission of alerts through numerous methods of communication technologies, 

including wireless communication devices (cell phones, black berries, etc.), the Internet, 

digital, analog, cable, satellite television, and satellite and analog radio, as well as nontraditional media such as public warning sirens. 

The WARN Act creates a voluntary National Alert System to provide the public 

with a reliable communications system capable of warning the public in the event of a 

catastrophic event. An important aspect of this bill is that it establishes a National Alert 

System Working Group, which will bring together all parties to establish a reliable, 

comprehensive approach to implementing a wide-scale emergency alert communications 

system. The bill will also provide federal, state and local emergency managers with a 
9

tool to input alerts into the system and have them directed out to a geographically 

targeted section of the population. 

The White House Katrina report recommended that we should "Employ all available 

21st Century technologies both to update and utilize the national Emergency Alert 

System in order to provide the general public with advanced notification of and 

instruction for disaster and emergencies." This bill builds on that recommendation. 

It remains our goal to develop and maintain a comprehensive emergency 

management program. Through planning with federal, state and local official, and the 

private sector, I am certain that we can develop a coordinated safety and preparedness 

strategy to protect life, property, and the environment from the effects of natural and 

man-made disasters, including terrorist acts. I look forward to hearing from the panelists 

today. 

 MR. UPTON. Thank you again for your sponsorship. Mr. Terry. 

 MR. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all thank you for 

holding this hearing, and thank you to my two colleagues for drafting 

what I think is a creative and important piece of legislation to implement 

what the authors of this legislation intend and grasping--getting our arms 

around a variety of technologies out there in a creative way of alerting 

people of imminent danger. This technology, frankly, exists in the 

commercial markets today and is implemented by large corporations. I 

represent Omaha, Nebraska, which is a telecommunications services 

center. Unfortunately, missing in our very esteemed blue ribbon panel 

here today are the companies that are already doing this large scale. 

 For example, some executives from a teleservices company, one of 

the top three in the Nation, Citel International, told me about the 

technology that they are trying to implement one on one with county 

emergency services around the country as the ability to reach out and call 

several hundred thousand people with a recorded message warning them 

of an imminent danger. They can do that right now. I mean that is their 

business and they have the software. It is just a matter of who wants that 

type of service. They can hone in the message, so if you are reaching in 

Omaha, for example, a Hispanic household that is Spanish-speaking, 

they can have a warning that is in Spanish or for the 9,000 Sudanese they 

can break it up into three different dialects. That technology already 

exists. 

 And they can have a recorded message saying this is the danger, this 

is what you need to do. If it is like in New Orleans to evacuate the 

message can even tell them which routes their part of the city has to use. 

It can actually determine or they can pre-determine, for example, if there 

is a disabled person with no transportation that would then alert the 

authorities that this person is on a list to need extra help in case of an 

evacuation. This already exists out there so it is a matter of, I think, 

clueing in our, frankly, Federal government and local governments that 

this exists, but I think this is creative. Not only can they telephone your 
10

house but they can send it to your PDA, your Blackberry with e-mail 

messages. 

 So it exists out there today. I think we just need to make sure that we 

have a comprehensive plan where this technology that already exists out 

there is brought into our national emergency preparedness plans driven 

down of course to the very local levels. So I am very pleased to be part 

of the hearing. Thanks to all of our witnesses here, and I think the 

authors of this legislation, Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn, have done a 

great service to our country. 

 MR. UPTON. Ms. Eshoo. 

 MS. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and 

I want to salute my friend, John Shimkus, and his co-sponsors for writing 

the bill. He is always thoughtful in these areas. I know firsthand 

because we have worked closely together as the co-chairs of the House 

E911 caucus. 

I think it is more than appropriate that we consider emergency 

warning systems so that we can take advantage of modern 

communications and weave this through our entire communications 

system. 

 Very often a good idea just makes so much sense we think, well, 

why didn’t we do this before? I think that this legislation bears that 

imprimatur. Regardless of where an individual is or what kind of media 

they may be using, everyone in the country should be able to receive in 

the most timely way any kind of urgent communications relative to their 

public safety. We know that we are challenged by natural disasters. We 

know that there are human made, I don’t want to say man made, human 

made accidents, and then what has been visited upon our country, acts of 

terror. 

 We have the capacity to do this, and we have, I think, the finest 

partners in the private sector that will help to implement this. But what 

public policy is about is shaping the direction, having the vision, working 

with the partners, and I have no doubt that we can accomplish this. 

I am going to slip in here, you would be surprised if I didn’t, that the 

Congress still has to fund the ENHANCE 911 Act. If in fact we are 

going to have really a ubiquitous system in the country, the funding of 

that I think is really essential. 

 I think most members would still be surprised, certainly the 

American people would be, to know that when millions of people call 

911 that the operators still in so many areas really do not know where 

that call is coming from. If you don't know where the call is coming 

from then you can’t get help to the person that is calling. That kind of 

identification I think is absolutely essential. So there are many of us that 

are still in the trenches trying to make this a reality in our country, and to 
11

those of you that have helped with it, I say thank you to you. We still 

need your help because the implementation of this important effort in our 

country has not yet been realized. 

 I don’t think Mr. Bilirakis is here, but we have a bill together, the 

Calling for 211 Act, that also fits in with part of the effort that is on the 

table today. 

So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. I want to thank you 

for all the work that you have done and what you will do. And again my 

congratulations to the sponsors, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having 

the hearing. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Pickering. 

 MR. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this 

hearing. I do commend Congressmen Shimkus and Wynn for their 

leadership on this issue. I look forward to hearing the panel. I do think 

as our region, my State, recover from Katrina that these types of efforts 

are critically important as we prepare for future storms and disasters. I 

think that this is the right approach and the working group that will help 

all parties, all stakeholders, resolve the different set of standards and 

come up with appropriate ways to implement these objectives is the right 

way to go. 

 I look forward to hearing the panel, and, Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for holding this hearing. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Stupak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding this 

hearing. This subcommittee has a strong record of advancing our 

Nation’s public safety and emergency communications. However, it 

could be stronger if you would just at least allow a hearing on my 

legislation of public safety interoperability trust fund. No response. 

Okay. The legislation before us today, H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert 

and Response Network Act or WARN Act, will continue in the tradition 

of this subcommittee. As a former law enforcement officer I know how 

important it is that our citizens are well informed and have clear direction 

in the case of emergency. 

 Out Nation’s Emergency Alert System has no doubt saved thousands 

of lives by giving citizens direction ahead of severe storms. We learned 

during Hurricane Katrina that emergency broadcast communications can 

play a vital role after the storm has passed. That is why the efforts of the 

Federal Communications Commission, industry, and the public safety 

community to modernize emergency alert systems are so important. 

People have more ways then ever before to be and remain connected. 

Blackberries, pagers, cell phones, satellite radio, digital radio, and 

televisions are all new technologies that can and should be harnessed to 

ensure that people stay informed before, during and after emergencies. 
12

 I commend the FCC for beginning the proceeding to look for ways to 

expand the Emergency Alert System to these new technologies. I 

commend Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn for introducing the WARN Act to 

help us further this effort. Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn’s legislation will 

ensure that there is appropriate redundancy in interoperability in these 

emergency alert efforts. I also want to note that just as important as 

emergency communications with the public is emergency 

communications between the first responders, which is just as important 

if not more important. 

 We are already billions of dollars and years behind where this 

country should be in terms of investing in a fully interoperable public 

safety communication system. However, we can solve this problem if 

the committee once again would have hearings and enact a dedicated 

funding mechanism for emergency communications which would then 

fund interoperability public safety communications, E911, and 

emergency alerts. I have introduced such a bill, as I mentioned earlier, 

that would dedicate a portion of spectrum sales to a public safety 

interoperability trust fund. 

 Last year the committee, drawing from my legislation, created a trust 

fund and made a billion dollar deposit from the DTV auction proceeds, 

but a billion dollars we all know is a mere drop in the bucket. This 

committee should now enact legislation to ensure that the country 

continues to invest in public safety communications by creating a secure 

dedicated funding source from the trust fund. Finally, I would like to 

thank our witnesses for coming today to give us their perspective on this 

legislation. I would especially like to thank Sheriff Michael Jackson, 

Prince George’s County, Maryland, who will tell us a lot about the 

realities first responders face on the ground. With that, Mr. Chairman, I 

will yield back my time. Thank you. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Bass. 

 MR. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As our distinguished 

Ranking Member of the committee says on many occasions, I have a 

splendid statement that I would like with your permission to submit for 

the record. Thank you for having this hearing today. Much of what is in 

this statement has been covered by others, and I yield back. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Charles F. Bass follows:] 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thank you Chairman Upton and thank you to the witnesses for being here today and 

I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

During the Cold War and the proliferation of the atomic bomb, the U.S. created the 

CONELRAD (Control of Electromagnetic Radiation) which later evolved into 

Emergency Alert System (EAS) for cases of a national emergency. This system was 
13

created so the President could communicate to as many Americans as possible in a time 

of crisis to provide assurance and information. Fortunately, the system has never been 

needed to be used in such a scenario. 

Since that time, the EAS has evolved with broadcasters and cable systems 

voluntarily working with state and local agencies to use the existing system to 

communicate local emergency messages - such as tornadoes, hurricanes, Amber Alerts, 

and other emergencies. These have often been successful in getting critical information 

to citizens, but as we saw with larger disasters such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina there 

is room to improve. 

It is important to point out that the nature of the threat has changed since 1951 -to 

one of terrorist attacking localities or regions - as well as the technology available to 

people to communicate. Almost -if not everyone in this room has at least a cell phone, 

pager, blackberry, or other communication devise on them right now. This was 

unimaginable at the time we first created this emergency system and thus these changes 

should be reflected in any emergency system. 

These various devices make it easier for people to get information wherever they are 

located even when phone, cable, and electric lines are down. Some parents are even 

providing their children with cell phones or pagers so they can communicate to them in 

time of emergency. Information is the best defense in any emergency and H.R. 5785 

takes us the next step in taking advantage of the new technologies available to the 

industry and citizens so there is no issue of interoperability with citizens as well as first 

responders getting necessary information. 

The ability to communicate to the public with an authoritative source is critical to 

citizens to know what is happening and how to respond in a timely manner. If that 

communication breaks down - it can lead to loss of life. As we saw with Tsunami, the 

lack of warning to people resulted in lost of thousands of lives. In New Orleans and other 

places in the Gulf, lack of clear information caused confusion for many of the evacuees in 

the Gulf region - as well as amongst those that were there assisting the evacuation and 

recovery process. Misinformation from various sources caused confusion during 

evacuation. Even in my state of New Hampshire, we have had two massive floods 

causing many citizens to evacuate their homes and communities. Some of these towns are 

very rural and evacuation was made difficult by the flooding out of roads and bridgessometimes the only way to leave their homes. The ability to communicate to citizens in a 

certain area of roads washed out and alternate routes would help many of our 

communities. 

I am pleased to see so many stakeholders eager to work together on expanding our 

emergency communication system and again I thank you for being here. 

 MR. UPTON. I look forward to reading that splendid statement. 

 MR. BASS. I also want to commend the Chairman. I do not see 

anybody from Michigan on this panel. Unusual. 

 MR. UPTON. I will come back with something in a moment. Ms. 

Wilson. 

 MS. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. I also wanted to commend my colleagues, Mr. Wynn and 

Mr. Shimkus, for their leadership on this issue. Most of us remember as 

kids on Saturdays usually at lunch time, at least it was in my hometown, 

where they sent that tone over the radio and it said this was a test, this is 

only a test of the emergency broadcast system. All of us are used to 

seeing on the--hearing on the radio and then seeing the crawler on the 
14

television that there is a flash flood warning or a fire warning or those 

kinds of things on television and radio, but we need to get beyond that to 

new modes of communication, whether it is the Blackberry we carry 

around on our hips or cell phones or Internet. 

 And we have already started to see that in a voluntary way with 

something called the Amber Alert where we are using the emergency 

broadcast system to alert people in communities about children who 

might have been abducted. But certain online services like America 

Online have started using those Amber Alerts and putting them out to 

their members on America Online so there are possibilities here to 

expand our emergency notifications and use new technologies to get 

information to people when they need it most. So I look forward to this 

hearing, hearing about how the pilot project has worked, what we have 

learned, what we need to do better, and what legislation might be 

required. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. UPTON. Mrs. Blackburn. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. I will waive an opening statement. I do want to 

welcome our witnesses today and thank them for being here, and we are 

looking forward to some good questions. 

 [Additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on the “Warning, Alert, 

and Response Network Act,” known as the WARN Act. This is an important public 

debate, and it is time we start considering the value of advancements in communications 

and the role that such advancements can play in emergency alerts. 

Events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina made having a vibrant and robust emergency 

alert system a priority. In the chaos of a general emergency, people must have a reliable 

way to receive information about what has happened and get instructions about what to 

do. 

We have come a long way since 1951 when President Truman established the first 

alert system. Those were the days when television was just arriving and a long-distance 

phone call was an event in the life of a family. Today, we live in a culture of mobility, 

where most of us have access to the Internet, millions have cellphones and many carry 

data devices like BlackBerrys and Treos. With 200 million people in this country 

carrying wireless devices, it makes sense that when the government needs to alert the 

public about emergencies, the best way is to get their attention is through the 

communications devices they carry on them. 

In fact, one of the recommendations coming from the White House Katrina Report 

was that the U.S. should “employ all available 21st century technologies both to update 

and utilize the national Emergency Alert System in order to provide the general public 

with advanced notification of and instruction for disasters and emergencies.” 

The WARN Act, introduced by Reps. Shimkus and Wynn, will create a National 

Alert System so that anybody with a communications device can be warned. The WARN 

Act will enable emergency alerts to be transmitted over a broad range of technologies, 

including broadcast and cable, whether digital or analog, mobile phones, BlackBerrys, 
15

and satellite television and radio. And, importantly, the WARN Act requires the creation 

of a Working Group made up of government officials and experts in industry and public 

safety. With the input of all interested parties, we can create a vibrant emergency alert 

system that is consistent, redundant, and, most importantly, reliable. 

I understand that there is a great deal of activity going on in the emergency alert 

space. As we will hear today, the Federal Communications Commission is currently 

examining this issue in light of their work with the Emergency Alert System. The 

Association of Public Television Stations has been working on pilot projects using the 

existing public broadcasting infrastructure to transmit emergency alerts. I am anxious to 

learn more about these projects and how they fit into the WARN Act work we are doing 

today. 

I thank Representatives Shimkus and Wynn for their good work on this bill, and the 

Chairman for holding this hearing. I yield back. 

 MR. UPTON. That concludes the opening statements from the 

members. We are delighted with the panel that we have assembled, and I 

am sure that someone will talk about their roots to Michigan along the 

way. We are joined by Mr. Julius Knapp, Acting Chief of the Office of 

Engineering and Technology from the Federal Communications 

Commission; Mr. John Lawson, President and CEO of the Association of 

Public TV Stations; Mr. Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President 

of Regulatory Affairs, Cellular Telecommunications and Internet 

Association; Mr. Vincent Kelly, President and Chief Executive Officer 

of USA Mobility; Mr. Billy Pitts, President, Government Affairs, NTI 

Group, here in Washington, D.C.; Sheriff Michael Jackson, Vice 

President of the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association; Ms. Sara Allen, Senior 

Radio Engineer for Ciara Enterprises on behalf of the Prometheus Radio 

Project. 

 Welcome all of you. We appreciate that your statements came up at 

the deadline, and they are made part of the record in their entirety, and 

we would like you to take no more than 5 minutes to summarize your 

statement, at which point we will then ask questions from our panel here. 

Mr. Knapp, we will start with you. Welcome. Good to see you. 

STATEMENTS OF JULIUS KNAPP, ACTING CHIEF, OFFICE 

OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; JOHN LAWSON, 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS; 

CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE PRESIDENT, 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CELLULAR 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET ASSOCIATION; 

VINCENT D. KELLY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, USA MOBILITY, INC.; BILLY 

PITTS, PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NTI 

GROUP, INC.; SHERIFF MICHAEL JACKSON, VICE 
16

PRESIDENT, MARYLAND SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION; AND 

SARA ALLEN, SENIOR RADIO ENGINEER, CIARA 

ENTERPRISES, INC., ON BEHALF OF PROMETHEUS 

RADIO PROJECT 

MR. KNAPP. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Upton, 

distinguished members of the committee. I am Julius Knapp, the Acting 

Chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology. I welcome 

this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Emergency Alert 

System or EAS. Since the Cold War era, the United States has had a 

mechanism in place for the President to communicate with the public in 

the event of a national emergency. Under the current emergency alert 

system, all analog broadcast, radio, television and cable systems are 

required to deliver a presidential level activation of EAS but their use of 

EAS in response to State and local emergencies, while encouraged, is 

voluntary. 

 Effective December 31 of this year, digital television broadcasters, 

digital cable systems, digital audio broadcasters, and satellite digital 

audio radio service providers will be required to deliver presidential EAS 

messages; and effective May 31, 2007, direct broadcast satellite 

providers will be required to do so. In light of today’s Homeland 

Security threats and potential for natural disasters, the FCC remains 

acutely aware of the importance of timely and effective warnings. 

 In addition, there are exciting changes in our communications media 

that may allow for additional improvements in our warning systems. As 

a result of these changes, EAS has recently been the subject of much 

examination. To ensure that we do our part to contribute to an efficient 

and technologically current public alert and warning system, the 

Commission is conducting a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether 

the current EAS is the most effective way to warn the American public 

of an emergency, and, if not, how this system can be improved. 

 In an August 2004, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC raised 

broad questions about whether the technical capabilities of the EAS are 

consistent with the Commission’s mission to ensure that public warning 

systems take full advantage of current and emerging technologies, 

particularly digital broadcast and wireless telecommunications medium. 

The Commission also raised the issue of whether the voluntary nature of 

the EAS at the State and local level has led to inconsistent treatment of 

emergency alerts across the Nation, and, if so, whether that is appropriate 

in today’s world. 

 We also considered issues such as what the respective roles of the 

Federal government department and agencies involved in the 

implementation of that EAS should be, how the delivery pipeline for 
17

public warning can be made more secure, how it can be tested, how both 

emergency managers and the public can use and respond to a public 

warning system in the most effective manner, and how a public warning 

system can most effectively provide emergency warnings to the disabled 

community and those to whom English is a second language. 

 Indeed, a key focus of our inquiry was and continues to be how to 

reach each and every citizen. In November 2005, the FCC adopted its 

first report and order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In the 

first report and order, the Commission expanded the reach of the EAS to 

insure that more Americans are able to receive public alert and warnings 

by requiring the participation of digital communication systems 

including digital television and radio, digital cable, and satellite 

television and radio. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 

Commission sought further comment on ways that it could expedite the 

development of a comprehensive, efficient, and redundant state of the art 

public alert and warning system. 

 We have coordinated closely with the Department of Homeland 

Security and its component, the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, or FEMA, and with the National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and its component, the National 

Weather Service. The Commission values these agencies’ continued 

participation in our review of EAS. We look forward to working with 

Congress, our colleagues and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies 

and the public to ensure that we can provide the best possible warning 

system to our citizens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. This concludes my testimony and I would be 

pleased to answer questions. Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Julius Knapp follows:] 
18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIUS KNAPP, ACTING CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND 

TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

 MR. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Lawson, welcome back. 

MR. LAWSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that my wife’s mother 

and sister are from Michigan. 
27

 MR. UPTON. I knew it. Make sure you repeat that when Mr. Bass 

returns. 

 MR. LAWSON. On behalf of the Association of Public Television 

Stations, I do welcome this opportunity to participate in the hearing. We 

have been heavily involved in the development of a 21st Century alert 

and warning system for the American public and were keenly interested 

in the subject at hand, so let me begin by saying that APTS strongly 

endorses the WARN Act, and we commend Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Wynn 

for their leadership in introducing the bill as well as the members of the 

committee for co-sponsoring it. And we applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for 

scheduling this hearing so quickly after the introduction of the bill. 

 As you know, public television has embraced digital technology. It 

is enabling us to roll out a new generation of services for the American 

public. In addition to high definition and multi-casting, we have 

pioneered a third application made possible by DTV, and that is 

datacasting. Through our broadcast signal along with our programming, 

we can send text, graphics, streaming media in the Internet protocol 

format throughout a wide geographic region wirelessly. For some time 

we have been discussing our emergency alert capabilities even before 

9/11 with officials in the Executive Branch and Congress, and I am 

happy to say that members of this subcommittee and others are listening 

as evidenced by this hearing. 

 In fact, last week the White House, the Department of Homeland 

Security, and my association, APTS, jointly announced that the 

Department has committed to funding the build out of a national digital 

Emergency Alert System or DEAS. Public television will serve as a 

backbone of a network of networks. This commitment was based on the 

completion of a successful two-phase pilot project that proved that alerts 

transmitted and a station’s digital signal could be received and retransmitted on a wide range of media and communications platforms. In 

other words, it proved interoperability and it supports the President’s 

executive order in this way. 

 The current EAS as you and others have noted has its roots in the 

Cold War. What we announced last week is an alert system for the 

mobile network and digital America of today. Like the current EAS, the 

digital EAS is designed for the President or his successor to 

communicate with the American public at a time of national crisis. The 

WARN Act is the logical next step to DEAS, and that is because it builds 

upon the new presidential system to provide local, State, and regional 

alert and warning capabilities as well. 

 And like DEAS, the WARN Act recognizes a huge cost-effective 

dual use opportunity for the Federal government. Public stations have 

raised over $1.1 billion for the conversion to digital with about one-third 
28

of that coming from Federal sources. As a result of this investment, 

public stations have the digital infrastructure in place today to serve as a 

dual-use backbone for the national alert system authorized under WARN. 

Please allow me to provide an overview of our capabilities. 

 We have 356 public television station transmitters in this country and 

many translators are 100 percent interconnected via the PBS satellite 

network. These are locally owned, non-profit institutions. Public 

television reaches 99 percent of the U.S. population, about 95 percent 

now with our digital signal. Mr. Chairman, our system was built for 

universal service and we deliver it. And DTV datacasting has many 

advantages to this system. DTV is really a very powerful wireless data 

distribution platform. It provides total scalability. It is designed for 

mass distribution. We can reach a million receivers as easily as one 

without any of the congestion we saw with cell line and phone lines 

during 9/11. 

 It is a receivable and inexpensive receiver device. We are talking 

about $40 under the television receiver subsidy program. It can be 

addressed to selected receivers and encrypted on a need to know basis. 

Just a brief look at the dynamics of the bandwidth allocation. This is a 

representation of an American digital television signal and you can see 

that high definition does not take the whole bandwidth. You can 

dedicate some of the bandwidth for data transmission. You can find 

other data opportunistically. Typically we are using only less than a 

megabyte per second in our emergency alert projects. 

 So let me transcribe the architecture of our pilot project, which will 

be the basis for the actual deployment and the demonstration we want to 

conduct for you in just a moment. One of the--at the upper left is the 

Department of Homeland Security. In the pilot, they have originated test 

messages which are sent on a dedicated line to the PBS satellite 

operations center in Springfield, Virginia. The satellite without anyone 

touching it, no one at the station or PBS touches these messages, they are 

simply passed through digitally. Stations receive the signal off the 

satellite. In this case, WETA received it and retransmitted it 

simultaneously. These alerts were picked up by a variety of media 

including cell carriers, paging companies, satellite radio, and other 

broadcasters and we sent it to stations around the country. 

 One of the hallmarks of the pilot project was the large number of 

partners we had in the public and private sectors, Federal agencies here, 

all sorts of private media and communications carriers. Because of the 

success of phase one, DHS funded us to expand the project and conduct 

phase two, which came to 24 public stations participating in this project. 

Mr. Chairman, we commend the WARN Act for its goal of creating a 

truly integrated national alert system. This commitment of $106 million 
29

will go a long way toward providing the kind of system that the 

American people need and deserve. 

 We do have some questions about the funding mechanism through 

WARN. We are concerned that our stations would incur the cost of 

installing the equipment and then have to be reimbursed. We hope to 

discuss that with you and members of the subcommittee. But we are 

deeply gratified to see this legislation moving forward. Digital public 

television stands ready to provide the backbone of a network of networks 

that can deliver instant warnings to people wherever they are or whatever 

they are doing. 

 And now, Mr. Chairman, with your permission we will be happy to 

conduct a live demonstration of the digital Emergency Alert System. 

 MR. UPTON. Fire away. 

 MR. LAWSON. Please let me go back to the schematic and describe 

what you will see and hear rather then me talking over the test. FEMA 

will originate a live test message and send it to the PBS facility in 

Springfield. It will be up linked with video satellites. We can also 

provide live streaming media and audio. 

 MR. UPTON. I will just note that it just came over my Blackberry 

just now. 

 MR. LAWSON. And we can ring cell phones and Blackberries. So 

radio and newscasts receive the audio portions of this alert live off of 

WETA and are retransmitting it so that is what you are hearing with a 

slight delay coming off their satellite. You can also see, we are seeing 

this through a computer browser through this server, which is connected 

to a small indoor antenna in the window and the DTV tuner part is built 

into this device inexpensively. Along with the alert and the audio and 

video, we are sending files that are building here that we can delete and 

reload. This is just hypothetical information. It could be sent by the 

authorities to police departments or the sheriff’s departments or hospitals 

in addition to the alert that the public is receiving, so this is a highly 

flexible and robust system. 

 In this test today, we did set off cell phones for those of you who 

gave us your numbers. We used the Internet for this through software 

developed by Specter Rep called Alert Manager, but in the pilot project 

here in the National Capital region the cellular providers actually took 

the signal off air from WETA and retransmitted the text messages from 

that. So we can repeat this test if you would like at some point, a lot was 

happening, but we are doing this with commercial off the shelf 

technology. There is nothing really exotic about this, but even though 

we can encrypt some of the data on a need to know basis. So this 

concludes my oral testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 
30

 [The prepared statement of John Lawson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN LAWSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

 MR. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Guttman-McCabe. 
44

MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good 

morning, Chairman Upton, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee. I am Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President for 

Regulatory Affairs at CTIA, the Wireless Association. I am privileged to 

appear before you today to endorse the WARN Act, to highlight the 

wireless industry’s efforts regarding creation of an all hazards network 

and to discuss what role government can play in that effort. I want to 

thank Chairman Upton, the subcommittee, Representative Shimkus, 

Representative Wynn, and the other sponsors of the bill for their strong 

leadership and for focusing attention on the important and timely issue of 

emergency warnings and alerts. 

 The wireless industry recognizes the importance of this effort. CTIA 

and the industry have coordinated our efforts with the Department of 

Homeland Security, FEMA, and the FCC. The industry also launched a 

voluntary wireless Amber Alert service that not only will help protect 

our Nation’s children, but also will provide a useful template as the 

industry moves forward with an Emergency Alert Service. The industry, 

like many other high-tech industries, is in a process of continual change 

and renewal. The wireless industry has invested billions of dollars in 

their networks. Additionally, consumers have also invested billions in 

handsets, PDAs, and data cards. 

 Going forward, new technologies and services are likely to extend 

both the reach and the capacity of wireless services. A sensible 

emergency alert and policy must take into account both the massive 

investment in place today, an investment that will define the capabilities 

that can be used in the short run, and the technological developments that 

propel the industry in the long run. We believe the WARN Act is 

designed to do just that, collaboratively considering government’s needs 

as well as industry’s existing capabilities and planned investments and 

evolution. 

 CTIA, working with the industry, has initiated a two-part approach 

toward development of an emergency alert solution. CTIA and the 

industry are working within existing capabilities to establish and initiate 

a voluntary effort to deliver presidential level emergency alert messages 

that would be sent via short message service to those subscribers that opt 

in to a participating carrier. This is based on the industry’s current point 

to point configuration, which differs from broadcasters’ point to multipoint platforms. 

 As discussed today, CTIA and the industry partnered with FEMA 

and APTS on a pilot project that utilized public television’s digital 

spectrum to deliver alerts to wireless phones utilizing SMS. While there 

are both limitations on the number of SMS messages that can be sent 

during any one period of time, as well as limitations on the number of 
45

characters that can be contained in any single message, there is one 

significant benefit to the short-term use of SMS: SMS exists today. 

 However, this initial service must be approached with caution as the 

limitations and concerns regarding both capacity and message content 

are likely to arise during an emergency. Second, as part of a longer term 

effort going forward, CTIA and the industry are investigating 

mechanisms for geographic delivery of messages. This second stage 

effort is designed to take advantage of the constant evolution that is a 

hallmark of our industry. Several of the capabilities being investigated 

for a geographic-based service would require the industry to address 

issues including standardization, product development and deployment, 

and likely handset turnover if the service is not available in existing 

handsets. The WARN Act provides a very sensible process that will help 

to integrate capabilities and evolution of the industry into the Emergency 

Alert Service. 

 The Act establishes an expert working group of government officials 

and industry experts that will work toward a service description and 

develop standards. This group logically will take into consideration 

industry capabilities and evolution. CTIA and the industry believe that 

any emergency alert service should utilize the full range of 

communications devices, such as wireline and wireless phones, e-mail 

and instant messaging systems, radios and television sets, each of which 

delivers a capability unique to that service, mobility for wireless and 

satellite devices, video for broadcasters, voice for radio broadcasters, and 

more. 

 The efforts discussed above are only a part of the work being done in 

this area. More work needs to be completed and ultimately government 

can help. A true government-industry partnership as envisioned in the 

WARN Act, as envisioned in the President’s recent executive order, and 

as occurred during the development of the Wireless Priority Service, will 

benefit the emergency alert service. The WARN Act mirrors the 

Wireless Priority Service model and that is why I am encouraged about 

its adoption. It provides a process for collaboration, allowing the service 

to be defined before requirements are set, as well as funding for 

development and deployment. 

 Additionally, it would be important to consider liability protection as 

part of the Act. Ultimately, the WARN Act will provide a framework 

that will facilitate development and deployment of a nationwide 

Emergency Alert Service. CTIA and the industry look forward to 

continuing the partnership with government toward development of a 

robust Emergency Alert Service. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and 

the committee for this opportunity to voice our support for the WARN 

Act. We look forward to working with you and your staff toward a 
46

service that will benefit the American people, and I welcome your 

questions. 

 [The prepared statement of Christopher Guttman-McCabe follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE PRESIDENT,

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS & INTERNET ASSOCIATION

The wireless industry, like many other high-tech industries, is in a process of 

continual change and renewal. New technologies and services are likely to extend both 

the reach and capacity of wireless communications. A sensible emergency alerting 

policy must take into account both the massive investment in place today -- investment 

that defines the capabilities in the short run -- and the technological developments that 

propel the industry in the long run. The Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act 

(“WARN Act”) reflects this careful, balanced approach and complements the wireless 

industry’s concerted efforts to develop and deploy an effective Emergency Alert service. 

CTIA, working with the industry, has initiated a two-part approach toward 

development of an Emergency Alert capability. In the short-term, the wireless industry 

proposes to deliver a SMS-based, or text messaging, solution. Along these lines, the 

industry is participating in a FEMA pilot project utilizing existing SMS capabilities. 

While limitations exist on the number and size of SMS messages, a significant benefit to 

the short-term use of SMS is that it is available today. However, this initial SMS-based 

service should be implemented with a clear understanding of its limitations. 

Second, as part of the longer-term effort, CTIA and the industry are investigating 

mechanisms for geographic delivery of messages. The capability to deliver messages 

geographically currently does not exist in wireless networks in the United States. The 

industry is looking into what role capabilities such as cell broadcast, the existing NOAA 

service, or even geographic SMS could play in Emergency Alerts. 

These longer-term solutions likely would require the industry to address issues 

including standardization, product development and deployment, as well as the need for 

handset turnover. CTIA continues to work with FEMA on the creation of a framework 

for development of an Emergency Alert service that utilizes the full range of 

communications devices. 

The WARN Act will advance the efforts that have occurred to date and speed 

delivery of an effective Emergency Alert capability. The WARN Act’s national network 

for the transmission of alerts aims to take advantage of wireless, Internet and other 

advanced technologies, while remaining technology-neutral. It enables appropriate 

federal, state or local government agencies to alert the public of disasters and threats, and 

reflects the same highly-successful process used to create the Wireless Priority Service, 

whereby government worked closely with the industry to establish a service description. 

CTIA and the wireless industry also support the WARN Act’s contemplation of a 

true government/industry partnership that investigates the following areas: 

• Liability protection. 

• Creation of a joint government/industry partnership to develop the requirements 

of an emergency alert service, with the goal of establishing standards. 

• Appointment of a specific authority responsible for balancing local, state and 

federal requirements against industry capabilities. 

• Designation of an entity tasked with operation of the Emergency Alert service 

and creation of a clear set of rules governing who may generate messages 

coupled with a process to authenticate and secure any Emergency Alert 

messages. 

• Funding for research, development, and deployment of a nationwide alert 

service. 
47

Good morning Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey, and distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee. I am Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President for 

Regulatory Affairs at CTIA, The Wireless Association®. CTIA is the international 

organization that represents all sectors of the wireless communications industry: wireless 

carriers, manufacturers, and data companies. I am privileged to appear before you today 

to endorse the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act (“WARN Act”) (H.R. 5556), 

to highlight the wireless industry’s efforts regarding creation of an all hazards network 

and to discuss what role Government can play in that effort. I want to thank Chairman 

Upton, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Representative 

Shimkus, and the other sponsors of the Bill for their strong leadership and for focusing 

attention on the important and timely issue of emergency warnings and alerts. 

The wireless industry recognizes the importance of this effort. CTIA and the 

industry have dedicated resources to examine this issue and are working towards an 

emergency alert capability. CTIA and the industry have coordinated their efforts with the 

Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(“FEMA”), as well as with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or 

“Commission”). As discussed below, the industry also launched a voluntary Wireless 

AMBER Alert Service that not only will help to protect our Nation’s children, but also 

will provide a useful template as the industry moves forward with an Emergency Alert 

service. While the AMBER alert service differs from an Emergency Alert service in that 

the AMBER Alerts are not necessarily initiated during a time of severe network 

congestions (as is likely the case in the context of an Emergency Alert), the industry 

already has begun to learn from the provision of this service. 

Background

The industry, like many other high-tech industries, is in a process of continual 

change and renewal. The wireless industry has invested billions of dollars in their 

networks. Additionally, consumers also have invested billions in handsets, wireless 

PDAs, and data cards. The industry runs on a mix of technologies varying from first 

generation analog to the latest third-generation designs. Manufacturers and service 

providers unveil new capabilities every few days. New technologies and services are 

likely to extend both the reach and capacity of wireless services. Unfortunately, we do 

not know today what all those new capabilities will be or when they will become 

available. A sensible emergency alerting policy must take into account both the massive 

investment in place today -- an investment that defines the capabilities that can be used in 

the short run -- and the technological developments that propel the industry in the long 

run. We believe the WARN Act is designed to do just that - - take into consideration the 

industry’s existing and planned investments. 

Developing a national emergency alerting policy should not be a one-time event. 

Going forward, there should be a continuing process for identifying the emergency alert 

environment and merging it with industry capabilities. Uses and expectations of the 

service will indicate what may be appropriate for capacity of message delivery in the 

short term and long term. Further, the scope of who uses the system and for what 

purpose is very important to understand as it relates to the cost to develop, the 

management of the service, and effectiveness of the system. 

CTIA, working with the industry, has initiated a two-part approach toward 

development of an Emergency Alert capability. The goal is to balance the industry’s 

existing capabilities with the perceived requirements of an Emergency Alert service, at 

the same time recognizing that the industry is evolving. The continued evolution of the 

industry likely will result in different options being considered for delivery of Emergency 

Alert messages. For example, currently there is nothing initiated in the network for 

delivering messages to a specific targeted geographic area. Handsets and/or networks 
48

would have to be upgraded or replaced in order to provide such a service, and 

development and deployment of any geographic service would take time. 

Accordingly, CTIA and the industry are initially working within existing capabilities 

to establish and initiate a voluntary effort to deliver Presidential-level Emergency Alert 

messages via Short Message Service (“SMS”), or text message, to those subscribers that 

opt in to a participating carrier. As discussed below, CTIA and the wireless industry 

have partnered with FEMA on a pilot project that initially will utilize the industry’s 

existing SMS, or text message, capabilities. The SMS capability exists in the majority of 

handsets, and is provided by the overwhelming majority of carriers. 

While there are both limitations on the number of SMS messages that can be sent 

during any one period of time, as well as limitations on the number of characters that can 

be contained in any single message, there is one significant benefit to the short-term use 

of SMS – it is available today. Utilizing SMS initially will work to avoid a significant 

amount of the development timeframe that will accompany the solutions discussed 

below. However, this initial service must be approached with caution, as the limitations 

and concerns regarding both capacity and message content are likely to arise during an 

emergency. 

Unlike the existing Emergency Alert network, which operates on broadcast 

networks designed to transmit messages from one point to multiple points, the existing 

wireless network was designed to be point to point – one customer to another customer, 

where the network has to route calls and text messages using switches and databases to 

direct traffic to individual users. In this environment, utilization of SMS to retransmit 

messages likely will result in latency of delivery of the message to some consumers. 

However, as was concluded in the Wireless AMBER Alert context, an SMS offering – 

despite its expected limitations – is the best existing, short-term option for delivery of 

alert messages. 

Second, as part of the longer term effort going forward, CTIA and the industry are 

investigating mechanisms for geographic delivery of messages. This second stage effort 

is designed to take advantage of the constant evolution that is the hallmark of the wireless 

industry. The goal is to address the capacity issues that are part of any SMS-based alert 

service, as well as to develop a capability for targeting messages geographically. 

The industry is looking into what role, if any, services such as cell broadcast and 

other broadcast technologies could ultimately play in the Emergency Alert environment. 

Recent developments, including but not limited to broadcast offerings on wireless 

phones, as well as services such as Qualcomm’s proposed MediaFlo offering, highlight 

how the industry and its technology are in transition. 

Several of the capabilities being investigated for a geographic-based service would 

require the industry to address issues including standardization (both of the underlying 

product as well as the alert development and delivery process), product development and 

deployment, as well as the need for handset turnover if the service is not available in 

existing handsets. The WARN Act provides a very sensible process that will help 

facilitate that evolution. The Act establishes an expert working group of government 

officials and industry experts that will work to set a service description and develop 

standards. This group logically will take into consideration industry capabilities and 

evolution, and will lead to a more robust service. 

In the interim, CTIA continues to work with FEMA and the Federal 

Communications Commission on the creation of a framework for development of an alert 

service that ultimately can be transmitted on multiple retransmission media, including 

wireless. CTIA and the industry believe, that while wireless can be a component of any 

alerting service, any Emergency Alert service should not focus solely on the wireless 

network. Rather, an Emergency Alert service should utilize the full range of 

communications devices, such as wireline and wireless telephones, email and instant 

messaging systems, radios and television sets, each of which delivers a capability unique 
49

to the service - - mobility for wireless and satellite devices, video for broadcasters, voice 

for radio broadcasters, etc.. 

FEMA Capitol Region Pilot Project

CTIA has been working diligently with carriers, manufacturers, and FEMA on a 

digital Emergency Alert pilot project in the national capitol region. As discussed this 

morning, the pilot project, being directed by FEMA, coordinated with the Association of 

Public Television Stations (“APTS”), and utilizing the digital broadcast spectrum, is 

designed to provide the Nation with an enhanced alert system. The goal of the first phase 

of the project was a “proof of concept” that Emergency Alert messages can be sent from 

FEMA to public broadcasters, embedded in the digital broadcast spectrum, and then retransmitted to third parties, including wireless carriers. A portion of the embedded 

Emergency Alert message contained a text file that the wireless carriers were able to 

extract. Phase 1 of the pilot project has successfully been completed. 

AMBER Alerts

The industry already is pursuing use of the wireless phone for the safety of the 

country. On its own initiative, the industry has launched a Wireless AMBER Alert 

Service that will provide another level of safety to its customers and the American public. 

This service enhances the industry’s vast array of socially responsible initiatives. 

Partnering with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) as 

well as the Department of Justice (the designated national AMBER Alert coordinator), 

the wireless industry is making potentially life-saving AMBER Alert text messages 

available to wireless subscribers who “opt in” to the offering. The carriers currently 

participating collectively provide service to more than 90% of U.S. wireless customers. 

The service has been designed to be scaleable so that additional carriers can continue to 

join the effort going forward. 

Wireless AMBER Alerts will significantly increase the reach of the AMBER Alert 

notification program. The Ad Council recently has chosen the Wireless AMBER Alert 

program for its support. Past experiences indicate the first three hours are critical to the 

successful recovery of an abducted child, and the Wireless AMBER Alerts will be an 

invaluable tool in assisting the search process. According to the NCMEC, Wireless 

AMBER Alerts will potentially serve as a preventive tool as well. People who prey on 

innocent children will perhaps think twice before carrying out their malicious acts, 

knowing that almost any cell phone owner they pass could identify a perpetrator and have 

access to the immediate means to guide law enforcement officials to their location. 

Under the program, the subscribers of participating carriers may “opt-in” to receive 

Wireless AMBER Alerts, and may do so at www.wirelessAMBERalerts.org, or by 

visiting their wireless service provider's web site. 

Going Forward

The efforts discussed above are only a part of the work being done in this area. 

More work needs to be completed, and, ultimately, government can help. A true 

government/industry partnership as envisioned in the WARN Act, will facilitate 

development and deployment of the service. The wireless industry has in its immediate 

past an example of what can happen when government and industry partner voluntarily 

on the creation of a new service -- Wireless Priority Service. Wireless Priority Service is 

a White House-directed National Security/Emergency Preparedness program, through the 

National Communications System, that utilizes the commercial wireless networks to 

deliver priority access to key government officials during times of crisis and high call 

volume. Government, through both the National Communications System and the 

Federal Communications Commission, worked with industry on development of the 

requirements for the service, but did not mandate a solution. Instead, government has 
50

provided funding to manufacturers and vendors for development of the capability, 

resulting in rapid deployment of the service in two phases. The WARN Act mirrors the 

Wireless Priority Service model – and that is why I am encouraged about its adoption. 

WARN will provide a framework that will facilitate development and deployment a 

nationwide Emergency Alert Service. 

CTIA and the wireless industry believe that it is counter-productive to have a 

statutory mandate in this environment. Application of the Wireless Priority Service 

model of government/industry partnership will lead to a solution that takes advantage of 

the industry’s creativity and ingenuity. As government and industry move forward with 

both a short-term and possibly longer-term solution, the following are some of the issues 

that would benefit from joint government/industry consideration: 

• Liability relief. As with the Broadcasters that currently provide the Emergency 

Alert service, the industry requires full liability protection for delivery of any 

Emergency Alert message, both for any short-term solution and any longerterm solution. 

• Service Description. As considered in the WARN Act, a joint 

government/industry partnership to develop the requirements of any emergency 

alert service that ultimately would result in the development and adoption of 

standards. This partnership will allow manufacturers to build to specific 

requirements. 

• Designation of Authority for Development of an Emergency Alert Service. As 

in the WARN Act, designation of a specific authority responsible for balancing 

local, state and federal requirements against industry capabilities. 

• Designation of Authority for Operation of an Emergency Alert Service. Again, 

as considered in the WARN Act, designation of a specific authority tasked with 

operation of the Emergency Alert service as well as creation of a clear set of 

rules governing who is permitted to generate messages and under what 

circumstances they can be generated, coupled with a process to authenticate and 

secure any Emergency Alert messages. Due to the possibility of a hoax 

transmission, this process must guarantee the integrity of the messages from the 

point of origination to delivery. 

• Research, Development, Deployment and Implementation Support. Finally, as 

considered in the WARN Act, the provision of funding to support research and 

development, as well as deployment and implementation, will benefit the 

establishment of a nationwide alert service. 

Conclusion

CTIA and the wireless industry look forward to continuing the partnership with 

government toward development of an Emergency Alert Service. Thank you again for 

this opportunity to voice our support for the WARN ACT, to highlight the wireless 

industry’s efforts to contribute to an all hazards network, and to discuss what role the 

Government should play in that effort. We look forward to working with you and your 

staff toward a service that will benefit the American people. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Kelly. 

MR. KELLY. Chairman Upton, and members of the subcommittee, 

good morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify on emergency 

communications and the WARN Act. My name is Vincent Kelly, and I 

am the President and Chief Executive Officer of USA Mobility, the 

Nation’s largest provider of paging services. I have been with the 

company and its predecessor, Metrocall, for over 19 years. USA 
51

Mobility strongly supports the WARN Act and applauds the 

subcommittee’s efforts to promote public safety through the broader 

dissemination of critical and often life-saving emergency information. 

 Paging services are ideally suited to this task. Our network is robust, 

reliable, and redundant, and our services are affordable. For those 

reasons, paging is often the technology of choice for emergency 

responders, healthcare professionals, and others who need messaging 

capabilities that will remain operational during a crisis. When voice 

networks were out of service or overloaded during times of national 

emergency, such as on September 11 or during Hurricane Katrina, our 

network performed extremely well and allowed first responders to get 

critical messages to each other. We are proud that the FCC’s 

independent panel reviewing the impact of Hurricane Katrina recently 

issued a report praising the exemplary performance of paging services 

during the storm and recommending that emergency responders 

throughout the Nation rely on paging services on a primary basis or as a 

backup to mobile phones and other broadband devices. 

 Just as importantly, our paging network is equipped to broadcast 

thousands or even millions of alert messages simultaneously to the 

public, a capability not matched currently by mobile phone providers. 

My written testimony describes in detail how our network operates and 

why it offers superior reliability for emergency communications, but let 

me take a moment to highlight some of the key attributes. 

 First, our network is extremely reliable because we do not use the 

public switched telephone network to back all our traffic from our 

transmitters to our switches. Instead we rely on satellites which means 

hurricanes and other calamities that damage trunk lines and telephone 

switches do not interrupt our service. Second, we simulcast signals to 

our subscribers from multiple towers, and our transmitters are generally 

located higher off the ground and emit higher powered signals than 

mobile voice providers. For those reasons, our signals can travel further 

and penetrate buildings better than mobile voice services. And if one 

tower goes down our simulcast technology often allows users to receive 

messages from another tower in the area. 

 Third, paging devices themselves are reliable and very easy to use. 

Unlike cell phones and PDAs, a pager typically runs for weeks on a 

single AA or AAA battery. Battery-powered pagers are not affected by a 

loss of electrical power because there is no need to recharge them. These 

attributes make paging devices ideal for messaging among first 

responders and also make our network perfect for use in our national 

alert system. Our company is committed to transmitting alerts to our 

subscribers in an emergency. In addition, because mobile voice 

networks currently are not set up to broadcast alerts and our network is, 
52

our broadcast capabilities must best be utilized in emergencies if mobile 

telephone carriers were to integrate our paging technology into mobile 

phones. 

 This approach could offer the fastest and most promising way to roll 

out a national alert capability to mobile voice subscribers or either to 

work with the voice carriers and manufacturers to make this concept a 

reality in the near future. In closing, I would like to underscore our 

support for the proposed legislation and highlight three issues that are 

particularly important. First, we strongly support the working group 

approach taken by the bill. The best way to establish systems and 

protocols capable of delivering messages to a wide array of technology 

platforms is to convene a working group as proposed in the WARN Act. 

USA Mobility is prepared to play a significant role in the working group. 

 Second, the legislation is necessary to provide funding for this 

initiative. The national rollout of an expanded multi-platform alert 

system will require funding in addition to that proposed by the WARN 

Act. USA Mobility urges Congress to provide additional funding to the 

Department of Homeland Security to authorize grants to State and local 

emergency responders for the acquisition, use, and improvement of 

reliable communication systems including paging services. 

 Finally, USA Mobility believes that any legislation must provide 

liability protection for communication service providers who participate 

in the national alert system. The threat of baseless lawsuits would have a 

chilling effect on participation by service providers, which would limit 

the success of the initiative. In conclusion, USA Mobility commends the 

subcommittee and Representatives Shimkus and Wynn and other 

sponsors of the WARN Act for their attention to this critical issue and 

looks forward to assisting in the development of a robust national alert 

system. 

 [The prepared statement of Vincent D. Kelly follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VINCENT D. KELLY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

USA MOBILITY, INC. 

Summary of Written Statement of Vincent D. Kelly 

 As the nation’s leading provider of paging services, USA Mobility is eager to play 

an integral role in the national alert system contemplated by the WARN Act. USA 

Mobility’s paging services already provide a highly reliable, redundant, and affordable 

text-messaging solution to mission-critical emergency responders. We also have the 

capability today to broadcast emergency alerts to all of our text-messaging subscribers, 

using satellite-controlled transmitters. Moreover, our nationwide network can support 

alerting capabilities for other service providers, such as wireless voice carriers that cannot 

provide similar point-to-multipoint messaging. 

 USA Mobility’s paging network has several key attributes that are ideally suited to 

emergency communications. Our network relies on satellites rather than the PSTN to 

link transmitters and switches, and therefore can maintain operations when telephone 
53

trunk lines and switches are out of service. In addition, our paging transmitters emit 

extremely powerful signals in a “simulcast” fashion, maximizing the network’s 

geographic reach and in-building penetration. Paging devices typically run on a single 

AA or AAA battery and have a long battery life; unlike cell phones and PDAs, these 

devices are not affected by a loss of electrical power because there is no need to recharge 

them. While damage to a transmission tower usually will disrupt mobile telephone 

service, paging’s use of simulcasting enables the delivery of messages to paging devices 

from other nearby towers. Paging also is a very affordable technology, which makes it 

suitable either as a primary communications tool or as a backup. 

 These strengths were clearly demonstrated during recent crises, including Hurricane 

Katrina and September 11. For example, the FCC’s Independent Panel on the Impact of 

Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks praised the exemplary performance of 

paging services during the storm and even called on federal officials to promote the use 

of pagers by emergency responders nationwide. During 9/11, the paging network 

remained operational when wireline and mobile voice networks became overloaded and 

could not complete calls. 

 USA Mobility seeks to leverage these strengths as a participant in the expanded 

national alert system. Our network will continue to serve as a critical tool for first 

responders, and we are ready, willing, and able to provide emergency alerts to all of our 

text-messaging subscribers. In addition, our network’s broadcast capabilities might be 

best utilized in emergencies if the national mobile telephone carriers were to integrate our 

paging technology into their handsets. This approach seems to offer the fastest and most 

promising way to roll out a national alert capability to mobile phone subscribers, because 

mobile voice networks are not set up to broadcast alerts. 

 USA Mobility applauds the Subcommittee for its work on the national alert system, 

and in particular we endorse the working group approach taken by the WARN Act. 

Industry stakeholders and officials at all levels of government should collaborate on the 

development of technical interfaces, security procedures, and related matters. We also 

believe that the legislation’s funding provisions are necessary to the deployment of a 

robust multi-platform system, and Congress should expand its funding of grants to 

emergency responders. Finally, any legislation should include liability protection for 

participating service providers. 

 Chairman Upton and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify on emergency communications and the Warning, Alert, and Response Network 

Act (“WARN Act”). My name is Vincent Kelly, and I am the President and Chief 

Executive Officer of USA Mobility, the nation’s largest provider of paging services. 

 USA Mobility strongly supports the WARN Act and applauds the Subcommittee’s 

efforts to promote public safety through the broader dissemination of critical, and often 

life-saving, emergency information. Paging services are ideally suited to this task. 

Perhaps the most important feature of our network today is the ability to broadcast 

messages to millions of Americans simultaneously utilizing a “group call” feature with 

our simulcast technology on a geographic zone-by-zone basis. While my company 

serves several million customers and is capable of transmitting alerts to our messaging 

subscribers in an emergency, our network’s broadcast capabilities might be best utilized 

in emergencies if other service providers—such as the national mobile telephone 

carriers—were to integrate our paging technology into mobile phones and similar 

devices, allowing information to be transmitted across multiple platforms simultaneously. 

 Our paging network also is extremely reliable, inherently redundant through 

simulcast technology, and very affordable. For these reasons, paging has proven 

particularly vital to mission-critical personnel such as first responders, doctors and 

nurses, and government officials. In fact, the FCC’s Independent Panel Reviewing the 
54

Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks recently recognized the 

exemplary performance of paging networks during Hurricane Katrina and recommended 

that paging carriers play an important role in any expanded alert system. 

 My testimony today will describe the unique strengths of paging technology, its 

proven record in emergency situations, and the role we are prepared to play in an 

expanded national alert system. Before addressing these issues, I will begin with some 

brief background information on USA Mobility. 

Company Background 

 USA Mobility was formed in late 2004 by the merger of Arch Wireless, Inc. and 

Metrocall Holdings, Inc., then the nation’s two largest independent paging and wireless 

messaging companies. I have been with the company and with its predecessor Metrocall 

for 19 years, and I understand well the communications issues that arise during times of 

emergency. 

 USA Mobility provides one-way and advanced two-way text-messaging services, as 

well as traditional numeric paging services. As of March 31, 2006, USA Mobility 

provided service to over 4.6 million messaging devices, out of a total of more than 8 

million units industry-wide. While the mass market for paging services has declined in 

recent years as consumers have increasingly relied on mobile phones, our paging services 

continue to play a critical role for first responders, including police officers, fire fighters, 

and rescue workers. In addition, hospitals and health clinics, as well as government 

agencies, rely heavily on paging services. We also serve more than 80 percent of Fortune 

1000 companies. Our paging networks, which include approximately 15,000 

transmitters, reach more than 90 percent of the U.S. population with one-way service and 

over 80 percent with two-way service, encompassing the largest 100 markets. 

Key Attributes of Paging Networks 

 USA Mobility’s paging network is ideally suited to emergency communications 

based on several key attributes, including reliability, redundancy, and affordability. 

These attributes will strongly further the WARN Act’s goals by ensuring the availability 

of a text-messaging capability as a primary or back-up system for public alerts and 

facilitating communications among first responders in emergency situations. 

 Paging is one of the most reliable communications technologies on the market 

today. Our network architecture combines digital satellite transmission with an extensive 

system of terrestrial transmitters and paging switches. Because our narrowband PCS 

transmitters are controlled by satellites, our transmission network is far less dependent on 

the public switched telephone network than many other wireless systems—and thus far 

less vulnerable to outages during natural disasters and other emergencies. Satellite 

transmission also enables us to direct messages to multiple base-station paging 

transmitters within a geographic footprint in a “simulcast” fashion. Moreover, paging 

networks enjoy redundancy due to the benefits of this simulcast technology. Because 

paging messages are simulcast from multiple towers to each pager, damage to a single 

tower or even several towers does not necessarily interrupt the delivery of messages, as 

the pager might be able to receive signals from other towers in the area. Mobile voice 

networks typically lack this capability. 

 Another distinctive feature of paging networks is that our transmitter antennas are 

located on towers high off the ground (over 300 feet) and on the tops of buildings, and 

emit extremely powerful signals of up to 3,500 watts ERP. In contrast, most mobile 

phone transmitter antenna arrays typically are located 100 feet above the ground and emit 

significantly less powerful transmitter signals of 90 watts ERP. As a result of our unique 

simulcasting and high-power transmissions, paging signals can travel farther and 

penetrate buildings better than signals used by other wireless technologies. Additionally, 
55

many mobile phone outages result from damage to their large antenna arrays, in contrast 

to the resilience of the smaller antennas utilized by paging systems. 

Paging devices are also very reliable. Unlike cell phones and PDAs, pagers typically run 

on a single AA or AAA battery and have a long battery life relative to other wireless 

devices. These battery-powered pagers are not affected by a loss of electrical power 

because there is no need to recharge them. 

 Moreover, paging devices and service plans are affordable, particularly relative to 

other wireless services. A typical paging service plan includes the cost of the paging 

device and still costs less than $10 per month. This low cost continues to make pagers an 

attractive option for private employers and government agencies that need basic 

messaging capabilities, either for primary use or to back up their broadband services. 

The cost savings also benefit low-income consumers who cannot afford more expensive 

wireless communications services. 

Performance During Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 

The strengths of our technology were clearly apparent during Hurricane Katrina and 

9/11. Hurricane Katrina disabled most communications networks in the Gulf Coast 

region, but paging services remained operational in many areas while other networks 

failed. USA Mobility’s network was fully operational within two days in the areas 

hardest hit by the storm (most wireline and wireless providers required far longer to 

restore full service). Several of our customers reported that paging services provided 

their only link to the outside world, as they could not use wireline or wireless telephones. 

For example, as an employee at Women’s Hospital and Tulane Lakeside Hospital 

reported: 

Pagers were used by Medical Staff for communicating with the doctors and nurses 

in transporting the Mom’s and Babies from one facility to another. Text messaging 

was the only way to get critical messages out to the doctors and nurses since phone 

lines were all down or all circuits busy. 

Similarly, Carter C. Blumeyer, a Communication Specialist with FEMA during 

Hurricane Katrina, reported his experience with paging and the Reflex technology 

protocol we deploy on our two-way network to an industry newsletter: 

I am with an Urban Search and Rescue for FEMA and with the cell and data service 

down and systems being flooded. . . . ReFLEX is working fine and 

communications are flowing through the units! We are allowing people to send emails to loved ones to let them know they are alive and well. Again the critical use 

of ReFLEX [has been available] in all the disaster situations I have been to (9/11 

NYC, Ivan, Isabel and now Katrina!). 

The recent report of the FCC’s Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane 

Katrina on Communications Networks validated this anecdotal evidence and commended 

the exemplary performance of paging services during the crisis. The Panel concluded 

that paging systems were more reliable than other networks because: 

• “[P]aging systems utilize satellite networks, rather than terrestrial systems, for 

backbone infrastructure. Paging technology is also inherently redundant, which 

means that messages may still be relayed if a single transmitter or group of 

transmitters in a network fails.” (Report at 10.) 

• “Paging signals penetrate buildings very well, thus providing an added level of 

reliability.” (Id.) 

• “Additionally, pagers benefited from having a long battery life and thus 

remained operating longer during the power outages. Other positive 

observations concerning paging systems included that they were effective at 

text messaging and were equipped to provide broadcast messaging.” (Id.) 
56

• “[G]roup pages can be sent out during times of emergencies to thousands of 

pager units all at the same time.” (Id.) 

Because of the remarkable reliability of the paging network during Hurricane Katrina, the 

Panel repeatedly recommended that emergency responders rely on pagers as a primary or 

back-up communications system in future emergencies. The Panel stated, for example, 

that the FCC should “[u]rge public safety licensees to familiarize themselves with 

alternative communications technologies to provide communications when normal public 

safety networks are down. Such technologies include . . . two-way paging devices, and 

other technologies less reliant on the PSTN.” (Id. at 37-38) The Panel also called on the 

FCC to support Department of Homeland Security efforts to make emergency medical 

providers eligible for funding for emergency communications equipment and to expand 

the Emergency Alert System, see id. at 40, as the WARN Act seeks to accomplish. 

 Paging also performed exceptionally well during the tragic events of September 11, 

2001. While the wireline and related wireless networks were quickly inundated with high 

call volumes and thus inaccessible for most people, pagers continued to send and receive 

data throughout the duration of the emergency. The superior performance of paging 

systems during 9/11 led industry expert Dr. Peter Kapsales to state that two-way paging 

“should be considered a primary or backup system to improve real-time communication 

among emergency personnel during critical periods when voice communication is not 

practical or fails.” 

Paging Should Be a Central Component of the National Alert System 

As this past performance demonstrates, USA Mobility and other paging carriers can 

leverage the benefits of their networks as participants in the expanded national alert 

system. There can be no legitimate debate about the value of enabling people to receive 

alerts over as many communication platforms as possible, as the WARN Act proposes. 

Nor is there any doubt that wireless technologies in particular should play a key role in 

the national system. Our society is going wireless. Although it is important to reach the 

television and radio audiences with emergency information, a growing number of citizens 

rely on wireless networks to receive information (and, of course, to communicate with 

others). As of 2005, there were more than 185 million mobile telephones, and more than 

8 million paging devices, in service. Sending emergency information to wireless devices 

is especially important if people are on the move during an emergency, or if televisions 

and radios are inoperable based on power failures. 

While mobile phone providers at this point serve vastly more consumers than paging 

carriers, the superior point-to-multipoint capabilities of paging networks make paging 

carriers critical participants in the national alert system. The FCC’s rulemaking on 

expanding the Emergency Alert System has focused largely on mobile phone providers’ 

current inability to broadcast alert messages to large numbers of consumers. Mobile 

phone carriers have proposed short-term solutions based on short-message-services, 

which are quite limited in terms of message length and the number of subscribers that can 

be reached promptly. Over the next several years, mobile phone carriers propose to 

develop more robust broadcast systems capable of transmitting messages to large 

numbers of subscribers simultaneously. 

In contrast, as I have described, paging networks already have this capability today. 

Broadcasting large numbers of messages does not cause bottlenecks in paging networks 

because, unlike voice networks, they are designed for this function. We are able to put 

this capability to use in the national alert system, so that our text-messaging subscribers 

can receive alert messages from local, state, and national officials. Our systems can be 

configured to transmit messages to targeted simulcast areas, to specific customer groups 

(such as emergency responders), or even to our entire base of text-messaging subscribers.
57

While our services are extremely important to our subscribers—including first 

responders and health care professionals in particular—a greater public benefit might 

result if other service providers integrated our paging technology into their own devices 

to take advantage of our extraordinary alert capabilities. For example, wireless voice 

providers could direct manufacturers to install paging technology in mobile phones. This 

relatively low-cost solution would enable wireless carriers to transmit alert messages to a 

far broader audience as soon as new handsets are introduced into the marketplace. In 

addition, paging networks can readily support the transmission of alert messages to wallmounted devices in consumers’ homes, which could emit a tone or light up when an 

emergency message has been received. Such devices could even be detachable and 

portable so they would deliver the benefits of mobile devices during a crisis. 

Specific Recommendations 

USA Mobility believes that the WARN Act will strengthen emergency 

communications in a number of ways, and we commend the Subcommittee for convening 

a hearing. I want to highlight three aspects of the legislation that are particularly 

important and beneficial. 

First, we strongly support the working group approach taken by the bill. As I have 

explained, USA Mobility’s paging network is capable of broadcasting alert messages to a 

mass audience or to targeted areas and user groups. But the interface between our 

network and the officials responsible for issuing alerts has yet to be developed. In our 

view, the most efficient and effective way to establish systems and protocols capable of 

delivering messages to a wide array of technological platforms is to convene a working 

group as proposed in the WARN Act. The working group not only can develop 

appropriate transmission protocols but also can help establish appropriate authentication 

and validation systems to prevent misuse of the national alert system. As the nation’s 

leading paging carrier, USA Mobility is prepared to play a significant role in the working 

group contemplated by the legislation. 

Second, the legislation is necessary to provide funding for this initiative. To its 

credit, FEMA has undertaken an important pilot program, the National Capital Region 

Digital Emergency Alert System Pilot (DEAS-NCR), in which USA Mobility 

participated along with public broadcasters and other entities. But the national rollout of 

an expanded multi-platform alert system necessarily will require additional resources. In 

addition to the funding proposed by the WARN Act, USA Mobility urges Congress to 

provide additional funding to the Department of Homeland Security to authorize grants to 

emergency responders at the state and local levels for the acquisition, implementation, 

and improvement of reliable communications systems, including paging services. 

Finally, USA Mobility believes that any legislation must provide liability protection 

for communications service providers who participate in the national alert system. The 

threat of baseless lawsuits would have a chilling effect on participation by service 

providers, and broad participation is essential to the success of the initiative. 

In conclusion, USA Mobility commends the Subcommittee and the sponsors of the 

WARN Act for their attention to this critical issue and we look forward to assisting in the 

development of a robust national alert system. 

 MR. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Pitts. 

 MR. PITTS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Billy Pitts, and I am President of 

Government Affairs for the NTI Group. I am not from Michigan but I do 

appreciate old cars. I appreciate also the opportunity to participate in this 

hearing on the WARN Act. I want to commend Representative Shimkus 
58

and his fellow co-sponsors for recognizing the urgent need to reform the 

Nation’s emergency communications capabilities. The WARN Act 

envisions the use of advanced technologies that will help ensure that the 

public receives fast, reliable information during crisis situations. 

 Earlier this year, I was privileged to serve as a member of the FCC’s 

independent panel reviewing the impact of Hurricane Katrina on 

communication networks. The Katrina panel found that for a variety of 

reasons the existing EAS system was not up to the task. The panel 

recommended that a comprehensive national warning system be 

established, focusing, in particular, on the use of advanced technologies 

that can target alerts to particular areas and at risk populations. I am 

pleased that the WARN Act shares these same goals. 

 The reason I was appointed to the Katrina panel is that my company 

is a leader in the development of an advanced Time Sensitive 

Notification, TSN, technology that enables schools or community leaders 

to deliver critical information to targeted groups of citizens within a 

narrow timeframe. This technology was dramatically demonstrated 

during last year’s hurricanes. The gentleman from Nebraska mentioned 

we are one of those boots on the ground companies. We are doing over 

12 million calls a month currently. I expect to more than double that at 

the end of the year. We do the multi-lingual target alerts the gentleman 

alluded to. 

 TSN technology combines advanced computing with the near 

ubiquity of phone service to allow officials to record a voice message 

and have it delivered to thousands of people in minutes via cell phones, 

landlines, and a variety of other devices. TSN systems represent a 

quantum leap forward from earlier auto dialer systems that lack the 

speed, capacity, flexibility, and intelligence to reliably provide 

emergency information to the public. An advanced TSN system is 

capable of delivering a 30-second message to over 400,000 recipients in 

less than an hour. In contrast, a standard auto dialer would take over a 

day. 

 The way that our system works is elegantly simple. An authorized 

user with access to either a landline or cell phone interfaces with the 

password protected system via a toll free number and records an 

outgoing voice message. The user then can program this message either 

via a secure Internet connection or over the phone to be sent immediately 

or at a specified time to either an entire universe of recipients or to 

selected subgroups. Such advanced systems offer a geographic mapping 

function that gives users the ability to send messages to all residences or 

businesses in a particular area. Using this feature a community could, for 

example, notify all residents within five blocks of an evacuation order. 
59

A school system could alert a group of parents waiting at a single bus 

stop that their children’s transportation has been delayed or re-routed. 

 One of the best things about this technology is that it does not require 

the installation of new equipment or have a steep learning curve. 

Another benefit derives from built-in redundancies that provide 

government officials with increased assurance that their emergency 

messages will reach their intended recipients even in the face of power 

outages or flood. Advanced TSN systems have interactive functionality. 

They not only deliver messages but they allow recipients to communicate 

back to the sender. For example, the sending party can inquire whether a 

recipient is in need of assistance and the recipient using the phone’s 

touch-tone capability can send an appropriate response greatly 

facilitating relief efforts. 

 The WARN Act is of crucial importance because it seeks to rectify 

the current limitations of emergency notification systems now in place. 

As the provider of one such advanced system, we heartily endorse the 

WARN Act and look forward to working with members of the 

subcommittee as this important legislation moves forward. I would like 

to tell the gentleman from Maryland that we have several Maryland 

schools as well as the D.C. public school system that we are working 

with, and we would enjoy working with you and your staff. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

 [The prepared statement of Billy Pitts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILLY PITTS, PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE NTI

GROUP, INC. 

The co-sponsors of the WARN Act are to be commended for recognizing the urgent 

need for Congress to incorporate advanced technologies into the nation’s emergency 

communications capabilities in order to ensure that the public receives fast, reliable 

information during crisis situations. 

The FCC’s Katrina Panel found that “the use of communications networks to 

disseminate reliable emergency information to the public is critical – before, during and 

after such events.” The Panel also found that, for a variety of reasons, the current EAS 

system was not up to the task and recommended that a comprehensive warning system be 

established “to increase the penetration of warnings to the public,” focusing on the use of 

advanced technologies that can target alerts to particular geographic areas and at-risk 

populations. 

Time-sensitive notification (“TSN”) systems, such as those deployed by The NTI 

Group, Inc. (“NTI”), combine advanced computing with the near ubiquity of phone 

service to allow officials to record voice messages and have them delivered to targeted 

recipients in a matter of minutes. TSN technology, which is available and in use today, 

fulfills many of the recommendations of the Katrina Panel and supports the specific goals 

that the WARN Act identifies as integral to a new National Alert System, as follows: 

TSN technology can be used to provide messages to an entire community or to very 

small subgroups (WARN Act goals: provide alerts to the “largest portion of the 

affected population feasible” and “permit narrowly targeted alerts”); 
60

TSN systems are designed with built-in redundancies to ensure functionality in the 

event of power failures and, as “hosted” services, do not require the installation of new 

equipment or require users to learn to use a new technology (WARN Act goals: “system 

redundancies,” “widely dispersed access points,” and no need for activation of “a 

particular device”). 

TSN technology allows the government to communicate with the public through a 

“credible spokesperson,” such as a mayor, fire chief, or school superintendent, thereby 

ameliorating the confusion that is often created by the distribution of overbroad or 

inconsistent information by systems that depend on the mass media (WARN Act goal: 

“shall transmit addresses by Federal, state, tribal or local officials when necessary”). 

Another major benefit of TSN technology is that it has interactive capabilities that permit 

recipients to communicate back to the sender. 

While TSN technology is widely used for emergency and non-emergency 

communications, particularly communications by and among educators, students and 

parents, its adaptability for use on a broader scale for public alerts has been firmly 

established. The FCC has been urged to foster the deployment of TSN technology by 

designating TSN services as “eligible” for E-Rate support and by promoting pilot projects 

that would allow more immediate evaluation and use of advanced notification 

technologies such as TSN systems. We urge Congress to support these efforts. 

Introduction 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Billy 

Pitts and I am President, Government Affairs for The NTI Group, Inc. (“NTI”). I 

appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing on the WARN Act and want to 

commend Representative Shimkus and his fellow co-sponsors for recognizing that there 

is a pressing need to incorporate advanced technologies into the nation’s emergency 

communications capabilities so officials at the national, state, and local levels are able to 

provide members of the public with warnings and crisis-related information in the most 

efficient and effective manner possible. 

Earlier this year, I was privileged to serve as a member of the FCC’s Independent 

Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks. One of 

that panel’s key findings was that “the use of communications networks to disseminate 

reliable emergency information to the public is critical – before, during, and after such 

events.” The Katrina panel also found that, for a variety of reasons, the existing EAS 

system was not up to the task with respect to Hurricane Katrina. As a result, the panel 

made several recommendations aimed at improving the nation’s emergency 

communications system, including the following: 

• Pursue the establishment of a comprehensive national warning system that 

complements existing systems and allows local officials to increase the 

penetration of warnings and to target alerts to particular areas. 

• Commence efforts to ensure that persons with disabilities and non-English 

speaking Americans receive meaningful emergency information. 

• Improve coordination of public information functions in order to facilitate the 

delivery to the public of consistent and reliable emergency information. 

Time Sensitive Notification Technology 

The reason I was appointed to the Katrina Panel, and the contribution I believe I can 

make to the Committee’s consideration of the WARN Act, arises from the fact that my 

company, NTI, is a leader in the development of an advanced “time sensitive 

notification” (or “TSN”) technology that enables community leaders to deliver detailed 

emergency information to targeted groups of citizens, both small and large, within a 

narrow timeframe. This TSN technology offers a proven method of augmenting existing 
61

modes of emergency communications that fulfills many of the Katrina Panel’s 

recommendations and directly supports the functions of a National Alert System outlined 

in the WARN Act. 

Generally described, TSN technology combines advanced computing with the near 

ubiquity of phone service to allow officials to record a voice message and have it 

delivered to thousands of people in minutes via cell phones and landlines.1

 TSN 

technology also is capable of delivering messages to personal communications devices, 

such as a Blackberry, PDA, or a standard e-mail account. TSN systems can be used to 

convey vital information before, during or after crises – in instances involving, for 

example, an amber alert, storm warning, chemical spill, terror attack, or pandemic. Best 

of all, TSN technology can be put to immediate use by governmental entities without the 

need for officials to install or learn how to operate any new equipment. 

To explain a bit more fully, TSN systems are advanced “one-to-many” telephonic 

systems that represent a quantum leap forward from earlier auto-dialer systems. In 

contrast to auto-dialers, which lack the speed, capacity, flexibility and “intelligence” 

necessary to serve as a reliable provider of emergency information to the public, TSN 

systems utilize a hosted “Application Service Provider” model that makes them a far 

more robust and user-friendly tool for communicating information in urgent situations. 

While a standard 48-port auto-dialer system takes over eight and a half hours to make a 

single attempt to send a 30-second message to 50,000 people, an advanced TSN system is 

capable of delivering messages (including making repeat calls where necessary) to tens of 

thousands of recipients in just a matter of minutes.2

 

 To briefly summarize, TSN systems operate as follows: An authorized user with 

access to either a landline or cell phone interfaces with the password-protected system via 

a toll-free number and records an outgoing voice message. The user can then program 

this message (either via a secure Internet connection or over the phone) to be sent 

immediately, or at a specified time, to either an entire universe of recipients or to selected 

subgroups. Some TSN systems even offer a geographic mapping function that gives 

users the ability to send messages to all telephones in a particular area. Using this 

feature, a city could, for example, notify all persons on a particular block of an 

evacuation order or a school district could alert a group of parents waiting at a single bus 

stop that their children’s transportation has been delayed or re-routed due to an accident 

or weather conditions. 

 Unlike predecessor notification systems, TSN systems typically are designed with 

multiple redundancies. For example, the TSN systems deployed by NTI not only have 

the ability to deliver messages through multiple mechanisms, they also have carrier 

redundancy, power redundancy, and database redundancy. 

 Carrier redundancy is achieved by locating TSN systems on several local exchange 

carriers’ (“LECs”) and interexchange carriers’ networks, allowing the TSN system user 

to place thousands of calls without the call traffic congestion that would occur if all of the 

calls passed through a single LEC’s central office. For instance, if a mayor chose to 

initiate calls from an auto-dialer located within his or her city, both the outgoing calls and 

the incoming calls would cause the LEC to experience congestion. By initiating calls 

from multiple sites located outside of the LEC’s service area, a TSN service provider is 

able to eliminate one layer of congestion and reduce the risk of system failure. 

Enhanced TSN systems avoid overwhelming the local network operations center 

 

1

 The United States has a telephone penetration rate of 92.4 percent for landline phones and 62 

percent for mobile phones. See Federal State Board on Universal Service, Order, 36 CR 1279, ¶ 8 

(2005); Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Tenth 

Report, FCC 05-173, ¶ 5 (rel. Sept. 20, 2005). 

2

 Typically, TSN providers will make three (3) to five (5) attempts before considering a notification 

process complete. Speed of delivery will vary based on congestion at the local network operations 

center. 
62

(“NOC”) by using software that can read congestion at the local level and sort call traffic 

automatically. As a result, TSN systems are able to offer the quickest and highest 

percentage possible for call completion. 

 In order to obtain power and database redundancy, TSN providers deploy systems at 

sites straddling the nation’s three power interconnects, ensuring constant access to power 

during emergencies; if one of the major power interconnects fails and all back-up 

resources have been expended, the TSN system provider can redirect calls to its 

operational centers located on the other two power interconnects to ensure that its users’ 

messages are sent. Furthermore, if there is a power failure or other problem associated 

with a data center in a geographic area, the TSN technology can automatically extract 

information (e.g., the phone numbers to which calls should be sent) from a redundant 

data center in another geographic area. Each data center also is supplied with its own 

back-up systems (gas generators, etc.) to allow the center to remain operational should it 

experience a power failure. Thus, users of TSN providers’ systems maintain the ability to 

send messages even in circumstances where the user’s primary site, or one of its other 

sites, may lack electrical power. 

 Multiple redundancies are only one of the features that distinguish advanced TSN 

systems from predecessor technologies. Other benefits offered by TSN technology in 

providing urgent communications include the following: 

 The architecture of intelligent TSN systems minimizes local phone line 

congestion. TSN systems have intelligent delivery capability, utilizing mathematical 

algorithms to analyze network congestion and to automatically adjust to the point-ofpresent capacity. Where call congestion is detected, TSN systems can throttle down how 

frequently calls are sent while simultaneously looking for less congested paths. Thus, for 

example, when NTI’s advanced TSN technology detects a certain level of congestion, it 

can redirect calls to other central offices, so that a local telephone network is less likely to 

be “exhausted” by urgent calls. 

 Predecessor systems with unsophisticated delivery detection, on the other hand, are 

not aware of congestion. They are simply programmed to send one call per line upon the 

previous call’s completion. If the system is large enough to get calls through quickly, 

meaning, if enough phone lines are employed to send calls at one time, then the system 

could potentially choke the local telephone network to the point of collapse. If the 

system is small enough to not cause this type of congestion, it is most likely not going to 

have enough capacity to get calls out to a large number of recipients quickly. 

TSN systems send messages at faster speeds than their technological 

predecessors. Unlike predecessor notification systems, TSN systems are not limited to 

the number of telephone ports installed by the user. Rather, TSN systems are capable of 

originating thousands of calls over several different carriers’ networks simultaneously, 

allowing users to deliver significantly more messages in substantially less time (and 

providing redundancy protection should one carrier experience its own congestion or 

failure) than older notification technologies. For example, NTI’s advanced TSN system 

is currently delivering 400,000 thirty-second voice messages in a half-hour and has 

contracted Service Level Agreements (“SLAs”) to ensure the capacity to deliver well 

over that amount. As discussed above, by employing software that can read congestion at 

the local carrier level, TSN providers are better able to ensure that more calls can get 

through the pipe at the local level quickly by minimizing network congestion (fast busy 

signals). This performance stands in stark contrast to predecessor systems’ slower 

speeds, which are causing some municipalities to consider making equipment upgrades to 

increase their system speeds.3

TSN technology provides message consistency and facilitates the use of a 

“credible spokesperson.” According to the FCC’s Katrina Panel, one of the 

 

3 See “Five Towns Look to Speed Up Reverse 911 System,” Ashbury Park Press (Oct. 20, 2005). 
63

shortcomings in the dissemination of emergency information during last year’s storms 

was the confusion engendered by the lack of a consistently accurate and reliable source of 

information. The failure of the impacted communities to fully utilize the existing EAS 

meant that the public was dependant on reports from mass media sources (particularly 

broadcast radio and television) that often misconstrued events or provided inaccurate 

information. Even where the EAS was operational or media reports were accurate, the 

information provided tended to be either over or under inclusive in terms of its relevance 

to the various areas impacted by the disaster. 

 Relying on the mass media to get timely, accurate and relevant information to our 

citizenry poses risks that we can ill-afford. In contrast, TSN systems have the advantage 

of ensuring that the information delivered to the public is both uniform and tailored to the 

audience. TSN systems can deliver consistently worded messages to as many or as few 

recipients as is appropriate given the circumstances. Thus, for example, in the event of a 

health crisis, times and instructions for the receipt of medical treatment could be 

delivered on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, minimizing the risk of institutions 

being overwhelmed by panic-stricken citizens. 

 A related advantage of TSN systems is that they permit governmental entities to 

communicate emergency information through a familiar voice of authority, be it the voice 

of a mayor, county executive, governor, school superintendent or another recognized 

“credible spokesperson.” The benefit of using a “credible spokesperson” to speak to the 

public in times of emergency is widely recognized.4 As Dr. Julie Gerberding, the 

Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in the context of 

communicating to the public about a smallpox threat, “Now, people really look toward 

the most credible spokesperson, especially when there is a lot of uncertainty on an issue, 

and that’s going to be very important and helpful to us to have people at the local level 

that are trusted and credible come out and be able to educate people about this. We’re 

really counting on that.”5

 Only an emergency notification system that allows a single 

point of presence to formulate and deliver the message can achieve the goal of a “credible 

spokesperson.” 

Advanced TSN systems offer interactive functionality, including call delivery 

reporting. Advanced TSN systems are interactive, allowing the government entities that 

use the system not only to create and send messages, but also to receive information in 

response. For example, the “sending” party can deliver a TSN message that requests the 

receiving party’s location or that inquires whether the receiving party needs assistance; 

the receiving party, by using his or her phone’s touch-tone capability, can provide an 

appropriate response, thereby facilitating urgent relief efforts. This interactive capacity 

allows those engaged in emergency management to determine whether their messages 

have been received – an important advantage over anonymous, one-way broadcast 

technologies. 

 Another significant feature of advanced TSN systems is their superior reporting 

capability. For example, NTI’s advanced TSN technology allows the originator of the 

emergency communication to receive a report of successful and unsuccessful message 

deliveries – distinguishing between “live” reception, voice-mail reception, non-reception 

and non-working numbers – all within minutes of sending the message. The sender then 

has the option to resend calls to those who did not receive the message. 

 

4 See A Guide for Developing Crisis Communications Plans, Michigan Crisis and Emergency Risk 

Communications, Michigan Office of Public Health Preparedness, 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Michigan_Crisis_Emergency_and 

Risk_Communication3_82364_7.doc (Oct. 2003); “Emergency Management Plans,” Kevin Brown, 

MD, http://www.gnyha.org/eprc/general/presentations/20030204_Emergency_Plans.pdf. 5

 Interview with Dr. Julie Gerberding, Online NewsHour, 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec02/gerberding_smallpox.html. 
64

TSN systems possess multi-lingual capability. Another issue raised by the Katrina 

Panel was the need to ensure that emergency information was available to non-English 

speaking Americans. TSN systems can be and are used to deliver messages (and receive 

responses) in a number of different languages. As a result, broad utilization of TSN 

providers would help address the concern raised by the Katrina Panel regarding the need 

to improve the provision of multilingual emergency communications in areas in which 

languages other than English are of primary fluency. 

TSN technology can manage increased scalability. Predecessor notification 

systems are not scalable because they are limited by the number of phone lines to which 

they are connected. For example, implementing a standard auto-dialer system typically 

involved the deployment of pieces of equipment supported by between 24 and 96 phone 

lines. And while it was possible for such a system to increase capacity by adding 

additional phone lines, doing so would risk overloading the local network as discussed 

above. In short, the types of automated notification systems that pre-date advanced TSN 

technology simultaneously are too large, in terms of costs, equipment and maintenance, 

and too small, in terms of their ability to send vast amounts of messages quickly. 

 In contrast, the users of TSN technology face far fewer limitations, as the systems on 

which they rely are built to scale and can send outbound calls through a number of 

different telecommunications carriers’ networks, assuming that they have entered into the 

necessary agreements to do so. This carrier redundancy allows TSN systems to far 

exceed the volume of calls of a predecessor system. 

TSN systems are reliable and user-friendly. TSN providers’ use of multiple 

power interconnects and multiple telecommunications carriers means that an outage at 

one point of the network will not terminate a user’s ability to send messages. Predecessor 

systems are susceptible to a single point of failure, which can occur at many points of the 

message’s path – such as an operational problem with the predecessor system’s machines 

or a flood, fire, or electrical outage at the site of the predecessor system’s equipment 

center. Due to cost constraints, most users of predecessor notification systems do not add 

redundant equipment or back-up power to their systems. Thus, these systems remain 

prone to the “single point of failure” problem. 

 TSN systems, on the other hand, use their power and carrier redundancies to send 

hundreds of thousands of calls each day, compiling a reliability record that far exceeds 

that of predecessor systems. TSN systems also enjoy a higher success rate in recognizing 

answering machines than most predecessor systems. Using its advanced TSN 

technology, NTI successfully placed more than 54 million time-sensitive calls in 2005, 

and is currently delivering more than ten million time-sensitive calls per month. 

TSN systems are well-suited for use in rural areas. Rural users of TSN 

technology (including local and state governments) can obtain a reliable means by which 

to communicate more quickly with the general public for less cost than predecessor 

systems. Because TSN systems utilize a “hosted” application, TSN system users, 

including those in rural areas, do not have to pay for maintenance of equipment, as they 

would with predecessor systems. In addition to offering the advantage of a lower cost 

structure, TSN technology has proven reliable in completing a large number of calls in a 

concentrated geographic area which are the conditions that would face a rural community 

during an urgent situation. Most importantly, the ubiquity of land-lines, coupled with the 

rapid adoption rate of cell phones, ensures that residents of rural areas will have access to 

up-to-date information relevant to their specific geographic location. 

 Operationally, TSN providers’ geographic and carrier redundancies facilitate leastcost routing of calls. Should a user/owner of a predecessor system wish to repeat the 

same level of redundancy at the data center and call origination center level, significant 

costs would be incurred to establish and maintain such facilities. TSN providers are able 

to defray the costs of redundancies, SLAs, insurance, customer service maintenance, and 
65

upgrades across thousands of users rather than just one making them the best choice 

given current available options. 

TSN technology is compatible with other alerting standards. The FCC has long 

recognized the importance of compatible alerting technologies to inform and safeguard 

the American public during emergencies.6

 TSN systems are compatible with other 

alerting standards, such as Common Alerting Protocol (“CAP”). If the FCC was to 

choose CAP a baseline alerting architecture, most TSN systems would be able to 

communicate seamlessly with the rest of the Commission’s EAS network. 

Examples of Emergency Communications via TSN Systems 

As noted, the Katrina Panel identified a number of shortcomings in the performance 

of emergency communications systems before, during, and after last summer’s 

catastrophic storms. However, the Panel also cited some success stories. One of the 

bright spots noted by the Panel was the performance of new technologies, such as TSN 

technology. Indeed, NTI’s Connect-ED® TSN system was used by school systems in 

the areas affected by the storms to deliver over 2.3 million hurricane-focused messages to 

members of the public. Examples of how TSN technology supplemented and enhanced 

information provided by traditional EAS means include the following: 

• Before and after both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, the East Baton 

Rouge Parish School district used the Connect-ED system to send urgent 

messages to more than 34,000 phone numbers to inform families and 

employees about school closings. In all, the district sent over 11 hurricanerelated messages to their constituents. 

• After Hurricane Katrina made landfall, the Lafayette Parish School District sent 

messages to nearly 300 transportation employees to request that they volunteer 

their assistance in a city-wide rescue operation. The parish also delivered 

several messages to over 56,000 phone numbers regarding pre- and postKatrina school closings and reached over 61,000 phone numbers with advance 

information regarding Hurricane Rita. 

I could give you numerous other examples. However, there is one particular 

example that merits a more detailed description. In advance of Hurricane Katrina, the St. 

Charles Parish school district used TSN technology to send out an evacuation message to 

over 21,000 phone numbers. Moreover, the use of TSN to provide information to the 

residents of the parish did not end with the pre-storm notices. The school district’s 

communications director, Rochelle Cancienne, continued to send TSN messages in the 

storm’s aftermath in order to assist the parish’s Emergency Operations Center in 

communicating with a community that was largely un-served by television or radio due 

to power outages and other service disruptions. Working with NTI’s client care center – 

sometimes in the middle of the night or pre-dawn hours – Ms. Cancienne was able to use 

her cell phone to send TSN messages reassuring residents that the reports that were being 

circulated by the media regarding the extreme devastation wrought by the storm were not 

reflective of the conditions in their particular parish. Specific examples of the kinds of 

information sent out using TSN technology included: 

• information regarding the extent and location of damage within the parish and 

the reconstruction and reopening of the parish’s schools; 

• job-related information targeted to school district employees (the largest 

employee base in the parish); and 

 

6 See Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency 

Broadcast System, 10 FCC Rcd 1786, ¶ 174 (1994). 
66

• information targeted specifically to the families of the additional students relocated to the parish from other school districts in the greater New Orleans 

area. 

In total, the school district successfully completed more than 114,000 calls to some 

21,000 residents over a 27 day period, a remarkable achievement given that the local 

telephone infrastructure was greatly distressed due to the hurricane. 

The use of TSN technology before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina played a key 

role in holding the St. Charles Parish community together in a time of extraordinary 

crisis. As Ms. Cancienne has noted, prior to deploying NTI’s TSN system, the school 

system's most effective means of mass communications was over the PA system at Friday 

night football games 

The use of TSN technology also provided ancillary benefits by helping the Parish’s 

Emergency Operations Center to monitor the capacity of the local telephone lines by 

constantly analyzing their call delivery reports. Message delivery success rates in the 

school district dipped as low as 8% on August 29th but climbed back up to 28% just seven 

days later. Within a month, the district was back to a standard +80% success rate. In the 

future, the district has proposed working with the phone company to overlay data to 

determine where outages have been repaired. 

 As a result of its experience in using TSN technology during a major crisis, St. 

Charles Parish School District is now collecting contact information from all staff 

members and the parents of children enrolled in its schools three (3) times per year rather 

than once per year in order to ensure that data is up-to-date. Furthermore, the district is 

accepting relocation contact information so that they can communicate with staff and 

families who have evacuated – improving the likelihood that local citizens will receive 

important information from community officials even when local telephone lines might 

be impacted within the parish itself. 

TSN Technology and the WARN Act 

The examples given above all involve the use of TSN technology by school officials 

to communicate with parents and staff. This reflects the fact that TSN services (such as 

NTI’s Connect-ED service) principally have been targeted to educators as a tool not only 

for use in emergency communications (such as school lock downs, weather closings, 

etc.), but also on a daily basis for parent-teacher outreach and attendance monitoring. 

However, in light of the significant role that TSN systems were able to play in providing 

essential information during last year’s storms, a growing number of municipalities are 

expressing interest in utilizing the technology as a key component of their communitywide emergency response programs. NTI has recently launched a new service, called the 

Connect-CTYTM service, in response to this demand. 

The best way for local communities to enhance their emergency communications 

capabilities to incorporate technological advances such as TSN technology is through 

voluntary public/private efforts. For example, in comments filed in the FCC’s ongoing 

EAS proceeding, NTI has urged that the agency include TSN services in funded pilot 

programs. NTI also has urged the FCC to recognize TSN systems as “eligible services” 

under the E-rate program. 

The WARN Act is of crucial importance because it reflects a clear recognition of the 

limitations of current emergency notification systems. The Act provides for the 

establishment of a National Alert System (“NAS”) whose functions already are 

achievable with TSN technology. For example, the Act calls for an NAS that: 

• will “supplement existing Federal, state, or local emergency warning and alert 

systems”; 
67

• will “be designed to provide alerts to the largest portion of the affected 

population feasible” and to “improve the ability of remote areas to receive 

alerts”; 

• will be “flexible enough in its application to permit narrowly targeted alerts”; 

• will “not require members of the public to activate a particular device”; and 

• will provide “secure widely dispersed multiple access points” and “system 

redundancies to ensure functionality in the event of power system failures” or 

other interruptive events. 

As described above, TSN technology meets these statutory goals today. TSN 

systems already are being used to supplement the existing EAS and for providing alerts to 

the affected population, including targeted alerts to specific at-risk groups. It is wellsuited for use in rural areas and does not require the activation of a particular device. 

Finally, multiple access points and redundancies that ensure the system’s functionality 

are inherent in the design of enhanced TSN services. 

There is no question that we, as a nation, need to be forward-looking in our thinking 

about emergency communications and we simply cannot wait another four or five years 

before upgrading our alert capabilities to take advantage of advanced technologies. In 

particular, we believe there is an immediate need for pilot programs that will demonstrate 

the feasibility of incorporating existing enhanced technologies into an improved national 

alert system. As the provider of one such advanced alerting system, we heartily endorse 

the WARN Act and look forward to working with members of the Subcommittee as the 

bill moves forward. 
68
69

 MR. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Jackson. 

MR. JACKSON. Good morning, Chairman Upton, Mr. Markey, and 

members of the subcommittee. My name is Michael Jackson. I am the 

Sheriff of Prince George’s County, Maryland. I appear before you today 

on behalf of one of the largest counties in the National Capital Region. 

Currently, I also serve as the First Vice President of the Maryland 

Sheriffs’ Association and the Secretary/Treasurer for the National 

Sheriffs’ Court Officers & Deputies Association. Before I begin, I 
70

would also like to take this time to thank Congressman Albert Wynn for 

his leadership on the critical issue of national alert communications and 

for recommending that I appear here today. 

 First, I want to applaud the original co sponsors of H.R. 5785, the 

WARN Act, for their vision and foresight in realizing the need for 

updating the Nation’s Emergency Alert System. Modernization of 

emergency communications for the public is essential for a sound 

homeland security policy. Even more important is that a new system 

incorporate new forms of communication such as cell phone and 

Blackberries. I am pleased to say the WARN Act does just that. I would 

like to commend the wireless industry for combining their efforts with 

the National Center for Missing and Endangered Children, NCMEC, and 

law enforcement agencies. The wireless Amber Alerts initiative will be a 

catalyst for the wireless industry’s more than 200 million wireless 

subscribers to aid in the return of an abducted child. The NCMEC is 

solely responsible for creating the content for an alert distributed to 

wireless carriers through Syniverse Technologies. 

 Prince George’s County, Maryland, is located in the heart of the 

Baltimore/Washington corridor. The county borders Washington, D.C., 

and is just 37 miles south of the City of Baltimore. The population 

exceeds 820,000 with a daily work population of over one million. 

Covering an area of close to 500 square miles, the county is home to 

many businesses, as well as State and Federal agencies. Some of the 

Federal agencies include NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, 

Andrew’s Air Force Base, which is home to Air Force One, several 

Smithsonian support centers, the Federal Census Bureau, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Beltsville facility, the Federal Records 

Center, a large IRS office complex, and the NOAA Center for Weather 

and Climate Prediction, a critical partner in building and maintaining the 

national alert system. Additionally, a large part of the region’s Metro 

system and Interstate 95 will pass through Prince George’s County. 

 For most communities in America, the threat of terrorism remains 

just that, a threat. Only two areas in the United States have experienced 

the heinous acts of foreign-born terrorism and understand the need to 

support public alertness as well as first responder emergency 

communications interoperability. Therefore, Prince George’s County is 

in a prime position to offer perspectives on how to address the need, 

impact, and practicality of a new public alert system. Prince George’s 

County is a prime target for a terrorist attack because of its close 

proximity to the District of Columbia. 

 What I have just explained is the grim reality facing the National 

Capital Region. A modern national alert system could have helped the 

public during 9/11. However, H.R. 5785 is only the first step in a long 
71

road ahead toward not just notifying the public, but our first responders 

as well. One of the best provisions of the bill is that the Federal, State, 

and local emergency managers can input alerts into the system and have 

them directed out to a geographically targeted section of the population. 

As public safety officers, we have been watching our Nation grapple 

with homeland security implementation issues highlighting how critical 

congressional oversight is to the process. 

 To that end, I urge that the lawmakers use this system as a platform 

to draw attention to not just a well-informed public, but a well-wired first 

responder community. It is almost ironic that we are discussing the 

system now in the face of dangerous cuts to Urban Areas Security 

Initiatives, UASI, and constant reductions in funding for the Nation’s 

first responder grant programs. Just last month, Maryland officials 

testified to the House Government Reform Subcommittee on national 

security stating how much the cuts to UASI would devastate State 

homeland security preparedness operations. My Sate sustained more 

than a 50 percent cut to UASI for the National Capital Region. Maryland 

officials testified to House Members that they thought if they had done 

nothing and not even filled out the UASI application for 2006, they 

would have received around $10 million. In reality, Maryland received 

$8 million. 

 Prince George’s County is in a unique position when it comes to 

emergency communications, as we are the only county in the National 

Capital Region that does not have an interoperable radio system. We are 

the hole in the communications net that covers the Capital Region. The 

County Executive is committed to fixing this problem and fast. But a 

$75 million plus pricetag makes this a daunting task. This is not a 

county need; this is a regional need with national implications. 

 We would recommend that the National Alert System Working 

Group have at least one public safety official and/or local government 

executive from a locality with the National Capital Region, ensure that 

the National Alert Office in the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration coordinate with the appropriate Federal 

agencies to provide expertise on the best methods to assess the 

government’s disaster preparedness, consider an advance alert and local 

government participation requirement for county executives and mayors 

so that they are notified in advance if an emergency alert is going to be 

broadcast in their jurisdictions. 

 Challenges ahead include what 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina have 

taught us that the local alerts are not enough. Perhaps with a regional 

warning system in place, the jurisdictions in surrounding areas directly 

affected could have provided a quicker and more efficient response, 

allowing more time for agencies such as FEMA and the Red Cross to 
72

properly implement their aid and service plans. I can say confidently 

that local public safety officials are ready to work with you in making a 

modern national alert system a reality. I thank you for your time. 

 [The prepared statement of Michael Jackson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHERIFF MICHAEL JACKSON, VICE PRESIDENT, MARYLAND 

SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

I. INTRODUCTION 

Good morning, Chairman Upton, Congressman Markey, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, my name is Michael A. Jackson. I am the Sheriff of Prince George’s 

County, Maryland. I appear before you today on behalf of one of the largest Counties in 

the National Capitol Region. Currently, I also serve as the 1st Vice-President of the 

Maryland Sheriff’s Association and the Secretary/Treasurer of the Court Officers Board 

Association. 

 Before I begin, I also want to take this time to thank Congressman Albert Wynn for 

his leadership on the critical issue of national alert communications and for 

recommending that I appear before you today. 

II. The WARN Act and the realities facing the National Capitol Region 

First, I want to applaud the original co-sponsors of HR 5785, the Warning, Alert, 

and Response Network Act for their vision and foresight in realizing the need for updating 

our Nation’s emergency alert system. Modernization of emergency communications for 

the public is essential for a sound homeland security policy. Even more important is that 

a new system incorporate new forms of communication such as cell phone and 

Blackberries; I’m pleased to say the WARN Act does just that. 

I would also like to commend the wireless industry for combining their efforts with 

the National Center for Missing and Endangered Children (NCMEC) and law 

enforcement agencies. The wireless AMBER Alerts Initiative will be a catalyst for the 

wireless industry's more than 200-million wireless subscribers to aid in the return of an 

abducted child. The NCMEC is solely responsible for creating the content for an alert 

distributed to wireless carriers through Syniverse Technologies. 

 Prince George’s County, Maryland is located in the heart of the 

Baltimore/Washington corridor. The county borders Washington, DC and is just 37 

miles south of the City of Baltimore. The County’s population exceeds 820,000 with a 

daily work population of well over one million. Covering an area of close to 500 square 

miles, the County is home to many businesses, as well as state and federal agencies. 

Some of the Federal agencies include NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Andrew’s 

Air Force Base, several Smithsonian support centers, the Census Bureau, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Beltsville facility, a Federal Records Center, a large Internal 

Revenue Service office complex, and the NOAA Center for Weather and Climate 

Prediction – a critical partner in building and maintaining the National Alert System. 

Additionally, a large portion of the region’s Metro system and Interstate 95 pass through 

Prince George’s County. 

For most communities in America, the threat of terrorism remains just that; a threat. 

Only two areas of the United States have experienced the heinous acts of foreign-born 

terrorism and have led all of us to understand the need to support public alertness as well 

as first responder emergency communications interoperability. Prince George’s County is 

a prime target for a terrorist attack because of its close proximity to the District of 

Columbia. Therefore, Prince George’s County is in a prime position to offer perspectives 

on how to address the need, impact, and practicality of a new public alert system. 
73

III. The WARN Act, a good first step in a long journey ahead 

What I have just explained is the grim reality facing the National Capitol Region. As 

I have stated, a modern national alert system could have helped the public during 9/11. 

However, HR 5785 is only the first step in a long road ahead toward not just notifying the 

public, but our first responders as well. One of the best provisions of the bill is that 

federal, state and local emergency managers can input alerts into the system and have 

them directed out to a geographically targeted section of the population. However, as a 

local official, I can not help but reflect on the complete bureaucratic paralysis that 

crippled an effective response to Hurricane Katrina. As public safety officers, we have 

been watching our national government grapple with control and oversight problems with 

the vast management challenges involved in homeland security. 

 To that end, I urge that lawmakers use this system as a platform to draw attention to 

not just a well informed public, but a well wired first responder community. It is almost 

ironic that we are discussing this system now in the face of dangerous cuts to Urban 

Areas Security Initiatives and constant reductions in funding for the Nation’s first 

responder grant programs. Just last month, Maryland officials testified to the House 

Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security stating how much the cuts to 

UASI would devastate State homeland security preparedness operations. My state 

sustained more than a 50% cut to UASI for the National Capitol Region. Maryland 

officials testified to House members that they thought if they had done nothing and not 

even filled-out the UASI application for 2006, they would have received around $10 

million. In reality, Maryland received $8 million. 

 Prince George’s County is in a unique position when it comes to emergency 

communications, as we are the only county in the NCR that does not have an 

interoperable radio system. We are the hole in the communications net that covers the 

Capitol Region. The County Executive is committed to fixing this problem and fast. But, 

a $75 million plus price tag makes this a daunting task. This is not a County need; this is 

a regional need with national implications. We have been working hard to secure Federal 

assistance in plugging the only hole in the net. 

IV. Recommendations 

In looking at the WARN Act, we would make the following recommendations: 

 We would recommend the “National Alert System Working Group” have at 

least one public safety official and/or local government executive from a 

locality within the National Capitol Region. 

 Ensure that the National Alert Office in the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration coordinate with the appropriate federal agencies to 

provide expertise on the best methods to assess the government’s disaster 

preparedness. 

 Consider an advance alert and local government participation requirement for 

County Executives and Mayors so they are notified in advance if an emergency 

alert is going to be broadcast in their jurisdiction so they can take steps to 

mobilize resources. 

V. Challenges Ahead 

9/11 and Hurricane Katrina have taught us that local alerts are not enough. Perhaps 

with a regional warning in place, the jurisdictions surrounding areas directly affected 

could have provided a quicker and more efficient response, allowing more time for 

agencies such as FEMA and the Red Cross to properly implement their aid and service 

plans. 

I can say confidently that local public safety officials are ready to work with you in 

making a modern national alert system a reality. On the ground, we have seen the terrible 
74

consequences of poor oversight over homeland security initiatives. We have also seen the 

great strides made in building a more informed, more aware public. 

 When a person receives an alert on their cell phone or otherwise, they appreciate the 

information. However, the next thought that will occur to them will be will be “how can I 

get to my family as quick as possible?” At that point our inquiry turns to transportation 

and two-way communication built to handle a disaster volume of interface from the 

public. Thus, this truly important first step of many and I thank you for taking it. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

 MR. UPTON. Thank you. Ms. Allen. 

MS. ALLEN. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you to the 

committee, Mr. Chairman, and all of you for inviting me here today. I 

am Sara Allen, President and Senior Radio Engineer. I am also a 

consultant for KTAO-FM in Taos, and KTAO has recently celebrated 14 

and a 1/2 years of transmitter operations using only solar energy. I was a 

member of the Federal Communication Commission’s Media Security 

and Reliability Council, and we were tasked with developing disaster 

recovery planning tools for all forms of mass media in the United States, 

and I am happy to say we accomplished that task. 

 Today I am here to represent the Prometheus Radio Project. It is an 

advocacy group for the low power radio movement, LP-FM movement, 

and to present testimony that shows how important the expansion and 

protection of low power FM radio is to the emergency service and 

communications needs of this country. Low power FM radio is a 

popular and important service that allows churches, schools, and 

community organizations to operate locally operated non-commercial 

radio stations. In 1999, the FCC created a new class of LP-FM stations, 

leading to hundreds of new stations across the country. 

 While these low power FM stations serve a critical ongoing role in 

the communities they serve, I am here to speak specifically about the 

important role that local community radio, low power FM in particular, 

plays in an emergency and in the recovery of neighborhoods and towns 

after a disaster. I hope you will agree that we must protect these stations 

and expand possibilities for communities to build them. Low power 

radio plays a unique role in the FM band. While full power stations are 

designed to serve entire metropolitan areas, LP-FM stations are, by 

definition, focused on very specific geographic targets. 

 I want to tell you a success story. It is the story of how Federal, 

State, and county government, private industry, and volunteers combined 

to create a radio station capable of covering a county-wide area. WQRZLP is located in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, and is the effort of Brice 

Phillips, a disabled amateur radio operator who foresaw disaster and 

several years ago made the effort to obtain authorization. His motive is 

to ensure that the citizens of Hancock County, Mississippi have a reliable 

and continuous Emergency Alert System. 
75

 After Katrina made landfall, I offered by sending offers of assistance 

to every Gulf Coast broadcaster association, as well as the Society of 

Broadcast Engineers. On Tuesday, September 6, I received a call from 

John Poray, National Director of the SBE, requesting assistance for 

WQRZ. I coordinated an effort to request an emergency authorization 

from the Federal Communications Commission which was granted. I 

also arranged for the necessary equipment to be ordered and shipped into 

Hancock County. Working closely with Harris Corporation, the 

necessary equipment was on its way by Friday evening and began 

arriving on site by Saturday morning. 

 On Sunday morning, September 11, Broadcast Engineer Gary 

Sessums and I departed from the Hillsborough County EOC in Tampa, 

bound for Bay St. Louis and the Hancock County EOC. We arrived that 

evening and joined Gary Minker, also a Floridian, and planned our work 

for the following day. On Monday morning the three of us joined Brice 

and we began the reconstruction of WQRZ at Brice’s surviving 120 foot 

tower. Brice’s home was totally destroyed by the storm surge. His 

transmitter shack, which had been totally submerged in salt water, and 

his tower, survived Katrina. Brice had taken one of the antenna bays, his 

transmitter, and some essential studio equipment to the Hancock County 

EOC where he continued to broadcast before, during and immediately 

after Katrina. He also provided health and welfare radio traffic using his 

amateur radio and was the only means of communications in and out of 

Hancock County EOC immediately after Katrina. 

 Brice climbed the tower several times during the next few days and 

by Thursday evening WQRZ-LP went on the air, the signal strong 

enough to cover Hancock County and the most affected areas, 

Pearlington, Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Diamondhead, Pass Christian and 

Kiln, Mississippi. We switched programming from Brice’s low power 

operation at the old EOC to the studio we had set up at the New Hancock 

County EOC, located near the Stennis International Airport. I was 

making plans to return to Tampa. Tools were put away and the studio 

was organized and ready for use. I overheard someone in the Public 

Information Office mention a press release requesting assistance to 

operate WQRZ, and I volunteered and so it began. 

 You are listening to WQRZ-LP 103.5 FM, the voice of Bay St. 

Louis, Waveland, Diamondhead and the Kiln, broadcasting live from the 

Hancock County Emergency Operations Center, your source for 

information. I reported for duty Friday morning and went about 

developing a program strategy with the Public Information Office. The 

first day was a bit loose. I played music and broadcast news and 

information updates as frequently as the PIO made them available. I 

overheard talk that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael 
76

Chertoff, would be visiting the EOC, and as I was passing by the FEMA 

office, I noticed that he was there and he offered me his hand. I shook it. 

The broadcaster in me took over, I didn’t let go and I followed it back to 

him and said, sir, I would like to put you on the radio to address the 

people of Hancock County. 

 He agreed and became the first of many VIP guests on WQRZ. This 

led to ongoing access to VIP interviews, which included a congressional 

delegation, Vice Admiral Thad Allen, Undersecretary Thomas Dorr, and 

many other locals and volunteers who shared their stories with WQRZ 

listeners. By the end of the week, I had developed programming with 

regularly scheduled in-depth updates at 8:00, noon and 5:00. The PIO 

developed a daily newsletter which I read in its entirety. Whenever 

information was updated, I was able to immediately go on the air with 

the new, accurate information. 

 And then Hurricane Rita arrived. There was a new round of flooding 

in Hancock County and the EOC was alerting people to move to higher 

ground. Hurricane Rita affected us in many ways. It put a strain on 

already compromised systems and the EOC lost grid power. A damaged 

air handler motor caused a fire alarm in the building just as a tornado 

warning was being broadcast by the EAS. Brice was on the air and not 

about to be evacuated by fire safety personnel, while he was broadcasting 

the warning which included the EOC in the tornado’s path. 

 MR. UPTON. Ms. Allen, you exceeded your 5 minutes by 2 minutes, 

and if you could just summarize. We are having votes on the floor very 

shortly. 

 MS. ALLEN. Okay. I will do that. To summarize, full power 

stations should not be allowed to encroach on LP-FM stations. This will 

ensure that LP-FM stations will be able to broadcast accurate local 

emergency and disaster information without interference and that the 

communities don’t lose this trusted source of information when they 

need it most. There are many other stories of success and support from 

low power and community radio stations licensed to churches, schools, 

municipalities, and community groups. Thank you the committee for 

giving me the opportunity to speak with you, and I will be happy to 

answer any questions regarding low power FM. 

 [The prepared statement of Sara Allen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARA ALLEN, SENIOR RADIO ENGINEER, CIARA ENTERPRISES,

INC., ON BEHALF OF PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you to the Committee, the Committee 

Chair, and to all of you for asking me here today. 

 My name is Sara T. Allen, President of Ciara Enterprises, Inc. and Chief Consultant 

for KTAO-FM in Taos, NM. KTAO recently celebrated 14 years of transmitter 

operations using ONLY Solar Power! 
77

 I am also a member of the Federal Communications Commission's Media Security 

and Reliability Council 2, Toolkit Workgroup Committee, which was tasked with 

developing Disaster Recovery Planning Tools for all forms of Mass Media in the U.S. 

 Today I am here to represent The Prometheus Radio Project, an advocacy group for 

the low power FM radio (LP-FM) movement, and to present testimony that shows how 

important the expansion and protection of low power FM radio is to the emergency 

service and communications needs of this country. 

 Low Power FM radio is an extremely popular and extremely important tool that 

allows churches, schools and community organizations to operate very small, locally 

operated non-commercial radio stations. In 1999, the FCC created a new class of LPFM 

stations, leading to hundreds of new stations across the country. 

Unfortunately, Congress passed legislation blocking the FCC from modernizing 

their interference protection rules pending further technical study on the impact of 

placing these tiny stations between existing full-power stations. Because of this 

legislation, hundreds of potential community stations have been blocked from the 

airwaves. The FCC commissioned a $2.2 million study from the Mitre Corporation, and 

submitted their findings to Congress three years ago. The Senate Commerce Committee 

has twice voted in support of legislation that would allow the FCC to grant new LPFM 

licenses in urban markets. We ask that the House of Representatives also consider this 

legislation. 

 While these Low Power FM stations serve a critical ongoing role in the communities 

they serve, I'm here to speak about specifically about the important role that local 

community radio, low power FM in particular, plays in an emergency and in the recovery 

of neighborhoods and towns after a disaster. I hope you'll agree that we must protect 

these stations and expand possibilities for communities to build them. 

 Low Power Radio plays a unique role in the FM band. While full power stations are 

designed to serve entire metropolitan areas, LPFM stations are, by definition, focused on 

very specific geographic targets. 

 The first story I want to tell is the story of the attempt to provide Low Power FM 

radio services to the displaced citizens, victims of Hurricane Katrina, who were living in 

the Houston Astrodome. People need information. Several Houston community members 

developed a plan to build and operate a community radio station located inside the 

Astrodome. The proposed station “Evacuation Radio Services,” would broadcast 

essential information. 

 The Prometheus Radio Project was contacted for assistance and recommended that 

the Houston group contact the FCC to request an STA. In very short order the FCC 

granted authorization. Despite the quick action from the FCC, the Houston community 

group ran into bureaucratic resistance from the local officials at the Astrodome. Even 

with the support from the Senate Office of Kay Bailey Hutchinson, City Council 

members and the Mayor of Houston, Harris County officials refused to grant permission 

to allow the radio station to proceed. 

 Eventually, a licensed radio station was set up outside the Astrodome and did 

provide essential information to the displaced residents. FEMA notices, health notices, 

and vital travel information were shared with the residents, and the residents were able to 

tell their own stories and connect with families and friends after the disaster. 

 The bureaucratic delays prevented the timely broadcast of important information to 

the residents. The Houston Astrodome officials’ reliance on their “loudspeaker” public 

address system led to the confusion and frustration of the residents. 

 Ladies and Gentlemen, anyone who has ever tried to understand what is being said 

over a stadium loudspeaker will agree that it is a very poor choice for communications of 

essential and detailed information. If Congress had already acted to expand low power 

FM radio to Houston, there would have been more potential choices for the residents at 
78

the Astrodome and displaced families across the Gulf to respond quickly and 

appropriately to their local needs. 

 The next story is a success story. It’s the story of how Federal, State, and County 

Government, private industry and volunteers combined to create a radio station capable 

of covering a county wide area. 

 WQRZ-LP is located in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi and is the effort of Brice Phillips, 

a disabled amateur radio operator who foresaw disaster and several years ago made the 

effort to obtain authorization. His motive is to insure that the citizens of Hancock County 

have a reliable and continuous Emergency Alert System. 

 After Katrina made landfall, I offered my help by sending offers of assistance to 

every Gulf Coast Broadcaster Association, as well as the Society of Broadcast Engineers. 

 On Tuesday, Sept. 6th I received a call from John Poray, National Director of the 

SBE requesting assistance for WQRZ-LP. I coordinated an effort to request an 

emergency authorization from the FCC which was granted. I also arranged for the 

necessary equipment to be ordered and shipped into Hancock County. Working closely 

with Harris Corp. the necessary equipment was on its way by Friday evening and began 

arriving on site Saturday morning. 

 On Sunday morning, Sept. 11th, Broadcast Engineer Gary Sessums and I departed 

from the Hillsborough County EOC in Tampa, bound for Bay St. Louis and the Hancock 

County EOC. We arrived that evening and joined Gary Minker, also a Floridian, and 

planned our work for the following day. 

 On Monday morning the three of us joined Brice and we began the reconstruction of 

WQRZ-LP at Brice’s surviving 120 foot tower. Brice’s home was destroyed by the storm 

surge. His transmitter shack, which had been totally submerged in salt water, and his 

tower, survived Katrina. Brice had taken one of the antenna bays, his transmitter and 

some essential studio equipment to the Hancock County EOC where he continued to 

broadcast before, during and immediately after Katrina. He also provided health and 

welfare radio traffic using his amateur radio and was the only means of communication in 

and out of the Hancock County EOC immediately after Katrina. 

 Brice climbed the tower several times during the next few days and by Thursday 

evening WQRZ-LP went on the air, the signal strong enough to cover Hancock County 

and the most affected areas, Pearlington, Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Diamondhead, Pass 

Christian and Kiln, Mississippi. 

 We switched programming from Brice’s low power operation at the old EOC to the 

studio we had set up at the new Hancock County EOC located near the Stennis 

International Airport. 

 I was making plans to return to Tampa. Tools were put away and the studio was 

organized and ready for use. I overheard someone in the Public Information Office 

mention a press release requesting assistance to operate WQRZ-LP. 

 I volunteered. So it began. 

 “You’re listening to WQRZ-LP 103.5 FM - The Voice of Bay St. Louis, Waveland, 

Diamondhead and the Kiln – Broadcasting live from the Hancock County Emergency 

Operations Center – Your Source for Information” 

 I reported for duty Friday morning and went about developing a program strategy 

with the Public Information Office. The first day was a bit loose. I played music and 

broadcast news and information updates as frequently as the PIO made them available. 

 I overheard talk that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, would 

be visiting the EOC and as I was passing by the FEMA office I noticed that the he was 

there and he offered me his hand which I shook, and then the broadcaster in me took 

over, I didn’t let go of his hand and followed it back to him and said “Sir, I would like to 

put you on the radio station to address the people of Hancock County.” 

 He agreed and became the first of many VIP guests on WQRZ-LP. I hadn’t realized 

at the time that I was bucking protocol and I was informed later that day that I was lucky 
79

that I hadn’t been “secured” by the Secret Service. I did, however, gain the notoriety and 

respect of the EOC leadership which led to ongoing access to VIP interviews which 

included a Congressional Delegation, Vice Admiral Thad Allen, Undersecretary Thomas 

Dorr, and many other locals and volunteers who shared their stories with the WQRZ-LP 

listeners. 

 By the end of the first week I had developed programming with regularly scheduled 

in-depth updates at 8, noon and 5. The PIO developed a daily newsletter which I read in 

its entirety. Whenever information was updated I was able to immediately go on the air 

with the new, accurate information. 

 Hurricane Rita arrived. There was a new round of flooding in Hancock County and 

the EOC was alerting people to move to higher ground. 

 Hurricane Rita affected us in many ways. It put a strain on already compromised 

systems and the EOC lost grid power. A damaged air handler motor caused a fire alarm 

in the building just as a Tornado Warning was being broadcast by the EAS. Brice was on 

the air and not about to be evacuated by fire safety personnel while he was broadcasting 

the warning which included the EOC in the tornados’ path. That was an exciting moment. 

 WQRZ-LP was off the air. Flood waters had prevented easy access to the transmitter 

site and logistics was unable to refuel the generator. Brice decided to take matters into his 

own hands and floated 10 gallons of diesel fuel wading several hundred yards through the 

flood waters to make sure the citizens of Hancock County had access to important EOC 

and EAS information. Thanks to his efforts WQRZ-LP was back on the air, but as a 

consequence, Brice came down with bronchitis and pneumonia and I stayed at the radio 

station for another week while he recuperated. I insisted that he take the time to recover 

so that he wouldn’t relapse and I could return home. Brice took my advice and rested 

until he had recovered and he was able to once again take over the controls at WQRZ-LP. 

Brice continues to bring the residents of Hancock County essential news and information 

directly from the EOC and will continue to do so as long as necessary. As you will read 

about in the packet of information I've brought, WQRZ-LP served and continues to serve 

as a lifeline for the residents of Bay St. Louis and Hancock County, Mississippi. With a 

new amendment to expand low power FM on H. R. 5785, this committee can bring 

stations like WQRZ-LP to hundreds, if not thousands, of communities that need them. 

 I lived and worked at the Hancock County EOC for 28 days. Bay St. Louis, 

Waveland, Diamondhead and the Kill will no longer be just a place on the map, but for 

me, a place that I called home. 

 LP-FM radio stations have proven to be a valuable resource before, during and after 

disaster. To continue this service and improve upon it, organizers from the Low Power 

FM community make the following recommendations to Congress: 

 To ensure that the greatest numbers of LP-FM stations are available and able to 

provide service and information in times of emergency and disaster, this Committee can 

amend the language of Senate Bill 312, sponsored by Senators John McCain, Maria 

Cantwell, and Patrick Leahy, onto House Bill 5785. This same language was recently 

amended to Senator Stevens' telecommunications bill, SB 2686, with a vote of 14 for, and 

7 against. Senate Bill 312 would expand low power FM radio to frequencies that were 

restricted for five years, while the FCC studied whether or not there would be 

interference to existing stations from new LPFM stations. Now that the Commission has 

proven with a 2.2 million dollar study that there is room for these essential stations on the 

dial, we hope you will move quickly to amend this bill to expand low power FM radio. 

 Furthermore, this Committee can move to protect those low power FM stations on 

the air. As you can read in Congresswoman Slaughter's recent bill, HB 3731, many 

current LP-FM stations are under threat of being knocked off the air by full power 

broadcasters, leaving hundreds of communities without the local service they need in 

safety or in disaster. 
80

 Full power stations should not be allowed to encroach upon LP-FM stations. This 

will ensure that LP-FM stations will be able to broadcast accurate local emergency and 

disaster information without interference and that the communities don’t lose this trusted 

source of information when they need it most. 

 There are many other stories of success and support from low power and community 

radio stations, licensed to churches, schools, municipalities, and community groups, 

included in the packet I've brought. To reiterate, it is community radio which is so vitally 

placed to provide information, relief and communications before, during and after an 

emergency. Thousands of volunteers and potential community broadcasters stand by 

ready to help. 

 Finally, as an experienced engineer and someone who has worked with stations who 

use the Emergency Alert System (EAS), I see a great opportunity with HB 5785 to 

diversify and specify the alerts broadcast to new communities and for new situations. 

With EAS, a radio station has the option of selecting which alerts it uses, for example -- 

nuclear attack, weather, child abduction, etcetera. Some alerts are mandatory for the 

station to broadcast, but others may be selected by the broadcaster when the alert system 

is first set up. 

 Low power FM stations broadcast in particular communities may broadcast in many 

languages, from Hmong to Spanish to Zapotec. It would be ironic and tragic if some 

listeners could not understand an emergency alert with life saving alert because their 

English was not yet strong enough to comprehend detailed emergency instructions. It 

would greatly enhance the efficacy of EAS if it had multiple language capabilities. As I 

see it this would not require hardware changes or new equipment, just an update of 

software that seems well worth it, in the service of our communities. 

 Thank you to the Committee for giving community radio this opportunity to speak. 

 MR. UPTON. Great. Thank you all for your testimony. I know that 

we all have a number of questions, and I just would like to relate a story 

this morning that happened in Michigan. I talked to my dad on the 

phone this morning, and he said a big storm just came through. It was 

unbelievable. I don’t think it was the same storm that went through St. 

Louis, but it was a big major thunderstorm that came off of Lake 

Michigan. And I can remember well about 2 years ago we had one of 

those microburst storms. It was literally hurricane winds. It was almost 

unheard of that came across the lake, and it decimated a small area, 

probably no more than a quarter of a mile, and it went in about a quarter 

of a mile. It actually moved a 100-foot cement smoke stack an inch off 

the base in terms of the storm that went through. 

 It goes back to Mr. Pitts’ story about being able to alert folks within 

a bus stop area or maybe a five-block area in terms of a major storm or 

an emergency that came through, and I guess, Mr. Pitts, it is difficult to 

call you that because it is Billy, as you described your system that in 

essence can be put into place now, you would be able to inform folks 

within that area based on their telephone number. Is that correct? 

 MR. PITTS. Yes, sir. 

 MR. UPTON. And in this specific example what if it was someone--I 

mean are you able to beam a signal to that specific cell phone or are you 

able to say that individual lives in Maryland and they are in Washington, 
81

D.C., and therefore that is the five-block area that is going to be picked 

or what if your cell phone number or your residence number or business 

originates someplace else and you happen to be there, how does that 

work? How are you able to funnel it to the people that are in the path of 

that storm or the path of that emergency? Are you able to do that? 

 MR. PITTS. There is a difference right now in the technology 

between landline phones and cell phones. 

 MR. UPTON. Let us say it is a cell phone or a PDA. I guess yours is 

just a phone, right, it is not even though I’ve got both on my Blackberry? 

 MR. PITTS. The current technology that we are using with respect to 

municipalities uses primarily landline phones because we have got the 

latitude, longitude of each, so you could literally go to a map, draw a ring 

or a polygon around whatever area you wanted to call. Immediately all 

the residence and business phones would be available to call 

immediately. We don’t quite have the technology now to do that with all 

cell phones. As was discussed earlier, that is the problem with the E911. 

I know there are new software developments coming forward. We are 

working with people on that. So the cell phone technology is currently a 

problem. 

 The municipalities input the cell phone numbers in with the 

residents. We will take up to three different numbers for each residence, 

two for each business, so they input them. But if the person has the cell 

phone and is outside the area they would be getting it outside the area. 

 MR. UPTON. And, Mr. Lawson, the system that you demonstrated a 

little while ago, is that able to in essence get a small localized area as 

well to be alerted versus an entire--how does that work? 

 MR. LAWSON. Right now our job is to give the signal to the other 

media and communications carriers and they redistribute. If they can 

localize it, fine. We can certainly send information that is designed for a 

geographically targeted region. In the future, because our system is 

addressable in place, DTV receivers could be individually accessed. 

Everybody would receive the signal through their antennas, but only 

certain receivers could decode the data. So eventually, yes, we could 

geographically target. 

 MR. UPTON. Now I would like each of you to answer this question, 

and then we will go to Mr. Wynn for some questions. We have a series 

of votes so we will have to stop and adjourn for a short time and then 

come back. Should the National Alert System remain a voluntary system 

or should we mandate it? I will just go down the panel. Ms. Allen. 

 MS. ALLEN. It is my belief that it should be mandatory 

 MR. UPTON. It should be mandatory. Mr. Jackson. 

 MR. JACKSON. I concur, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Pitts. 
82

 MR. PITTS. That is difficult for me, Mr. Chairman, as a former 

broadcaster because the broadcasters don’t like that but I think it is about 

time that we start mandating some kind of emergency alerts. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Kelly. 

 MR. KELLY. I agree, mandatory. It is critical. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Guttman-McCabe. 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I would say it should in essence be 

voluntary for certain systems. Our system is different. It is not a point to 

multi-point. It is a point to point. And I just personally believe that our 

industry will respond in its creative manner if it is not mandated. We 

have that in Amber Alerts and we have that in Wireless Priority Service. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Lawson. 

 MR. LAWSON. Our participation in the current EAS is mandatory. 

The WARN bill would make our participation of the National Alert 

System mandatory. We support that. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Knapp, I don’t know if you can respond. 

 MR. KNAPP. I am afraid not. We have an open proceeding and it 

wouldn’t be appropriate. 

 MR. UPTON. I am just giving you some protection. 

 MR. KNAPP. That is fine. Much appreciated. 

 MR. UPTON. Mr. Wynn. By the way, for other members that are 

here, after Mr. Wynn has concluded, we will take a brief adjournment 

and come back, so Mr. Wynn. 

 MR. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one or more of you 

mentioned the concept of multi-lingual capacity. Of those who I would 

call the messengers on the panel, and I mean that with the highest regard, 

do you have multi-lingual capacity and do you believe that that is 

appropriate for a system such as this? Any of the messengers? Mr. Pitts. 

 MR. PITTS. Yes, sir. We do have multi-lingual capacity, and we do 

think it is appropriate. 

 MR. WYNN. Anyone else want to volunteer a sentiment? Mr. 

Lawson. 

 MR. LAWSON. Public television definitely has it. In fact, even on 

our multicast television, digital television, we are watching a Spanish 

language television channel. 

 MR. WYNN. Anyone else? 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congressman, I would just add that we 

envision the WARN Act coming up with those types of requirements and 

through the process, and if that is one of the requirements that comes out 

of the process we will address that, the wireless industry will address 

that. 
83

 MR. WYNN. Thank you. Mr. Knapp, what would be a reasonable 

length of time to expect the industry to define necessary protocols and 

performance criteria for specific technologies? 

 MR. KNAPP. It is always hard to predict but it really shouldn’t take 

that long because I think you have already seen demonstrated some of 

the technologies that are available today and so it would just be a matter 

of testing them and nailing down the standards. 

 MR. WYNN. Are we talking about maybe a year? 

 MR. KNAPP. I don’t know. 

 MR. WYNN. It is kind of adrift in government. 

 MR. KNAPP. I can’t put a number on it. 

 MR. WYNN. That is fine. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, there is always a 

difference between our Government wish list and what technology can 

deliver. Would one year be enough time, do you think, to resolve those 

type of issues? 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. In terms of sort of setting down the 

requirements and then working towards standards, I think we could sit 

down the requirements within a year, absolutely. And then we would 

work toward setting standards so that we could integrate it into our 

networks. 

 MR. WYNN. I have one final question. A couple of speakers, I 

believe, you, Mr. Guttman-McCabe, and also Mr. Kelly mentioned 

liability protection. That is always a highly contentious issue here in the 

Congress particularly when we try to do good. We are trying to do good 

here. Would you comment a little more about the liability protection 

issue? 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly. Congress saw fit in 1999 to 

extend liability protection to the E911 service, and I think that model 

would be appropriate here. Our devices at times when you push send on 

a signal we work hard to make sure that the overwhelming majority of 

the calls go through. But I think it was Mr. Kelly that said that we want 

to make sure that the industries that participate are not subject to 

frivolous lawsuits. And unfortunately our industry at times tends to be a 

target of such lawsuits so I think it would be in the interest of the 

country, it certainly would be in the interest of our industry, to have that 

type of liability protection as we do in the 911 space. 

 MR. WYNN. Mr. Kelly, would you care to comment? 

 MR. KELLY. Yeah, I agree 100 percent with what he said. When 

you are a wireless service provider a lot of things can happen. You are 

doing your best to keep the transmitters up, to keep the network up, but if 

a storm comes through and knocks over a tower you have got limited 

capability in a short period of time to rectify that, so being sued for 
84

something that would be an act of God or something out of your control 

is just not going to be conducive to long-term success in this program. 

 MR. WYNN. Is the current liability protection, does it cover even 

gross negligence as an absolute waiver of liability? 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Currently in your version of the Act, there 

is not liability protection. 

 MR. WYNN. No, I know. I mean you made reference to, what, the 

911 system? 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Right. 

 MR. WYNN. Is that an absolute waiver or is that-- 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I don’t know if it covers gross negligence, 

Congressman. We will get back to your office on that. 

 MR. WYNN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I relinquish 

the balance of my time. 

 MR. UPTON. Okay, well, we will stop. We have three votes on the 

House floor so we will come back probably around 12:00, 12:05. We 

will reconvene. 

 [Recess.] 

 MR. SHIMKUS. [Presiding] I would like to call the hearing back into 

session, and thank you for your patience. We do have a lot of time now 

and based upon members returning, and we are just going to go into their 

chance to ask their questions. And if I am it, then we can leave. Let me 

ask a couple questions. Everybody understands the intent of the 

legislation, and it is based upon as some folks quoted “our ability to 

make sure that people get informed.” I want to ask, because we have a 

lot of different technologies out here, a lot of different ways to deliver, 

we wanted to make the legislation technologically neutral. We want to 

incentivize. 

 And I come from an area of the country where I represent 30 

counties in southern Illinois. I have got a county that has only 5,000 

residents. I have a county that doesn’t have dial up landline 911. So 

when people say mandate, mandate, mandate, guess what, you can’t 

mandate to areas that don’t even have 911 dial up. They haven’t passed 

the tax. They don’t even have the system. So that is why voluntary 

incentive market-based competitive products, I think do a better job of 

encouraging full deployment, and that is the intent of what you are doing. 

 I used to carry three, now I only have two, and the point is the 

importance of this getting information out to our citizens, our loved ones, 

is debate on redundancy, multiple systems. Now so I don’t miss votes, I 

carry two. I used to carry three. I used to have the Blackberry before it 

was composed with the cell phone. I used to have a cell phone. I used to 

have a Blackberry. I used to have a pager. Now I felt like Batman with 
85

a utility belt. Now through the ability of technology some people would 

just carry this in hopes that everything works perfectly. 

 So can anyone talk--and maybe starting with Mr. Knapp, just talk 

about legislation as a response to concerns of the FCC and moving in a 

direction that may be focus forced, can you talk about your focus on 

redundancy? 

 MR. KNAPP. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. One of the objectives 

of our proceeding was to foster a more redundant robust system. 

Today’s system just relies--basically it is a branch and tree. If any key 

link goes out there are sections of the country that may not get service. 

So among the things that we were looking at are using some other 

technologies like satellite delivery, the Internet, and so forth to have a 

more robust way to distribute these emergency alert signals. 

 MR. UPTON. Does anyone else want to mention or talk about the 

importance of redundancy? 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly, Congressman. First of all, I 

want to thank you for having multiple wireless devices. You are exactly 

the type of consumer that we love. As I said in my opening statement we 

very much believe that resiliency and redundancy makes sense. As 

Julius had mentioned, the Commission is looking at an alert system 

across multiple platforms, and we wholly endorse that. I think the best 

way that we view an alert system is sort of in an--I think someone had 

mentioned earlier dropping a stone into a pond or almost a viral sense in 

that people will be alerted through different mechanisms whether that be 

word of mouth or picking up the phone after you have received your 

alert. 

 So from our perspective it clearly makes sense to have multiple, 

different types of devices and then as you had said, Congressman, from 

the wireless industry’s perspective, and as I said in response to the 

Chairman’s question, we believe that in our industry competition will 

result in the best and most capable product. I know Mr. Kelly mentioned 

the idea of dropping in a paging chip set and Mr. Pitts has a product that 

works to alert people, and Mr. Lawson has a transmission vehicle. We 

are willing to look at and investigate all of those things, but the solution 

is not simple. 

 Mr. Kelly’s idea of a chip set would require people to go back and 

look at standards and do standards development because you can’t just 

put a second chip into a phone this big. It would also require, likely 

require, shielding of the existing antenna so that you don’t cause 

interference within the phone from the phone to itself. It may cause a 

need for an additional antenna, additional weight, things like that. It is 

something we would clearly consider. It is also along the lines of 

inserting the NOAA chip, which is what we looked at. Again, in both 
86

those cases there is an existing infrastructure in place. The question is 

what makes most sense from government’s perspective and what makes 

most sense from the industry’s perspective going forward. We are 

willing to investigate all of those. 

 MR. KELLY. I would like to comment on redundancy too, if I could, 

please. Having two devices, having a cell phone, having a pager we 

think is a good idea from the standpoint of how the networks operate. If 

you have a large storm that goes through and knocks out power in a 

given area or it knocks off transmitters in a given area, your mobile 

phone might go down because it is communicating with the local 

transmitter whereas the way paging works is it simulcasts, so we are 

sending in a large geographic area the same signal to multiple towers, 

and so a tower can go down very close to you but one 10 or 15 miles 

away can still be broadcasting it very high powered, generally 3,500 

watts ERP. You will get the signal. We found that during Hurricane 

Katrina. We found that during 9/11. 

 My written testimony has examples of where that worked. With 

respect to integrating pagers into mobile phones, I agree there are some 

technological issues that would have to be overcome. We have met with 

manufacturers who are willing to take that task on so the capability is 

there. It is just a question of from a business perspective does it make 

sense, so redundancy is important. And I guess the last thing I would say 

on that is when you have situations and they are going good, it is not so 

important, but you can’t always put all your eggs in one basket and have 

the best probability of success. 

 If you go to New York and you lose power in a brownout, a lot of 

communication systems are going to be down. Pagers happen to put 

transmitters on hospitals. Over 30 percent of most paging companies’ 

base that tap into their emergency power supply so if you are in 

Manhattan and power goes off in the city a pager is likely to work where 

a mobile phone may not. So there are just, I think, advantages to having 

both mobile phones, pagers, and many other technologies because you 

never know where the point of failure is going to be because you never 

know the type of problem that you are going to have. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Billy. 

 MR. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Mr. Kelly says and he 

pointed it out in his remarks that on the Katrina panel we discussed 

pagers as a good redundant system. In 1975 I put in the group alert 

system, the auto dialer for calling all the Members as well as what is 

affectionately known now as the beepers. So you have to look at what is 

an effective warning, and it was discussed in detail by the Partnership for 

Public Warning. It was a non-profit group that was in place right after 

9/11 through 2005. And the finding is that people tend to mill around 
87

unless they hear the voice of a credible spokesperson sort of telling them 

you’ve got to move, you’ve got to act. 

 And we decided that the beepers would be, from the cloak room, an 

actual live voice. And as you now know the Sergeant of Arms has put 

annunciators in all the offices with a live voice saying get out of the 

building because in many instances even when I was up here we would 

be looking at the Blackberry saying did you get this message saying get 

out of the building? Yeah, I got it too. But when you hear that voice 

saying get out of the building, there is a plane coming in, you act. So 

you want to look at what is effective but you do want to have the 

redundancy that you are talking about. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. And thanks because I think you are reiterating. One 

thing that we want to be careful of because there is a lot of different 

technology is instead of picking one, we want everybody at the table--I 

think that is the benefit of a working group, so in essence we are moving 

together. There may be some little friendly competition also, which is 

good, because you want to be able to advertise the services that you 

render for the consumers to purchase. And my time has really expired, 

but I am in the chair and I want to make sure I ask Mr. Jackson and Ms. 

Allen a question. 

 Ms. Allen, first of all, in your opening statement the basic question I 

have do you or do you not support the bill? 

 MS. ALLEN. Oh, yes, I definitely support the bill. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. That is really all I wanted to make sure I heard. Mr. 

Jackson, in your testimony you talked about the importance of notifying-

-I hope it was your testimony, notifying individuals like elected leaders 

or people in government positions first before an overall public broadcast 

of the alert. Can you tell me why you think that would be helpful? 

 MR. JACKSON. Well, I think it is important, for example, in Prince 

George’s County each of the agencies have an emergency plan and that 

way we would be able to notify appropriate staff to set things in place 

before the general public to minimize the chaos. We also have in the 

county under the leadership of the County Executive what is termed the 

family plan so each employee of the county government is encouraged to 

establish a family plan. 

 So I can tell you that during any mission, particularly a mission 

during a disaster, the last thing we want to see in a Hurricane Katrina and 

possibly a Rita is that the officials who are to help those in trouble are 

worried about their families and so therefore they will concentrate more 

on that than they will on the mission. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. Well, you are talking about a short--I mean you are 

not talking about an extended period of time? 

 MR. JACKSON. Oh, no, sir, not at all. 
88

 MR. SHIMKUS. And I think the importance of that, again that would 

be the working group. That would be what people would have to 

discuss. A lot of our experience is September 11 based and a lot of text 

messaging that we now use is because that was working so we all 

obviously lived in an environment where everybody was trying to get 

access to information. People in senior positions had information; 

regular rank and file, Members like me, we had no information, and I am 

not complaining about that, but I think the importance is that the folks 

who have to clear, make sure that the bridges are open that they mobilize 

early so that when the public is notified that there is not a run in a 

direction in which you don’t want them to run. 

 And if you are talking about biological, chemical, WMD, and wind 

direction, you don’t want them to run people in the direction of where the 

wind is blowing. That is the critical aspect of more information if 

possible, but there are technological limitations. 

 MR. JACKSON. Well, if I may, for example, I get messages from the 

Metro Washington COG when there is a catastrophic accident or even a 

weather warning, we get those almost immediately as soon as they get 

them and so that allows us to prepare accordingly. 

 MR. SHIMKUS. I am going to turn the chair over to Mr. Walden who 

is also a rural member, and thank you for your time and I look forward to 

working with you. 

 MR. WALDEN. [Presiding] Good afternoon. My apologies for not 

being able to be here earlier. We had a Deputy Whip meeting I had to be 

at. In addition to being a rural member, I am one of two who are actually 

licensed Ham radio operators, and the only Member who is a licensed 

broadcast provider. We own and operate five radio stations so I have 

been involved with the Emergency Alert System over the years and its 

predecessor, assist in the Emergency Broadcast System and then as a 

Ham radio operator been involved in that respect. And I understand 

there hasn’t been much discussion yet in terms of these emergency 

crises, the role of the amateur radio community and how they might be 

able to weigh in and be of assistance. Can any of you speak to that? Mr. 

Knapp from the FCC’s perspective? 

 MR. KNAPP. Of course the amateurs have always played a critical 

role in providing support in emergencies. I don’t know that this has been 

a particular focus in our proceeding because we have been focused on 

delivering emergency alert messages. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right. There is some--anybody else on the amateur 

side? Mr. Pitts? 

 MR. PITTS. Yes, sir. During our discussion on the Katrina panel, the 

Ham operators played an important role down there in the coastal States. 

They were probably the first up and the first organized to get the 
89

message out. And to speak to a discussion that the sheriff was having 

earlier, he was describing what is called the classical cascading of alerts 

where you go through your command and control structure and then you 

get to the public. And as part of the national response plan there is sort 

of almost a paradox here because when we talk about the EAS, we talk 

about sort of from the Federal or the State going down, but once there is 

an incident declared under the emergency support function number two 

once there is an incident then the telecommunications is controlled from 

the local up, so we have to make sure that the local authorities like 

Sheriff Jackson and others are able to make that communication, those 

necessary communications, as well as the outside communication 

coming down. And I think we found with the Ham radio operators 

performed a lot of that initial function at the local level. 

 MR. WALDEN. Well, my own experience from some of the field 

days I have heard about and been aware of and I actually participated in 

one, they also have the equipment availability and the portable 

generators and the ability to go set up quickly a network, if you will, 

whether it is to send packet or to do voice transmission. And I would 

think as you look at these issues when everything else goes sideways and 

law enforcement is trying to keep people from rioting or whatever they 

are doing, it is certainly a resource that is out there that can be very 

useful. 

 It seemed to me in our post-9/11 briefings what worked and didn’t. I 

think I recall the former FCC Chairman saying they actually asked 

broadcasters in New York to stop using the EAS because it in effect was 

scaring people. Is that correct? 

 MR. KNAPP. I am sorry, Congressman. I don’t know the answer to 

that but I can take it for the record. 

 MR. WALDEN. That would be interesting to know. It seemed to me-

-I am just thinking back and a lot was happening in that period, and I 

guess while the alert process is important it has always seemed to me that 

as a broadcaster who has been through some local emergency situations, 

floods and fires and things, that most just went on the air full time and 

that was far more productive than in many cases a fairly garbled EAS 

message that is being chained from one station to the next to the next 

because in these rural areas it can be a long way in between in a 

broadcast sense from one station to another. 

 Mr. Knapp, I understand the FCC is looking at asking the wireless 

industry to utilize cell broadcasts and technology for the dissemination of 

emergency alerts. Some of the filings that have been made in that 

preceeding indicate the maximum transmittal number of characters for 

GSM is 93, and 256 for CDMA. Can emergency alert really be useful 

with such a limited ability to communicate? 
90

 MR. KNAPP. We have a fairly voluminous record, and much of it 

deals with this issue. And the carriers have said that there are things that 

can be done initially through things like short messaging service, the 

SMS service, but as the technology progresses and we move to third 

generation networks it is going to have more horsepower, and the 

messages could be much longer. 

 MR. WALDEN. What kind of a timeline do you think that is? 

 MR. KNAPP. I think what we are--some of these technologies are 

being rolled out today and there is still debate in the record as to how 

quickly that will happen. 

 MR. WALDEN. Mr. Guttman-McCabe. 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congressman, on Tuesday I received an 

Amber Alert. Sheriff Jackson spoke in his testimony about the wireless 

Amber Alerts. On Tuesday I received an Amber Alert for a pair of 

children that they thought was abducted in Virginia. And a little bit 

north of 100 characters basically on one screen, I was able to see the 

make, the model, the color, the license plate, the look of the two children, 

the fact that one was an infant and one was a toddler, that they were both 

African American, their weight, their size, what the abductor looked like, 

it was a woman, and all of that was in less than 200 characters. So there 

is a way to do this, and what we believe is that through the WARN Act if 

initially Congress or the FCC or FEMA goes down the path of requiring 

something in the short term the industry could respond to that. 

 And we very much appreciate the process that is in place through the 

WARN Act where you would sit down and establish what should be in 

the message and how does that fit within existing capabilities. But Julius 

is correct. There will be an evolution and our goal is to make sure that 

the evolution matches up with what is required from government, but 

first a key component is figuring out exactly what government wants, 

what the requirements are. 

 MR. WALDEN. If you can do all that with 256 characters maybe you 

can help us in writing some of these laws. Mr. Pitts, congestion is a 

major issue when it comes to delivering emergency alerts. How does 

your product abate the concerns about congestion in an emergency? 

 MR. PITTS. Yes, we use multiple LEC, Local Exchange Carriers, 

and we essentially are coming from the outside in so you dial a toll free 

number, you make your message, and then by using multiple LECs as 

well as we have these mathematical algorithms that essentially can tell 

what is congested in terms of the central offices or NOCs, and then 

moves to another exchange, so we are able to essentially understand, that 

is why we call it an intelligent system, understand what is happening and 

the message moves to a freer LEC. 
91

 On the question of SMS, we deliver SMS as well. Most of our 

clients don’t do it because in the seven bit world you are limited to 160 

characters and they feel that is a burden. I do believe many messages 

could be made and deliver under 160 characters, but I think in their mind 

they think that they are limited and they just don’t want to start down that 

path. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, if the wireless 

industry can transmit Amber Alerts what makes it so much more difficult 

to transmit emergency alerts? 

 MR. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congressman, I would say it is not much 

more difficult. From our perspective, what we would like to see is a 

replication of what is happening in the Amber context. In the Amber 

context, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children decided 

or agreed to be sort of the aggregator for the over 100 entities that can 

originate an Amber message. They, in turn, worked with CTIA and the 

carriers and an integrator was chosen, Syniverse in the case of the 

wireless carriers, who would take the message from the National Center 

and insert it into all of the carriers’ networks through contracts and 

memorandums of understanding. 

 And the process was pretty quick and straightforward. The lynchpin, 

the key element, was the National Center agreeing to be the conduit. As 

I am sure you are aware, right now we are working with the Federal 

Communications Commission, with FEMA, with the Administration and 

the White House executive order, and with Congress, and you throw in 

NOAA and the National Weather Service, and from our perspective, if 

we can get a sense of who is going to be the key conduit helping us put 

together the package, the industry will deliver the message. 

 If it is in the short term, it has to be SMS. That is the only capability 

that exists. If it is over a longer term, we would hope, and through the 

WARN Act there is a process in place, we would hope that the 

requirements would match up with the evolution of the networks so that 

you are not requiring literally billions of dollars of upgrades and the 

changeout of hundreds of millions of handsets. But we are willing to 

embrace that. We are fully behind the WARN Act. We have been 

engaged with the Commission and have had a great relationship with 

Julius and the Chairman’s staff, and we want to continue that. We have 

worked on the pilot project with Mr. Lawson and his group and FEMA. 

It can be done. Make no bones about it. It can be done. We just need a 

process in place to tell us what you want delivered, what the 

requirements are, and then we will work from there. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. I am sure Mr. Jackson may well agree with 

this but it just seems to me when we have had emergencies whether here 

on the East Coast, 9/11, or in our own communities with a flood or a fire, 
92

the first thing that happens you lose power or you lose communication, 

phone service, cell service, whatever, and the more we can build into the 

system the redundancy for the absolutely unthinkable because right now 

we do so much based on everything working. We can pull it off. 

 And even in that environment sometimes when you do a test it 

doesn’t work. Something is lost, some communication link, and it just 

seems to me for all of us that continuing to move ahead in a way that 

integrates new technologies gives us new options, new alternatives, so 

that when something does go wrong and we are all diverted in many 

different ways we have got backup systems, and that is where-- 

 MS. ALLEN. I would like to comment on redundancy. 

 MR. WALDEN. Yeah. 

 MS. ALLEN. Redundancy brought to its lowest common 

denominator is what happened in Hancock County, Mississippi. We had 

an amateur radio operator who owned a low power FM radio station and 

during the height of the storm he was taking batteries out of flooded 

vehicles to keep the radio on the air using at the time very low power, but 

continuously operating. And within 10 days after the event, that low 

power radio station became a higher power radio station and was 

basically the only communications that the people down there had. And 

all of the infrastructure was destroyed so they no longer had access to 

cell phones and Blackberries and televisions and the like. 

 FEMA handed out several thousand battery-powered radios. So that 

brought it back to the lowest common denominator of redundancy. 

Broadcasters are first responders. 

 MR. WALDEN. Some of us think of that as the highest level of 

communication. 

 MS. ALLEN. I agree. 

 MR. WALDEN. Whether it is a few watts or a lot of watts but in the 

end that is the way to mass communicate and all these other new 

technologies are great and useful, but as the Chairman said I had a 

Blackberry on 9/11 and it worked because of the ability to e-mail, but it 

didn’t work in terms of being able to conduct much phone traffic, and 

that worked well. I don’t have any other questions for you all. Thanks 

for the good work that you all are doing to try and help America have a 

better warning system and alert system so our citizens can be safer and 

our communities safer in these events. We thank you for your testimony 

and for your hard work, and we look forward to continuing this process 

forward. With that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

○