U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–444PDF 2004

PROTECTING HOMELAND SECURITY; A STATUS

REPORT ON INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

THE INTERNET

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 23, 2004

Serial No. 108–98

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

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

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

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

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

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

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

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, 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

Vice Chairman

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JOE BARTON, Texas,

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

Ranking Member

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JIM DAVIS, Florida

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Boyd, David G., Deputy Director, Office of Systems Engineering and

Development, Department of Homeland Security ...................................... 6

Grube, Gary, Corporate Vice President and CTO, Commercial, Government and Industrial Solutions, Motorola Inc ............................................. 13

LeGrande, Robert, Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Office of the Chief

Technology Officer, District of Coumbia ..................................................... 21

Muleta, John B., Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications, Federal

Communications Commission ...................................................................... 32

(III)

(1)

PROTECTING HOMELAND SECURITY; A STATUS REPORT ON INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS

SYSTEMS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:39 p.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman)

presiding.

Members present: Representatives Upton, Gillmor, Cox,

Shimkus, Fossella, Bass, Terry, Barton (ex officio), Wynn, McCarthy, Stupak, and Engel.

Staff present: Will Nordwind, majority counsel and policy coordinator; Howard Waltzman, majority counsel; William Carty, legislative clerk; and Peter Filon, minority counsel.

Mr. UPTON. Must be 1:30. Good afternoon. You might say that

I know that there are a number of subcommittees this afternoon,

and I also know that late yesterday we were notified that Secretary

Powell is going to be up briefing members on the situation in Iraq

in a few minutes, so I would think that a number of members will

be torn when it comes to where they are going to appear. We are

in session as well with votes expected in the not too distant future

as well.

But good afternoon. Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Protecting

Homeland Security: A Status Report on Interoperability Between

the Public Safety Communications System,’’ and it represents this

subcommittee’s continuing effort to examine matters related to

homeland security within its jurisdiction.

Sadly, we live in dangerous times. Since 9/11, our Nation has

tried to learn from the bitter events of the past and better prepare

to respond during the next crisis, whether it is, God forbid, another

terrorist attack, natural disaster, a criminal act or something like

the blackouts of last summer.

In all such events, it is our Nation’s first responders who answer

the call of duty. As citizens flee and evacuate to protect themselves,

our Nation’s first responders are running the opposite direction,

usually into harm’s way. Nowhere was this selfless service more

self-evident than in Ground Zero on 9/11. To paraphrase Admiral

Nimitz on that day, ‘‘Our Nation’s first responders showed us that

2

uncommon valor was a common virtue.’’ But I would submit that

what we citizens consider uncommon valor, our Nation’s first responders humbly consider to be just doing their jobs.

But in order to better equip them to do their jobs, our Nation’s

first responders need to be able to communicate on their radios

with one another, not only in terms of fire, police, EMS within a

jurisdiction but also amongst local, State and Federal jurisdiction.

However, achieving interoperability throughout our Nation has

proved to a monumental and multifaceted challenge.

Today, we will hear about some of those challenges are being

confronted and the status of progress being made throughout our

Nation. I am particularly pleased with the leadership demonstrated

by the FCC, Department of Homeland Security, as they work with

stakeholders at all levels of the government and communities

around the country to achieve interoperability. As we will hear

today from some of our witnesses, one critically important challenge is to ensure that public safety has the spectrum that it needs

in bands which are well suited for interoperability.

Back in 1997, Congress directed 24 megahertz for spectrum in

the upper 700 megahertz to be allocated to public safety. However,

the spectrum is encumbered by broadcasters and will be until the

transition to digital TV is complete. That is why this subcommittee

has spent an enormous amount of time working to ensure the expeditious completion of the digital TV transition.

Several weeks ago, this subcommittee examined a proposal by

the FCC’s Media Bureau which would, in effect, provide a clear

path to the completion of the transition. There are many sound policy reasons to pursue that plan, not the least of which is getting

public safety the spectrum that it needs to achieve interoperability.

As such, this subcommittee will vigorously continue its work to advance the digital TV transition in the months to come.

So today I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how

our Nation is progressing toward interoperability and without a

doubt interoperability is a critical necessity for our Nation’s first

responders as they help protect our homeland security.

I would yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr.

Cox, for an opening statement.

Mr. COX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. These are very

important hearings. As you point out, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and everything that we have been facing since

demonstrates on a continuing basis the vital need for interoperable

communications among our first responders.

On the Homeland Security Committee, which I chair—is this

mike a problem? This opening statement is just electric.

Is that the sound of one or two hands clapping? All right. On the

Homeland Security Committee, which I chair, we have been working to get this problem of interoperable communications solved, but

the truth is the jurisdiction to do that in the most effective way lies

with this committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and

that makes the testimony that our witnesses are going to present

today of special importance.

From the first day in March 2003 that it was in operation, the

Department of Homeland Security took the lead in managing

Project SAFECOM, a Federal program established by President

3

Bush in 2001 to help local, State and Federal agencies improve

emergency response through interoperable wireless communications.

The good news is that DHS will contribute $21 million to this

joint effort in fiscal 2005. That is a near doubling of the current

funding level. And based on the President’s proposed budget, other

agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy and HHS,

as well as the Department of Justice, will contribute an additional

$10 million to this joint effort.

Since the creation of SAFECOM, and particularly in the last

year, under DHS leadership, we have seen real progress in this

area, as Dr. Boyd will describe in detail. The department has developed guidance for public safety interoperability equipment grants,

and in April 2004, it established the first ever set of interoperability requirements. These will help our Nation’s first responder

community in determining their interoperability needs.

The Secretary also is establishing a separate office within the

S&T directorate to manage and oversee issues relating to interoperability and compatibility, including Project SAFECOM. Most

important, the department recently announced a short-term incident level interoperable communications strategy to tackle interoperability problems in 10 of America’s highest risk cities.

At relatively low cost, first responders will be able to interact by

voice with each other regardless of frequency or mode. They will

use a patching or a bridging network set up to manage the specific

incident. This will ensure that we have an extra layer of interoperability protection now while we continue to work toward resolving

the technical and cost issues relating to the more long-term solutions.

Since 9/11, this Congress and this administration have made billions of dollars available to State and local governments to purchase interoperable communications through our terrorism preparedness grant programs at DHS and at the Department of Justice. The technical issues and the lack of standards have prevented

quick acquisition of such technology by the first responder community.

I am pleased that the Department of Homeland Security is moving aggressively to address both the short-term needs of our highrisk areas and, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, the

long-term challenges of technology development, standard setting

and spectrum limitations.

And that takes us to the central issue of spectrum. I would like

to commend Chairman Barton for his outstanding recent comments

affirming the need to reclaim the analog TV spectrum by the end

of 2006. These multibillion dollars slices of the airwaves are now

being used to send duplicate TV signals over the air, two identical

signals from each station, soaking up the most valuable of our airwaves, even as the population of TV viewers who actually receive

their programming over the air continues to decline.

Mr. Grube from Motorola will perform the valuable public service

today of describing for us exactly how small this audience is. Perhaps we can go further and inquire how many of the folks in this

small audience simply cannot afford either cable or satellite service

4

or a $100 digital analog converter and how many of these folks just

don’t care about television.

Maybe if we gave them the choice, they would choose super high

speed wireless Internet access or less expensive cell phone service

or a broadband public safety network or the next generation of telemedicine. Maybe they would choose any or all of these things over

the right to watch endless reruns of ‘‘Saved by the Bell’’ without

upgrading the receiver.

When we talk about the huge swaths of our public airwaves that

have been given away for nothing to the broadcasting industry, we

usually think of the billions lost to the taxpayers who are forced

to underwrite this subsidy or the lost consumer opportunities when

new wireless applications are starving for bandwidth. But as we

will hear today, lack of available spectrum can also impose human

costs that are beyond measure.

I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. I want

to thank Chairman Upton and everyone on the staff and in the audience who is working on this problem for your tireless efforts to

bring interoperable communications technology to our first responders.

Again, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Shimkus?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just focus on

welcoming a good Illinois company, Motorola, to the panel and say

that when members—for members to be successful, sometimes we

have to specialize just like anything else. And I have been fortunate to be involved with the E911 systems, 911 as part of an area

that I have tried to focus on.

We have legislation that passed this committee and went to the

floor, and now we await Senate action on the House version of the

bill, which is H.R. 2898, trying to move and get all the stakeholders

engaged in having a true enhanced 911 system that is also positioned—a location identification through cellular systems and by

GPS chips.

The importance in homeland security and other issues is what

we also find out in hearings, is the ability for the public agencies

to, in essence, to recall from the signals or call to the signals to

warn people in areas in which there may be a biological attack and

the wind drift areas and the like.

So I will use this to continue to promote movement on that bill

and encourage individuals to work with our Senate colleagues to

make sure that Enhanced 911 is going to get enacted, and we get

legislation passed on the Senate side and we get reconciliation and

we get a bill that the President can sign, it is very important in

this whole debate.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back my

time.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to examine the ability of public-safety

agencies to seamlessly communicate with each other. In an environment of terrorist

threats, criminal activity, natural disasters, and everyday-life emergencies, it is imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:44 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95444.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
5

perative that we address such issues and continue lay the groundwork to ensure

that first responders have the tools they need to keep us safe, healthy, and secure.

Interoperability is certainly achievable, and I applaud the parties represented

today who have made great strides in overcoming different coordination, technology,

budget, and frequency challenges faced by local, state, and federal agencies across

the country.

I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses, and in particular the

progress being made from such initiatives as Safecom, but also other examples of

current difficulties in achieving interoperability as well as a prospective timeline as

to when our local, state, and federal agencies will be able to respond in a more coordinated and consistent manner during an urgent situation, wherever and whatever it may be.

Again, I thank the Chairman for bringing attention to this important issue and

yield back the remainder of my time.

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

AND COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. Protecting our homeland

security is a top priority of this committee, and I applaud you for holding a hearing

to examine the progress being made in ensuring that our nation’s emergency communications systems are interoperable.

It is critical that first responders be able to communicate before, during, and after

terrorist attacks, criminal acts, and natural disasters. The notion that police and

fire departments from the same city cannot use their handheld radios to communicate with each other is mindboggling. And it is no less surprising that local officials cannot use their radio systems to communicate with state or federal officials.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that first responders use disparate frequencies for their communications systems. That is why it is so important for television broadcasters to return spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz band currently used

to provide analog television service. In 1997, Congress identified 24 MHz of spectrum in this band for public safety use. However, until the broadcasters vacate the

band, the spectrum is virtually worthless to public safety. As a result, Congress

needs to enact a hard date for the digital television transition so that the broadcasters vacate the band.

The 24 MHz allocated in the 700 MHz band is ideal for interoperability. First responders across the nation could use this spectrum to share common channels on

which multiple local, state, and federal agencies could coordinate emergency response.

Achieving interoperability between emergency communications systems will save

lives. I appreciate the efforts being undertaken by the Department of Homeland Security and the FCC to make interoperability a reality. I encourage these agencies

to continue to work within the Executive Branch as well as with state and local officials and industry to make every community’s communications systems ready to

prevent or mitigate a possible terrorist attack.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you and our colleagues to ensure that this committee is doing everything

possible to protect our homeland security.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Well, today we are fortunate to have the

witnesses that we have. And we will start with Dr. David Boyd,

Deputy Director of the Office of Systems Engineering and Development at the Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Gary Grube,

corporate VP and CTO, Commercial, Government and Industrial

Solutions for Motorola; Mr. Robert LeGrande, deputy chief technology officer of the Office of the Chief Technology Officer of the

District Of Columbia; and Mr. John Muleta, Bureau Chief of the

Wireless Telecommunications, obviously from the FCC.

And, gentlemen, we appreciate your testimony. It will be made

as part of the record in its entirety and we would like you to spend

5 minutes now, starting with Dr. Boyd, at which point when you

are finished we will have questions from members of the panel.

Dr. Boyd, welcome.

6

STATEMENTS OF DAVID G. BOYD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; GARY GRUBE, CORPORATE

VICE PRESIDENT AND CTO, COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENT

AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS, MOTOROLA INC.; ROBERT

LEGRANDE, DEPUTY CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, OFFICE

OF THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, DISTRICT OF

COUMBIA; AND JOHN B. MULETA, BUREAU CHIEF, WIRELESS

TELECOMMUNICATIONS, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. BOYD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon,

members. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.

Earlier this year, Secretary Ridge observed that, ‘‘The ability of

our first responders to communicate with each other as well as

share equipment in times of crisis is a critical issue facing our Nation. Solving this challenge is a long-standing and complex problem. There are, however, some immediate steps the department

can take this year to address the communications and equipment

needs of first responders and make substantial progress to achieving the penultimate communications solution.’’ To address the

needs identified by emergency response providers, the Secretary

has directed the establishment of intradepartmental program offices to address several key homeland security priorities. One of

these is a program office to significantly improve the coordination

and validation of the department’s interoperability programs, thus

allowing firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel

to better communicate and share equipment with each other during

a major disaster.

The directorate of Science and Technology within DHS has been

tasked to lead the planning and implementation of this office in coordination with other DHS programs. We recognize that for this office to succeed, emergency response providers and homeland security practitioners who own, operate and maintain more than 90

percent of the Nation’s wireless public safety infrastructure must

be integrated into the program from its beginning, so the solutions

we create are solutions that will actually meet their needs. Cooperation and coordination with existing programs is key to reducing the necessary duplication of effort and allowing the leveraging

of investment many public safety agencies have already made.

Properly designed, non-proprietary open architecture standards

will maximize competition across industry, encourage technology

innovation, reduce costs and help to ensure compatibility among

public safety and homeland security agencies. Compliance with the

National Incidence Management System, the National Response

Plan and relevant homeland security Presidential directives will

provide a consistent nationwide approach for agencies at all levels

of government to work together to prepare for, prevent, respond to

and recover from major incidents.

And, finally, outreach efforts will emphasize the need for interoperability and provide access to tools for its implementation. Initial priority portfolio areas that the office will address include communications to the most mature of the portfolios, equipment training and others as required.

7

We will model this office after the successful SAFECOM Program, which as a public safety practitioner-driven program works

with existing Federal initiatives and key public safety stakeholders

to address the development of better technologies and processes for

the cross-jurisdictional and cross-disciplinary coordination of existing systems and future networks. We will do the same across all

the portfolios for the more than 50,000 local and State public safety

agencies and organizations and over 100 Federal agencies engaged

in public safety disciplines, such as law enforcement, fire fighting,

public health and disaster recovery.

The SAFECOM Program, which will continue as a key national

initiative within the new Interoperability Office, has already made

significant progress at achieving both its short-term goals and in

building the foundations for a long term, comprehensive program.

In fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM developed common grant guidance

which was incorporated into the grant programs of the COPS Office, FEMA and ODP and which constituted the first coordinated

effort to coordinate and align funding for communications programs

in the Nation.

We published a comprehensive statement requirements for wireless public safety communications and interoperability in coordination with the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council,

the major public safety associations, NIST, and the Department of

Justice. The requirements identified in this document will drive the

development and creation of interface standards needed to satisfy

the needs of State and local responders. It offers industry the information they need to align their product development efforts with

actual users’ needs, and it will guide research, development, test

and evaluation programs.

It constitutes the first national definition of what interoperability

must accomplish, and within a month of its publication more than

5,000 copies were downloaded by public safety agencies, practitioners and manufacturers, and many of those manufacturers have

already approached us to show us how they are mapping their capabilities to those requirements.

We will employ a system engineering or life cycle approach to

identifying, defining and developing action plans in each portfolio

area. Common components of this life cycle approach include the

validation and means assessments, the development with the user

community of a comprehensive statement of requirements for each

portfolio, completion of baselines to provide starting points for each

portfolio, a robust research and development program, a robust

standards program to identify and adopt existing effective standards and to support the development of essential standards when

none exist, testing and evaluation of technologies, development of

appropriate grants and funding guidance and development of policy

and legal reference materials or recommendations relevant to each

portfolio.

To ensure that the efforts of this office are well coordinated an

Interagency Interoperability Policy Board will be established to

help reduce duplication in programs and activities. By the direction

of Secretary Ridge, this new office has already undertaken a major

initiative to achieve near-term emergency incident level interoperability in high-threat urban areas before the end of this year.

8

Working with a wide range of Federal agencies, including the

DHS Office for Domestic Preparedness, the Justice Department

and the National Guard, we have begun working with all 10 urban

areas to identify what is already in place, what is available and

what is still needed to provide interoperability to support a major

incident.

As a Nation, we must continue to pursue a comprehensive strategy that takes into account technical and cultural issues associated

with improving communications and interoperability. It must address research, development, testing and evaluation; procurement

planning; spectrum management, including solving the current 800

megahertz interference problems and identifying and freeing up additional spectrum; standards training and technical assistance. And

it must recognize the challenges associated with incorporating legacy equipment and practices in the face of a rapidly changing technology environment.

The many obstacles facing public safety interoperability makes

for a complex interlocking set of problems with no one-size-fits-all

solution. The new office, in company with a broad array of partners

from all levels of government, is working toward a world where

lives and property are not lost because public safety agencies are

unable to communicate or lack compatible equipment and training

resources.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of David G. Boyd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID G. BOYD, DIRECTOR, SAFECOM PROGRAM OFFICE,

DIRECTORATE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for

the invitation to speak to you today. I appreciate your interest in the Department’s

interoperability efforts and am grateful for this opportunity to address the important issue of public safety interoperability and compatibility before you.

PUBLIC SAFETY BACKGROUND

As Secretary Ridge stated on February 24, 2004,

The ability for our nation’s first responders to communicate with each other

as well as share equipment in times of crisis is a critical issue facing our nation.

Solving this challenge is a long-standing and complex problem. There are, however, some immediate steps the department can take this year to address

the . . . communications and equipment needs of first responders and make substantial progress to achieving the penultimate communications solution.

Communications interoperability is the ability of public safety agencies to talk

across disciplines and jurisdictions via radio communications systems, exchanging

voice and/or data with one another on demand, in real time, as authorized. The nation is heavily invested in an existing infrastructure that is largely incompatible.

Currently, efforts within the Federal government to address the interoperability

problem are being coordinated to incorporate the needs of local, state, and Federal

practitioners. However, there remain many challenges, both technical and cultural,

facing the improvement of public safety communications and interoperability.

Whether fighting a fire or responding to a terrorist attack, efficient and effective

emergency response requires coordination, communication, and the sharing of vital

information and equipment among numerous public safety and security agencies. As

the National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key

Assets makes clear, ‘‘systems supporting emergency response personnel, however,

have been specifically developed and implemented with respect to the unique needs

of each agency. Such specification complicates interoperability, thereby hindering

the ability of various first responder organizations to communicate and coordinate

9

1 ‘‘National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets,’’

The White House, February 2003, page 43. 2 As defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 2(6), ‘‘The term ‘emergency response providers’ includes Federal, State, and local emergency public safety, law enforcement,

emergency response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities), and related

personnel, agencies, and authorities.’’ 6 U.S.C. 101(6)

resources during crisis situations.’’ 1 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or

the Department) believes this issue is so important that it has identified interoperability of communications and equipment as the number two priority for the second

year strategic plan. We seek to ensure the interoperability of critical emergency response systems or products by making it possible for them to work with other systems or products without special effort on the part of the user.

The Department also has developed intradepartmental program offices to address

the needs identified by emergency response providers 2 and to respond to the problems identified in the National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets. One of these is a program office to significantly improve

the coordination and validation of the Department’s interoperability programs, thus

allowing firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel to better communicate and share equipment with each other during a major disaster.

Since its beginning, the Department has been involved with the issue of wireless

interoperability through project SAFECOM. As a public safety practitioner driven

program, SAFECOM, housed within the Department, has been the Federal government’s central point to coordinate Federal wireless investments and activities and

partner with State, local, and Tribal governments to improve the interoperability of

our nation’s wireless communications.

Secretary Ridge has now specifically tasked the Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) within DHS, in coordination with other DHS programs, to lead the

planning and implementation of an office of interoperability that will address the

larger issue of interoperability, including wireless communications. By coordinating

and leveraging the vast range of interoperability programs and related efforts

spread across the Federal government, this office, currently titled the ‘‘Office of

Interoperability and Compatibility’’ (OIC), will reduce unnecessary duplication in

programs and spending and ensure consistency across federal activities related to

research and development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E), standards, technical

assistance, training, and grant funding related to interoperability. This new program office will encompass the SAFECOM office, which will continue as a key national initiative, into the effort to address the larger issue of interoperability.

Portfolio Areas

Within the OIC, we will create a series of portfolios to address critical interoperability and compatibility issues related to the emergency response provider and

homeland security communities. Initial priority portfolio areas that the OIC will address, in coordination with other Departmental offices, including the DHS Office for

Domestic Preparedness (ODP), include:

• Communications (through the SAFECOM Program Office);

• Equipment;

• Training; and

• Others as required.

To establish these portfolios, the OIC currently is identifying the necessary stakeholders and will utilize these stakeholders to assess and finalize the portfolio areas.

Through this process, the OIC will identify the current initiatives as well as the

most appropriate short-term deliverables.

Office Implementation

The OIC is being modeled after the SAFECOM Program, which represents a successful model for how to address highly sophisticated technical and policy issues associated with public safety communications and interoperability. Leveraging the

work that the SAFECOM Program has already undertaken, the OIC will look to

replicate relevant elements of the SAFECOM process and to build on SAFECOM’s

achievements in bolstering public safety communications.

The new OIC will employ a systems engineering or lifecycle approach to identifying, defining, and developing action plans in each portfolio area. This lifecycle approach is both iterative and collaborative. It emphasizes the need to create a common set of standards, policies, and procedures that encourage backwards compatibility of new solutions which will drive the migration of systems towards advanced,

interoperable equipment and processes in the future. Common components of this

lifecycle approach include:

10

• Validation of needs assessments (consistent with Homeland Security Presidential

Directive-8, which lays out the National Preparedness Goal, as appropriate);

• Development, with the user community, of a comprehensive statement of requirements for each portfolio;

• Completion of baselines to provide starting points for each portfolio;

• A robust research and development program for new capabilities;

• A robust standards program to identify and adopt existing, effective standards

and to support the development of essential new standards when none exist;

• Testing and evaluation of existing technologies;

• Development of common standards for training and technical assistance;

• Development of appropriate grants/funding guidance; and

• Development of policy and legal reference materials or recommendations relevant

to each portfolio.

Within the OIC, we are following the successful SAFECOM model by creating action plans for each of these areas, and for others identified as the portfolios are developed. Each of these action plans will be developed through a collaborative process

that brings together the relevant stakeholders to provide clear direction on a path

forward. The process to develop action plans will involve:

• Assessment of the government agencies involved in each portfolio;

• Identification of the relevant stakeholders at the local, state, and federal levels;

• A stakeholder working session to define the issues, assess user needs, and create

a detailed vision of the ‘‘end state’’ for each portfolio; and

• A governance structure that ensures ongoing participation on the part of key

stakeholders at the local, State, and Federal levels.

Through this end-user input, the new OIC will produce a strategy and action plan

to address the interoperability and compatibility needs in each of these portfolios.

The OIC structure should be an organizational reflection of the lifecycle process

it is designed to manage and support. The main purpose of the OIC will be to provide common standards of practice, protocol, planning, and evaluation across the

broadest spectrum of interoperability activities and to facilitate the prioritization

and coordination of these efforts within the framework of a common, nationwide vision.

The OIC will include a program management office responsible for coordinating

the various portfolio managers and their respective management offices. In addition,

a cross-departmental coordinating council or interagency interoperability policy

board, chaired by the Undersecretary for S&T, will be established to ensure that its

efforts are coordinated intra- and inter-departmentally. This board will help reduce

duplication in programs and activities.

With respect to specific task, the new OIC has already, at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, undertaken a major initiative—RapidComm 9/30—to

achieve near term, emergency, incident-level interoperability in ten high threat

urban areas by September 30, 2004. Working with a wide range of Federal agencies,

including the ODP, the Justice Department, and the National Guard, we have

begun working with all ten urban areas to identify what it is in place, what is available, and what is still needed to provide interoperability to support a major incident.

Players: Owners, Partners, and Stakeholders

Those with a vested interest in the OIC are the people, agencies, and organizations that will directly benefit from enhanced interoperability of equipment and

processes. Creating interoperability requires coordination and partnerships among

office managers, partners, and stakeholders. Secretary Ridge has directed that S&T

will be the manager—or owner—of this office, and it will be essential for the office

to establish partnerships with all relevant offices and agencies in order to effectively

coordinate like-topic activities. These partners will be instrumental in ensuring that

our programs address all possible issues, ranging from grants for equipment procurement to regulatory policy creation. These partners and additional relevant

stakeholders include representatives from the following communities:

• Emergency response providers represented by their national associations;

• Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies

a. Operational programs and offices

b. Research & development offices

c. Test & evaluation programs

d. Technical assistance providers

e. Grant programs;

• Standards Development Organizations; and

• Industry

11

Principles for Achieving Interoperability

In order for the OIC to effectively coordinate and validate the Department’s interoperability programs, it will need to employ a common set of standards, policies, and

procedures. This will require that the program employ a user driven approach and

recognize the substantial investments that public safety and homeland security

agencies have already made in existing equipment and procedures. Additionally,

this office must recognize the challenges associated with incorporating legacy equipment and practices in the face of constantly changing technology. Driving principles

behind the management of this office include:

1. Recognizing that it must be a user driven program—Emergency response providers and homeland security practitioners—who own, operate and maintain

more than 90% of the nation’s wireless public safety infrastructure—will be integrated into the program from its beginning, thereby allowing the program to

create solutions that meet their needs. The public safety community will be involved primarily through associations. There are two reasons for this approach:

(1) the associations represent the leadership of their respective constituencies;

and (2) as the National Task Force on Interoperability (NTFI) has demonstrated, the associations are an excellent way to reach out to these communities.

2. Extensive leveraging of what exists—Cooperation and coordination with existing

programs reduces unnecessary duplication of effort and increases efficient use

of Federal resources dedicated to common causes. In addition, the investments

that many public safety agencies have already made must be maximized.

3. A standards-based approach—Standards maximize competition across industry,

encourage technology innovation, create an overall cost savings, and increase

compatibility among public safety and homeland security agencies.

4. Compliance with key policy documents and initiatives—Compliance with the National Incident Management System, the National Response Plan, and relevant

Homeland Security Presidential Directives will provide a consistent nationwide

approach for agencies at all levels of government to work effectively and efficiently together to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from major incidents.

5. An effective outreach program—Outreach efforts will emphasize the need for

interoperability, and tools for its implementation, to practitioners and policy

makers at all levels of government, and the public safety community.

Portfolio Example: Communications Interoperability

As a public safety practitioner driven program, and as part of OIC, SAFECOM

is working with existing Federal communications initiatives and key public safety

stakeholders to address the need to develop better technologies and processes for the

cross-jurisdictional and cross-disciplinary coordination of existing systems and future networks. SAFECOM has three objectives: (1) developing standards in partnership with Federal, State, local, and tribal public safety organizations to define the

requirements for first responder interoperability at all levels; (2) building from those

standards, developing a national architecture in coordination with the work under

the National Response Plan to assist in the progression towards wireless interoperability; and (3) developing and implementing a process to coordinate the Federal

government’s wireless interoperability investments and programs. The customer

base includes over 50,000 local and State public safety agencies and organizations.

Federal customers include over 100 agencies engaged in public safety disciplines

such as law enforcement, firefighting, public health, and disaster recovery. Because

it is a government-wide E-Gov initiative, SAFECOM is not a part of the S&T’s FY

2005 budget request. Rather, SAFECOM is currently funded by multiple partner

agencies that transfer funds to DHS.

SAFECOM Achievements To Date

Over the last year, SAFECOM has made significant progress in both achieving

its short-term goals and building the foundation for a longer term, comprehensive

program. It has established itself as the umbrella program within the Federal government coordinating with local, tribal, State, and Federal public safety agencies to

improve public safety communication and interoperability.

• Coordinated Funding Assistance—In FY 2003, SAFECOM developed grant guidance in keeping with the needs of public safety for use by Federal programs

funding public safety communications equipment to State and local agencies.

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and ODP incorporated this guidance into their public

safety communications grants. This guidance marked the first coordinated approach to funding requirements. In further support of the coordinated grant

12

process, SAFECOM organized and funded the peer review process for the joint

grant solicitation from COPS and FEMA. SAFECOM also supported the Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Summit on Interoperability that was the first step towards identifying all the

Federal and national programs involved in public safety communications so that

a broader coordination effort can continue. • Statement of Requirements Development—SAFECOM recently developed the

Statement of Requirements (SoR) for Wireless Public Safety Communications

and Interoperability in coordination with the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, NIST, and the Department of Justice’s AGILE Program. The SoR contains interoperability scenarios describing how SAFECOM

envisions technology enhancing public safety. From these scenarios, operational

requirements are defined and functional requirements of the technologies are

extrapolated. The requirements identified in the SoR will drive the development

and creation of interface standards that will satisfy public safety practitioner

needs. The SoR will also offer industry a resource for understanding the users’

needs in the development of new technologies and serve as a guide for

SAFECOM to develop its research development, test, and evaluation program

and constitutes the first national definition of what interoperability must accomplish.

SAFECOM is on track to achieve these critical milestones in 2004:

June: SAFECOM Strategic Plan Update

• SAFECOM will conduct a strategic planning session at the Executive and Advisory (EC/AC) Committee Meetings in June. The EC and AC are comprised of

senior level stakeholders from the local, State, and Federal public safety communications communities. At this time, strategic initiatives developed at the

December Joint Planning Meeting will be reviewed, and new objectives will be

developed for the short and long term goals of the program. Afterwards,

SAFECOM will produce and distribute a modified strategic plan based off the

stakeholder comments presented at these meetings.

July: Detailed Interoperability Project Plan for Virginia

• SAFECOM will develop a detailed project plan using the result of the strategic

planning session and the project team’s technical expertise. This project plan

will include tasks that need to be accomplished by the Commonwealth along

with realistic timeframes for completion. Like the Virginia Strategic Planning

Session, this plan will serve as a model for other States as they work towards

achieving communications interoperability for public safety first responders.

August: Interoperability Grant Peer Review

• SAFECOM will facilitate interoperability grant peer review sessions enabling public safety communications subject matter experts to evaluate and comment upon

grant applications for FY 2004 COPS and FEMA communications equipment

grants. These reviewers will ensure that grants will be distributed only for

projects that meet SAFECOM developed interoperability requirements.

September: RapidCom9/30 Completed

• SAFECOM is undertaking an initiative to ensure a minimum level of public safety interoperability is in place in ten key urban areas by September 30, 2004.

The RapidCom9/30 project will provide incident commanders in charge of managing/directing various responding agencies the ability to adequately communicate with each other and the respective command center within one hour of

an incident. Due to this effort’s limited scalability, it is not meant to serve as

comprehensive public safety communications solutions, but as an interim solution that provides minimum interoperability capability during emergency responses.

September: Narrowbanding Report Released

• SAFECOM will release a report detailing the program’s recommendations on spectrum policy in regard to narrowbanding in the 700 MHz band. As recent events

in the 800 MHz band have shown, coordinated spectrum policy is important for

public safety communications, and SAFECOM’s input to any plan in the 700

MHz band will allow for more efficient spectrum use when allocated frequencies

become available in the next decade.

September: National Guard Study Released

• SAFECOM will release a report outlining how National Guard Land Mobile Radio

(LMR) resources can be incorporated into the plan to achieve nationwide interoperability. It will also identify how local public safety organizations can leverage National Guard assets. The National Guard already has a great deal of investment in LMR facilities, and this report will help local and State public safety organizations utilize resources that may already be present in their communities.

13

October: Communication Device Report Released

• SAFECOM will release a report detailing the findings of its testing and evaluation program. The first report will focus on the performance of public safety

communications equipment with the P25 Phase I standard. This report is the

first step in developing a comprehensive national architecture plan for communications interoperability.

November: Portal for Interoperability Information goes live

• The Web Portal of Interoperability Information will be the ‘‘One-Stop-Shop’’ for information pertaining to public safety communications interoperability. As a portal, it will be an interactive community space, allowing registered users to research potential solutions as well as share their thoughts on existing technologies. Version 1.0 of this portal, which will be released in November, is the

first attempt to provide first responders with a central repository of critical information pertaining to communications interoperability.

December: National Interoperability Baseline Methodology Released

• SAFECOM will release a methodology detailing how a baseline of the level of

interoperability nationwide can be established. The baseline is required in order

to understand the current level of interoperability at the local and State levels

and will be used to measure the success of the SAFECOM Program in achieving

national communications interoperability for first responders in the coming

years.

Conclusion

Our nation is heavily invested in an existing infrastructure that is largely incompatible. As I stated earlier, current efforts within the Federal government to address

the interoperability problem are being coordinated to incorporate the needs of local,

State, and Federal practitioners. We must continue to pursue the current comprehensive strategy that takes into account technical and cultural issues associated

with improving communications and interoperability, and recognizes the challenges

associated with incorporating legacy equipment and practices given the constantly

changing nature of technology.

The many obstacles facing public safety interoperability and compatibility make

for complex problems with no one-size-fits-all solution. Flexible and dynamic resolutions are necessary to combat the unique challenges presented by distinct localities

and States. The new OIC, with its partners, will work towards a world where lives

and property are never lost unnecessarily because public safety agencies are unable

to communicate or lack compatible equipment and training resources.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Grube?

STATEMENT OF GARY GRUBE

Mr. GRUBE. Good afternoon, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member

Markey and members of the subcommittee. My name is Gary

Grube, and I am the chief technology officer of Motorola’s Public

Safety Communications Enterprise, and I have worked with the

first responder community for nearly 25 years.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing,

for your committed leadership on communications matters and for

focusing on the needs of the Nation’s first responders. It is an

honor to be here with you today to discuss mission critical, interoperability communications capabilities.

Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell, thank you for

the excellent work earlier this month in marking up the DHS authorization bill. It now addresses the need for the deployment of

communications equipment based on national voluntary consensus

standards. As you know, a standard called Project 25 is the open

standard that has been endorsed by every major law enforcement

organization in the country.

This hearing follows quite nicely the one you held on June 2nd

on the FCC’s digital television transition plan. Motorola is highly

encouraged by this initiative. The committee leadership sent a real

14

message that change is afoot. Chairman Barton’s leadership and

proposal changed the terms of the debate. We would like to express

our deep appreciation for the positive new direction he is setting

for the transition.

I also want to thank the other Congressmen Fossella, Stupak,

and Engel who have been exploring ways to help get the funding

first responders need. Motorola has been a leading provider of public safety solutions for over 65 years. Wireless communications provide our first responders with the right information, at the right

time and in the right place, whether that information is voice, data

or video.

Today, the technology exists to improve the quality and effectiveness of public safety operations, but there are two obstacles to deploying these new technologies. First, public safety must have access to the 700 megahertz spectrum by year-end 2006 to deploy

interoperable voice and advanced data technology as early as possible. This spectrum can literally save lives.

Second, public safety needs additional Federal funding to purchase the radios and systems necessary to do its job. When these

steps are taken, advance wireless technology can fully support our

first responders. Together we can improve the quality of missioncritical information to our front-line responders.

An officer or agent could transmit video of a potential bomb or

biological weapon and get real-time counsel from an expert in another location. Local or State police could instantly send or receive

a photograph of a missing or abducted child. Firefighters can access building blueprints, hydrant locations, hazardous material

data and other critical information.

We have heard a great deal about the need for improved interoperability among first responders organizations. Some Federal

funds have been made available for this purpose, but they are inadequate to reach an acceptable level of interoperability in a reasonable time. We need congressional leadership committed and enforcing a sustained well-funded, multiyear Federal program that guarantees this communications problem will be fixed.

Turning to the need for spectrum. In 1997, this committee and

the FCC recognized its importance by allocating spectrum in the

700 megahertz band for mission-critical State and local public safety communications. This spectrum continues to be used for TV and

needs to be cleared.

This spectrum is critical to public safety operations for two reasons. No. 1, 700 megahertz provides additional capacity for interoperability and voice communications. And, number 2, 700 megahertz is the only dedicated spectrum allocation where public safety

can have high-speed data, wide area access in the field to data

bases, the Internet, imaging and video, or, in other words, critical

information.

Unfortunately, most metropolitan area public safety operations

cannot use the spectrum today, nor can they predict with any certainty when they might have access to these frequencies. This uncertainty is due to the way the current law is written. In reality,

there is no hard date for ending the DTV transition, leaving public

safety and deployment of vital technology in limbo. Until this problem is addressed, 5 percent of this Nation’s TV stations block imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:44 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95444.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
15

proved public safety communications for over 50 percent of the population. We are mindful of the other considerations that are involved in clearing these channels, and we believe that the adverse

effects can be mitigated.

At a hearing last year, this committee asked about the impact on

TV viewers. Using independent data, we have determined that, on

average, only 3 percent of the TV households covered by these

blocking stations actually tune in over the air during a typical

week. As we explore ways to resolve the transition, we encourage

you to continue your examination of the Berlin model which delivered a crisp analog cutoff date using digital-to-analog converter

boxes. This ensured a seamless changeover for all TV consumers.

Motorola is completing its analysis, and we expect to place on record at the FCC an estimate in the sub-$100 range per unit for

a digital-to-analog converter that would inexpensively facilitate a

Berlin model type solution in the U.S.

Even more spectrum may be required in the band to support

homeland security coordination among Federal, State and local

agencies and critical infrastructure entities. For example, a wide

area broadband pilot here in the Capital demonstrates the need for

such additional spectrum.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, making the public safety spectrum

available nationwide by the start of 2007 will not happen without

your commitment and your help. The first step is to agree today

to set that hard date. We urge this committee to clear the spectrum

and to invest in interoperability for all public safety radio users.

Motorola pledges its support to our customers and to this committee to make this happen. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Gary Grube follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY GRUBE, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS

SECTOR, MOTOROLA

Good afternoon, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey and Members of the

Subcommittee.

My name is Gary Grube, and I am the Chief Technology Officer of Motorola’s

business sector that serves state and local public safety and Federal law enforcement customers. I have worked with the 1st responder community for nearly 25

years.

I want to express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing to address such an important issue as improving interoperability for our nation’s

Police, Firefighters, Emergency Medical Personnel and Federal agents. It is an

honor to be here with you today to discuss mission critical interoperable communications capabilities.

I would be remiss if I did not thank you, Chairman Barton, and Ranking Member

Dingell for the excellent work you undertook earlier this month in marking up the

Select Committee on Homeland Security’s DHS authorization bill. It now addresses

the need for the deployment of communications equipment based on national voluntary consensus standards. As you know, a standard called ‘‘Project 25’’ is the open

standard that has been endorsed by every major law enforcement organization in

the country. And, because it delivers true interoperability, the FCC has set P25 as

the interoperability standard in the 700 MHz band.

This hearing also follows quite nicely the one you held on June 2nd on the DTV

transition. You heard testimony from Mr. Ferree on the FCC’s Media Bureau Plan

to advance the DTV transition and thereby provide needed spectrum to public safety

by the start of 2009. Motorola is highly encouraged by this initiative. At that hearing, the Committee leadership sent a real message that change is afoot and that

the American public and their heroes can look forward to date certain availability

for spectrum for critical interoperable communications. Chairman Barton’s powerful

words and proposal resonated with us and the public safety community, and we’d

16

like to express our deep appreciation for the positive direction he is setting for this

debate.

I also want to thank the other Members of this Committee, notably Congressmen

Fossella, Stupak, and Engel who have been exploring ways to usher in new 1st responder high-speed communications and to find additional funding mechanisms to

enable them.

Meeting these communications needs is critical to the safety and well being of our

first responders and the entire American public they serve. I am pleased to be with

you today to support your efforts to achieve our shared goal of meeting public safety’s communications needs.

I’d also like to note that it is good to be at the witness table with David Boyd,

who heads the SAFECOM program at the DHS. Mr. Boyd works very closely with

State and local 1st responders and is very supportive of their interoperable communications equipment needs.

Motorola is a leading provider of communications and information solutions, with

more than 65 years of experience in meeting the mission critical needs of our public

safety customers. We offer an extensive portfolio of solutions specifically designed

to meet the rapidly evolving safety and security needs of these customers. Our solutions include interoperable mission-critical radio systems based on the P25 public

safety interoperability standard; command and control solutions; identification and

tracking solutions; information management for criminal justice and civil needs; and

physical security and monitoring solutions.

In 2002, my business sector in Motorola received the Malcolm Baldrige National

Quality Award, the nation’s premier award for performance excellence and quality

achievement. We continually strive to translate the quality processes upon which

this award was based into high quality and reliable communications systems for our

public safety customers. Motorola works very closely with our customers to help

them implement communications capabilities needed for both every day mission critical needs and catastrophic events.

PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES DEDICATED MISSION CRITICAL SYSTEMS

Our partnership with the public safety community over the years has taught us

that first responders need systems designed specifically for mission critical operations to get the job done. As with most of the Northeast and Midwest, the State

of Michigan was confronted with a large-scale emergency during the August 2003

blackout. Despite the failures experienced by various commercial carrier networks

in Michigan and surrounding states due to these power outages, Michigan’s nearly

12,000 public safety radios experienced no interruptions in communications. Police

officers, firefighters and EMS providers worked as a team in real time to serve the

public. Michigan had control over its communications because it had created a statewide critical network designed specifically for catastrophic situations and events, including the disruption of normal power sources. While many public safety entities

also use public carrier networks for less critical communications, there is no substitute for mission critical systems when the safety of first responders and the public they serve is at risk.

TRUE INTEROPERABILITY REQUIRES A SUSTAINED FOCUS

Ask any firefighter, police officer or EMS provider and they will tell you that the

ability to communicate reliably, instantly and securely is one of the most critical factors in managing a crisis situation. For almost all first responders, a handheld radio

device is their communications lifeline—giving them the ability to communicate during a crisis situation. While the most visible part of the communications system to

first responders and the public, these handheld devices must be supported by communications network infrastructure. Together the system of infrastructure and radios must be designed to provide the necessary coverage, capacity, reliability and

features required for mission critical operations. Yet, despite the Federal

prioritization of homeland security, a large number of first responder radio systems

are not yet truly interoperable and simply cannot talk to each other in a crisis situation. While public safety agencies are making progress on improving communications capabilities and interoperability, much more remains to be done. This problem

will not be solved overnight. There is no ‘‘quick fix’’ solution for true interoperability. Providing true interoperability for the nation’s first responders will require

a multi-year dedication and focus on the part of Congress, the public safety community and industry.

There are four key foundation blocks to achieving improved public safety communications capabilities and interoperability. These are 1) sufficient spectrum, 2) adeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:44 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95444.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
17

quate funding, 3) use of standardized mission critical technology, and 4) operational

planning and practice.

I’ll address these briefly, and then in more detail.

Spectrum that could significantly improve interoperability of public safety communications has been allocated but is not yet accessible in most major markets. Additional spectrum allocations are also needed. The Administration and the Congress

have begun to fund the various grant programs administered by the Departments

of Justice and Homeland Security and to set interoperability as a high priority for

these funds. However, the level of funding in general and the amounts set aside for

interoperable equipment purchases must be increased significantly and sustained

over multiple years to deliver on this goal.

Interoperability standards that meet public safety needs and are open to all manufacturers have been established for voice and data communication and for wideband services. A broadband standards development initiative is also underway.

Communications technology meeting the Project 25 (P25) voice and data interoperability standard developed by the public safety community and industry is available

from multiple equipment vendors. Wideband and broadband technologies capable of

meeting public safety’s increasing need for high speed data and imaging have been

developed and are being trialed.

Finally, Pubic safety users realize now, more than at any time in history, the

value of planning and practice among multiple agencies, jurisdictions, and levels of

government.

The remainder of my testimony addresses in more detail the four foundation

blocks and what Congress can do to help public safety improve communications capabilities and interoperability.

REAL ACCESS TO MORE PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM IS ESSENTIAL.

As discussed above, effective mission critical mobile and portable communications

systems are absolutely essential to public safety operations. Police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel and their departments use mobile and portable communications to exchange information that can help protect public safety officials and the citizens they serve. Traditionally, this information was mostly exchanged by voice. Increasingly, as public safety entities strive to increase efficiency

and effectiveness in today’s world, they also need the capability to transmit and receive high performance data, still images and video reliably. Spectrum is the road

upon which such communications travel, and increased communications requirements lead to the need for more spectrum.

Based on a thorough justification of need, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission dedicated 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to State and

local public safety in 1997. The FCC established specific nationwide interoperability

channels within this spectrum allocation, as well as both narrowband and

broadband channels to support a variety of identified public safety communications

requirements. However, seven years later, incumbent television stations operating

on channels 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68 and 69 prevent public safety access to this essential resource in most major urban areas where the demand for more spectrum is

the greatest. The recent focus on increased interoperability and Homeland Security

make availability of this public safety spectrum nationwide even more critical.

These channels are critical to public safety for two reasons:

(1) Together, the new 700 MHz and current 800 MHz bands provide the best opportunity to integrate interoperable communications. The 700 MHz band’s proximity to the 800 MHz band allows public safety agencies to expand their current

800 MHz narrowband voice and data systems for interoperability and regional

coordination on an ‘‘intra’’ as well as ‘‘inter’’ agency basis. Equipment operating

in these combined frequency bands on the FCC endorsed Project 25 interoperability standard is commercially available today. The FCC has granted each

state a license to operate such narrowband communications in the 700 MHz

band. Localities throughout the country are actively engaged in spectrum planning at 700 MHz, a prerequisite for obtaining their own FCC licenses. For example, after a yearlong review by the FCC, the Southern California regional

plan was recently approved, but TV incumbency prevents actual use of the spectrum in much of that area.

(2) 700 MHz is the only dedicated spectrum allocation where public safety can implement advanced mobile wide area systems that bring high-speed access to

databases, the intranet, imaging and video to first responders out in the field.

This technology offers a whole new level of mobile communications capabilities,

which is far beyond today’s voice and low speed data applications. For example:

18

a. An officer or agent could transmit video of a potential bomb, or biological weapon

and get real time counsel from an expert in another location.

b. Local or state police could instantly send or receive a photograph of a missing

or abducted child.

c. Crime scene investigators can transmit live video of footprints, fingerprints and

evidence to speed analysis and apprehension of perpetrators.

d. Firefighters can access building blueprints, hydrant locations hazardous material

data and other critical information.

e. Paramedics can transmit live video of the patient to doctors at the hospital that

would help save lives.

Motorola previously conducted wideband trials together with public safety entities

in Pinellas County, Florida and the City of Chicago, and we are currently participating in the District of Columbia’s broadband trial. As to the Chicago trial, we

greatly appreciate Chairman Upton leading a delegation of Committee Members, including Congressmen Bass, Rush, and Terry to participate in a demonstration last

year with the Chicago Police Department. We would like to encourage a similar delegation to see the outstanding broadband trial that is being led by Robert LeGrande

on behalf of the DC Government. We are proud to be working with him on an innovative solution that will deliver powerful applications to the frontline 1st preventers

here in our Nation’s Capitol. All of these trials operate under experimental 700 MHz

licenses from the FCC. The capabilities demonstrated are the emerging powerful

multi-media applications that will bring public safety communications into the

Twenty-First Century.

Public safety users and industry finalized the wideband interoperability standard,

TIA902, through the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). Public safety

has recommended that standard to the FCC for the 700 MHz wideband channels,

and we are anxiously awaiting FCC action on that request. Right now, actual product development could proceed as soon as we know with certainty that this spectrum will be available nationwide to the public safety community.

Unfortunately, most metropolitan area public safety operations cannot use this

spectrum today, nor can they predict with any certainty when they might have access to these frequencies because of incumbent TV operations. Therefore, public

safety users in most cities cannot deploy, or firm up plans for the actual deployment

of, improved interoperability and advanced capabilities that will improve their effectiveness and safety.

Current law and policies set December 31, 2006 as the date for clearing television

from the band. However, this is not a firm date. Broadcasters do not have to clear

the band until 85% of the households in their service areas have the capability to

receive digital TV, an environment unlikely to be met in most markets by yearend

2006 under the current rules. Under current law, while TV incumbents are required

to vacate this spectrum at the end of 2006, they can receive an unlimited extension

of this deadline based on the state of the transition in their particular market. So,

in reality, there is no ‘‘hard date’’ when the transition will end and the spectrum

will really be accessible to public safety everywhere. This is not the optimal situation for the public safety community and those they serve. We commend and encourage efforts by this Subcommittee and the FCC to ensure that this spectrum is

cleared nationwide for public safety use no later than yearend 2006.

The reality is that 5% of this country’s TV stations are blocking improved public

safety communications for 84% of the population in the largest cities, those over

200,000. Of that 84%, more than two-thirds have no access to the spectrum, while

the remaining third have only limited access. When we look at all areas of the country, rural as well as urban, 54% of our country’s population is totally blocked by

this relatively small number of TV stations from receiving any benefits of public

safety communications in this band.

In a hearing before this Subcommittee in June, 2003, Greg Brown of Motorola testified about the need for access to the 700 MHz spectrum. During that hearing, Subcommittee Members acknowledged this need, but also discussed the potential impact

on some TV operations of setting a firm date for broadcasters to finally return their

analog TV channels in the 700 MHz band.

The concerns expressed at that hearing spurred us to perform a study to determine the impact on the viewing public of clearing that spectrum. That study ‘‘700

MHz TV Clearing and its Impact on TV Viewership’’ is attached in its entirety. As

shown in this study, the potential harm to the viewing public is limited. And the

benefit to public safety is dramatic.

First, only 75 stations, equaling less than 5% of the more than 1500 U.S. TV stations, affect public safety’s availability of its Congressionally mandated 700 MHz

band frequencies. Second, Motorola’s analysis of independent television industry

data shows that, on average, only 14% of the TV households who have the option

19

to view these stations actually do so at all, and that of those viewing, 82% watch

by cable. This means that, on average, only 3% of the TV households within these

stations’ coverage areas actually tune to these stations over-the-air sometime during

an average week.

The Committee is also aware of an FCC plan that would complete the analog to

digital TV transition by January 1, 2009. We applaud the FCC for taking the leadership and initiative to move the debate toward a successful conclusion. While 2009

may be an appropriate date by which all 1500 or more TV stations would complete

the transition, the public safety community has stated that its needs justify clearing

the 5% of stations blocking its 700 MHz band channels by 2007. By yearend 2006,

public safety will have waited almost ten years to access this spectrum.

As noted above, very few TV households would notice any significant impact of

clearing this spectrum for public safety. Those that do could be provided with an

inexpensive digital-to-analog over-the-air converter box. Motorola is a TV set-top box

provider. That business unit is presently completing its analysis, and we expect to

place on the record at the FCC a sub-$100 estimate per unit for an over-the-air digital-to-analog converter that would help to facilitate a Berlin Model-type solution in

the US. We understand the Committee and the GAO are already reviewing the actions undertaken in Berlin, Germany to ensure a seamless and pain-free crisp analog to digital TV transition. This was achieved through the provision of converter

boxes to some TV consumers who did not subscribe to cable or satellite service and

maintained an analog TV set. We believe this is a positive step that could provide

a real path forward on how to solve the transition here in the U.S.

Congressional action is required to ensure that TV incumbents return this critically

needed spectrum, without exceptions, by a firm date—which should be no later than

yearend 2006.

We urge the Committee not to be deterred from setting this goal because it has

been hard to achieve to date. Rather, once it has been set, the affected parties, including the public safety community, the FCC and NTIA, the involved broadcasters

and other affected parties, including our company, should be called upon to devote

our energies to making it happen.

As you know, the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band is allocated for State

and local public safety use. That spectrum, if cleared, would only partially satisfy

the spectrum need documented by the public safety community. No comparable

spectrum exists for meeting the Homeland Security requirements of Federal agencies or critical infrastructure entities. Such interoperability among State and local

first responders, Federal agencies and critical infrastructure entities will best be

achieved through the availability of comparable spectrum resources. Therefore, we

recommend that Congress consider meeting these additional needs by reallocating

the remaining 30 MHz of commercial spectrum in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792

MHz portions of the band which are presently targeted for auction. This spectrum

should be reallocated as a Homeland Security band to support State, local, Federal

and critical infrastructure (such a utilities and nuclear facilities) communications

needs.

We also note that a spectrum coalition headed by Mr. LeGrande, in the District

of Columbia Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), has requested that 10

MHz of additional spectrum at 700 MHz be designated for broadband use. Since

that 10 MHz falls within the 30 MHz recommended for reallocation here, we believe

that request and reallocation of the 30 MHz are complementary to one another. Motorola is quite pleased to be one of the partners with OCTO in trialling 700 MHz

broadband systems and public safety applications.

As part of this reallocation, Congress should charter a committee of key representatives from major public safety associations, Federal agencies and critical infrastructure entities to determine how that additional 30 MHz of spectrum should be distributed among State, local, Federal and critical infrastructure entities.

Should the government wish to pursue this important reallocation of spectrum,

anticipated auction revenue from these 30 MHz of spectrum would no longer be

available. However, we believe substitute spectrum that could provide potentially

stronger auction receipts can be identified to replace this anticipated revenue and

could be used to support a Berlin Model-type subsidy solution domestically. Motorola greatly appreciates this Committee’s continued policy thrust to find ways to reinvest spectrum auction revenues in ways to advance technology deployment and economic development, whether it is the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act that

this body passed last year and is under active consideration in the Senate, or the

Chairman’s proposal to use auction revenue to help support the return of the analog

TV frequencies for other valuable services—including interoperability.

20

PROJECT 25 IS THE U.S. INTEROPERABILITY STANDARD FOR MISSION CRITICAL

OPERATIONS

In addition to spectrum access, standardized technology is critically important to

achieving interoperability. Fortunately, the public safety community and multiple

manufacturers have partnered to develop a suite of standards for interoperability

known as Project 25.

Public safety users adopted the P25 standard in order to implement an open

standard that promotes interoperability and system migration, and enables more

competitive procurements for digital radio systems and radios—thereby eliminating

dependence on one vendor for radios, even after their systems have been installed.

P25 is actually a full suite of standards that, when built into communications

equipment, provides the basis for interoperable digital radio voice and low-speed

data communications among multiple public safety users, departments and agencies. These standards were developed under the auspices of, and are published by,

the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and accredited by the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI). Public safety users led the development of the

standard and have the option to choose Project 25 products from multiple vendors.

Unlike many other communications standards and technologies in the broader

wireless industry, the unique mission critical requirements of public safety users

drove the development of the P25 suite of standards. High priority was given to

public safety’s operational and tactical requirements. For reasons of cost effectiveness, the Project 25 standards permit a graceful migration path from aging analog

to new digital systems. These standards promote improved spectral efficiency, and,

as intended, allow for multi-vendor equipment offerings. Radios that meet the P25

standards incorporate backward compatibility with conventional analog systems.

Project 25 radios communicate in analog mode to analog radios, and either digital

or analog modes with other P25 radios.

Public safety users at all levels of government have embraced Project 25. For example, P25 has received the endorsement of the National Association of State Telecommunications Directors (NASTD), the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials—International (APCO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the Major Cities

Chiefs (MCC), the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), and the Major County Sheriffs’ Association (MCSA).

Project 25 has received broad support at the Federal level as well. Based on public

safety user recommendations, the FCC endorsed the Project 25 suite of standards

for voice and low-speed data interoperability in the new nation-wide 700 MHz frequency band. Every 700 MHz radio must include Project 25 compatibility defined

by this TIA/ANSI standard, and the FCC set P25 as the required mode of operation

on the 700 MHz interoperability channels. The U.S. Department of Defense mandated P25 for new land mobile radio systems. The Department of Homeland Security has also endorsed P25 as the preferred standard for digitally trunked radio systems as part of its Federal grant guidance.

INTEROPERABILITY FUNDING SHOULD BE A NATIONAL PRIORITY

Full public safety communications interoperability within the decade should be a

national goal. This is an ambitious goal, but a very worthy and doable one. Our nation has the necessary technology, the standards and equipment. After spectrum,

what is lacking are the economic resources to acquire the equipment and deploy the

systems, particularly at the state and local level, and we will not achieve this goal

at the present pace of system upgrades. Instead, it will require a commitment lead

by determined champions. Mr. Chairman, I urge this Committee to assume this important role.

There are several reasons why the Federal government must take the lead. As

we all know, homeland security is a Federal, State and local responsibility, but national planning begins at the Federal level. This is one of the reasons why the Congress and the President created the new Department of Homeland Security.

While we cannot predict future terrorist attacks, we must prepare for the real

possibility and threat. Also, we do know that we will face natural disasters such as

hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, and earthquakes and other threats such as hostage

takings, hazardous materials spills, and train wrecks. Interoperable public safety

communications are critical to effective response in all these cases.

The states face a staggering $80 billion aggregated deficit in FY2004 alone, and

this puts serious limits on their spending. As a result, they cannot be expected to

accomplish this goal without substantial Federal support. Accordingly, we need a

well-funded, multi-year Federal program that guarantees that this communication

problem is fixed, once and for all.

21

Consequently, we must work aggressively to increase the funds devoted to interoperable communications now and until the job is done. Nothing should be allowed

to delay or impede this funding effort. In FY 2004, approximately $4.4 billion was

appropriated for Federal equipment grant programs for State and local first responders.— However, wireless communications is only one of a large number of allowed uses for these funds. Only about $85 million or 2% of the total was designated

in the legislation specifically for wireless communications enhancements.— We

would ask for your help to increase the sums designated for wireless communications in light of the broad consensus that exists for improving the status of wireless

communications interoperability among government entities. If we are going to fix

the interoperability problem we must have a well-defined goal, a program to achieve

that goal, and a way of measuring programs that is visible to the Congress.

We certainly cannot afford the human costs associated with delaying achievement

of full interoperability.

PLANNING AND PRACTICE ARE ALSO ESSENTIAL FOR INTEROPERABILITY

Planning for interoperability at the operational level is also a key element of improving interoperability. In situations where multiple agencies and jurisdictions

have planned operational procedures and practiced that plan, interoperability has

improved. For example, multiple agencies can decide in advance how best to organize communications groups to support the various responders at an incident scene.

Practice drills help public safety responders become familiar with these procedures

so they can be more easily implemented at an actual emergency incident.

Planning and practice are supplements to, not substitutes for, adequate spectrum,

funding and technology. All elements of the foundation need to be in place to improve public safety mission critical interoperability and capability. While Congress

has the greatest influence over the interoperability building blocks of spectrum and

funding, public safety agencies are the focal point for planning and practice.

Mr. Chairman, ensuring that our nation’s public safety officials have the tools

they need to protect our citizens in the years ahead is a sound investment for the

entire country. We urge this Committee to clear spectrum for public safety and to

champion investments in interoperability for all public safety radio users. Motorola

pledges its support to our public safety customers and to this Committee to help you

make this happen.

Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. LeGrande?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LEGRANDE

Mr. LEGRANDE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

the subcommittee. My name is Robert LeGrande, and I am a deputy chief technology officer for the Office the Chief Technology Officer, the central information technology and telecommunications

agency of the District of Columbia government. I am responsible

for wireless communications infrastructure for the District government and a representative of the Spectrum Coalition for Public

Safety.

Over the past year and a half, I have led wireless public safety

voice and data communications programs for the District of Columbia. In this role, I have partnered with executives, communication

decisionmakers and field personnel of the Metropolitan Police Department and the Fire and EMS Department to upgrade our public

safety voice network and install public safety broadband wireless

networks.

During this process, I gained tremendous respect for the work of

our first responders and gained an even greater appreciation of

their communications needs. Today, I will describe for you the efforts and the results of the voice communication upgrades, which

include local, regional and Federal interoperability. I will also describe the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety’s efforts to secure

22

additional megahertz of 700 spectrum which will enable Public

Safety to build and deploy broadband wireless networks throughout

the United States.

Please reference the diagram with the city configuration here to

my right. This diagram represents both the accomplishments of a

wireless voice and the vision of our wireless broadband communications within the District. As depicted in the diagram, our recently

upgraded 10-site radio network provides comprehensive in-building

coverage, augmented by 63 vehicle repeater systems to provide the

highest level of coverage available to first responders.

In addition, by using distributive antenna techniques, we provided for the first time nearly 100 percent coverage in the underground subway system. It is important to emphasize that interoperability is accomplished individual by individual, and I say this

because we must first ensure that our first responders can communicate clearly in all areas of the city before we focus on communications outside or with other agencies. Without sufficient radio coverage, intraoperability, much less interoperability, is impossible,

putting lives at risk, even for day-to-day first responder events.

This wireless infrastructure will soon ride on the city’s fiber optic

network. DC Net delivers the highest level of redundancy and reliability for our first responders.

In order to achieve interoperability, we took several steps. First

we had to upgrade the coverage and capacity or our preexisting

non-interoperable local networks. We accomplished this by creating

a single dual-band radio network. Next, we had to create interoperability on our intra-District public communication systems and

other first responders in the region.

Please reference the Rubik’s Cube depiction of the DC-based regional public safety interoperability diagram. When my team first

shared this diagram with me, I simply hated it, because it was too

complex and too hard to understand. Later, my thought became,

‘‘Exactly.’’ Interoperability among many jurisdictions is very complex and hard to understand. In this diagram, we only note the

interoperability methodologies for the District of Columbia. Please

understand, every agency that is on the left of that diagram must

have a similar Rubik’s Cube representing its interoperability methodologies. All of these puzzles must be figured out for all the agencies represented in order to achieve interoperability in the region.

It is a very complex process.

I am very pleased to report to this committee that we have made

substantial improvements in public safety voice communications,

and a detailed status of the DC interoperability progress is provided in attachment 3 of my testimony. These improvements would

not have been possible without Federal investment and the coordinated efforts of our Regional Council of Governance, which is made

up of first responders, which is made up of first responders, leaders

and communications specialists from our surrounding region.

Additionally, and without them prompting me to say this, without clear, unambiguous direction from our congressional leaders,

our mayor, city council, city administrator, deputy mayor for public

safety, police and fire chiefs and my boss, Suzanne Peck, the chief

technology officer of this city, we would have simply failed that direction: Work together, get it done now.

23

The interoperability effort considered several options. We chose

to create dual band 460 and 800 megahertz network because we

could use Motorola’s existing SmartZone architecture to incorporate

all of the existing 800 megahertz radios and over half of the 460

megahertz radios. This allowed neighboring agencies using 800

megahertz radios to communicate with our 460 megahertz police

radios through a central hub, and through trunk radio technology

delivered the maximum number of individual communication paths

for numerous simultaneous incidents and talk groups.

As mentioned previously, our underground project, managed

jointly with WMATA and completed in March of this year, remedied coverage problems for the District’s fire and EMS first responders in the WMATA subway system, upgrading the 800 megahertz underground distributive antenna system. District firefighters now have seamless coverage for above and below ground,

and they can actually ride the train and achieve a high level of

voice quality. Together, these two projects gave the District one of

the best public safety wireless voice systems in the Nation: Comprehensive coverage, 27 channels, a regionally interoperable system

providing clear voice communication, encryption and other digital

features.

During the requirements and design phase of our voice programs,

we realized that providing upgraded voice communications for first

responders is simply not enough. The threats to our country and

region are real an imminent. Providing our first responders with

city-wide remote surveillance, chemical and biological and bomb detection systems is critical to preventing attacks.

Additionally, early detection of attacks will speed our response

capabilities. We evaluated the use of commercially available wireless networks, wideband wireless networks and networks deployed

at the 4.9 gigahertz spectrum, and none of these met our requirements. Please note, individuals and organizations that wish to do

our country harm already have city-wide broadband wireless capabilities in the District of Columbia, North Carolina and San Diego.

They can sign up anonymously for Verizon or Nextel’s services in

these areas and conduct real-time broadband intelligence gathering

and video surveillance; worse, attack coordination for far better coordination capabilities than was used in Madrid, Spain. Our first

responders need better tools than the terrorists.

Recently, the District launched initiatives aimed at delivering

the next generation broadband wireless solutions in the Nation’s

Capital, and potentially the Nation. We founded the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety for 30 states, counties, cities, regions and

public safety organizations. The goals of this coalition is to pursue

legislation that require the FCC to reserve an additional 10 megahertz of radio spectrum for wide area public safety broadband wireless uses, enabling competitive, affordable technologies that meet

first responder requirements and facilitate nationwide network deployment.

Concurrently, the District is deploying on a pilot basis the Nation’s first citywide wireless broadband public safety network to

demonstrate these public safety applications. We have one transceiver site working in the Capitol Hill area. Please reference quickly the diagram to the left. These pictures taken yesterday show a

24

real-time video teleconference between my team members located

at the Capitol and MPD headquarters.

The solution leverages Flarion Technologies OFDM Flash Network and Motorola’s newly developed greenhouse video dispatch

application. The full 10-site network operating under an 18-month

experimental license approved by the FCC is slated for completion

in the summer of this year and will provide broadband wireless

service throughout the District of Columbia. I would like to stress

that the continuing cooperation from DHS and FCC is appreciated.

We also enjoy our ongoing support of our corporate partners,

Flarion Technologies, Televate, Motorola and SAIC.

In conclusion, please allow me to list some public safety challenges that this committee can help address. First, of course, is to

provide the additional 10 megahertz of 700 spectrum for wide area

broadband wireless public safety applications. Second, to accelerate, as we have mentioned earlier, the 700 megahertz spectrum

clearing efforts. And last, of course, is to accelerate the resolution

of the Nextel interference issue.

We look forward to the debate on the merits of our legislation,

which we have included in our testimony, and we also welcome the

opportunities to demonstrate this forward-thinking solution to the

members of this subcommittee. I thank you for your support.

[The prepared statement of Robert Legrande follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT LEGRANDE, DEPUTY CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is

Robert LeGrande. I am a Deputy Chief Technology Officer in the Office the Chief

Technology Officer (OCTO), the central information technology and telecommunications agency of the District of Columbia government. I am responsible for wireless

communications infrastructure for the District government, and a representative of

the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety. I will describe for you how the District

now has a state-of-the-art public safety voice network, complete with local, regional,

and federal, interoperability and where we came from to get to this state. I will also

describe the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety’s efforts to secure additional 700

MHz spectrum which will enable Public Safety to build and deploy Broadband Wireless Networks throughout the U.S. To reach this level of interoperability, we had

to take several steps. First, we had to upgrade the coverage and capacity of our preexisting non-interoperable local networks. Next, we had to unify these separate networks. Finally, we had to create interoperability between our intra-District public

safety communications systems and other first responders in the region. We reached

these goals by completing two major projects in September 2003 and March of this

year. We have now embarked on the next step in fully loaded public safety communications capabilities: creating the high-speed broadband wireless data communications urgently needed by first responders throughout the nation. (Please see Attachment I, Public Safety Wireless Voice and Data Communications, for a graphic representation of these initiatives.) I will describe each of these efforts in grater detail,

focusing particularly on the interoperability challenges we faced and the solutions

we developed.

PUBLIC SAFETY VOICE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRESEPTEMBER 2003

Before September 2003, the District’s public safety radio communications infrastructure included two networks: a four-site Motorola SmartZone TM system operating at 800 MHz for Fire and Emergency Management Services (FEMS) and Emergency Management Agency (EMA) personnel, and a seven-site conventional analog

system operating at 460 MHz for the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Both

networks had major deficiencies. The FEMS network had insufficient in-building

radio coverage in the core areas of the city—limitations compounded by the complex

25

1For purposes of simplicity, we use SmartZone TM generically to describe both SmartNet TM

and SmartZone TM systems.

architecture of buildings in Washington, DC. (Despite these in-building coverage

limitations, however, the network compared favorably with other major city networks in on-street coverage and quality.) There was no coverage in underground

subway tunnels. The police network provided reasonable coverage throughout the

city, but it was antiquated, failing, and in critical need of replacement. The network

was over 30 years old, spare parts were no longer available from the original manufacturers, and some of them were no longer in business. Both networks suffered

from capacity limitations. The FEMS-EMA 800 MHz network provided 16-radio

channels, while the MPD UHF network had only 13 conventional channels and regularly experienced channel congestion intervals during the busiest hours. Our infrastructure had little to no interoperability within the District, due to the technical

and operational disparity between the two networks, including frequency band and

radio technology.

PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS UPGRADE

To solve these problems, a team of Motorola and District of Columbia engineers

worked for six months to design an optimal unified communications network that

would address the interlocking deficiencies of coverage, capacity, and interoperability in Washington, DC.

Coverage Analysis and Design

City management set an aggressive coverage goal of providing 100% communications within the District while minimizing the need for radio-to-radio communications (talk-around). We met this challenge in two projects, an above-ground project

completed in September 2003, and an underground project completed in March

2004.

Our above-ground coverage analysis revealed that it was impractical to cover the

interiors of all buildings using traditional radio sites. Instead, the analysis yielded

a strategy to cover the majority (85%) of exterior and interior locations by expanding

antenna sites from four to 10 and explore alternatives for covering the remaining

areas. These alternatives were in—building distributed antenna systems and in-vehicle repeater systems. Our team quickly discovered that in-building systems were

extremely expensive, created noise in the system that would degrade overall coverage, and could easily fail during fires or terrorist attacks. Vehicular repeater systems presented none of these problems, although they could not provide the same

transparency as in-building systems, because they require first responders to change

channels on their radios from the city-wide network to the vehicular repeater frequency. The city piloted a half-dozen vehicular repeater systems and found that single or multiple units could solve coverage problems in the densest of District buildings. Ultimately, the District implemented vehicular repeater systems in 63 fire

suppression vehicles to ensure that a VRS would be available wherever needed to

enhance in-building communications.

The subway tunnel system presented a more daunting challenge. The coverage

gaps in tunnels were far too great to be addressed by VRS systems. However, sufficient resources existed underground to support a distributed antenna system. Therefore, the District, in partnership with The Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

(WMATA) chose an underground distributed antenna system at 800 MHz and permitted the MPD to share WMATA’s 490 MHz radio network that provides underground coverage. Key advantages of this system were the scope of coverage and

transparency. Nearly 100% of all public underground areas were covered by the underground project completion date in March 2004,—there remains one lone corridor

with fair voice quality will soon be upgraded to excellent voice quality.

Together, our above-ground and underground coverage solutions deliver nearly

100% coverage with only very limited need for radio-to-radio communication and

provide District of Columbia first responders with citywide clear voice communication.

Interoperability and Capacity Analysis and Design

In addition to providing our first responders with the best possible radio coverage,

we needed to deliver the best interoperability and capacity solution—the ability for

District first responders to communicate within their agencies and among the maximum number of external agencies whenever necessary. Most of the District’s surrounding counties use Motorola SmartZone TM technology 1 at 800 MHz. As discussed above, before the upgrade, the District had a seven site conventional analog

system operating at 460 MHz for MPD and a four site Motorola SmartZone TM sysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:44 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95444.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
26

2 However, the entire police department would need new 800/700 radios, and FEMS might

need new radios as well (their radios supported only 800 MHz). The result would be between

5,000 and 7,000 new 800/700 MHz radios costing $7-13 million more than the cost of upgrades

to 460 MHz radios and new digital-capable 460 MHz radios.

tem operating at 800 MHz for FEMS and other District agencies. The District

owned over 1,000 800 MHz radios compatible with the Motorola SmartZone TM system, nearly 2,000 portable 460 MHz radios with SmartZone TM capabilities and over

1,000 mobile 460 MHz radios capable of communicating on a SmartZone network.

These same radios could be upgraded to support the public safety Project 25 radio

standard, but not while maintaining important features and allowing dual-mode operations with SmartZone TM systems. Further, the surrounding municipalities operated mobile and portable radios that were programmed and configured to support

SmartZone TM networks, but not Project 25 networks.

It is important to note that these radios operate in a single band. The 460 MHz

radios operate in the 450—512 MHz range and the 800 MHz radios operate in the

806-824 MHz range. Therefore, a 460 MHz radio can not communicate directly on

our neighboring county networks operating in the 806-824 MHz range. To alleviate

this problem, the District aggressively sought to migrate MPD to 800 MHz. The

team calculated a net requirement of 27-35 trunked voice channels at 800 MHz to

satisfy aggregate demand for all District of Columbia public safety personnel. The

District had 16 channels at 800 MHz and 13 channels at 460 MHz at the start of

the analysis.

We considered several options for the migration:

• Implement additional 800 MHz frequencies, • Use the public safety 700 MHz spectrum (24 MHz) and operate a 700/800 MHz

network, • Split the 16 existing 25 kHz channels to create up to 32 channels, and • Create a dual-band 460/800 MHz network.

I’ll review each option briefly.

Implement Additional 800 MHz Frequencies

To satisfy the aggregate demand, the District would need an additional 12 frequencies in the 800 Mhz band. Unfortunately, given the presence of our neighboring

jurisdictions and Nextel in this band, we could not identify enough 800 MHz channels to meet our needs. We approached Nextel and engaged vendors to investigate

short-spacing channels, both without success. Therefore, we had to discard this option.

Use the Public Safety 700 MHz spectrum (24 MHz) and Operate a 700/800 MHz

Network

The additional channels in the 24 MHz of radio spectrum in the 700 MHz band

presented some compelling opportunities. First, there were cost-effective multi-band

radios on the market that could operate in both 700 and 800 MHz.2 Second, there

was considerable capacity in that band. Third, the technology used in the 700 MHz

band, Project 25, was in the process of standardization, and therefore, presented an

opportunity for expanded vendors and products. However, given the majority of

users and systems operating SmartZone systems, our network needed to provide

SmartZone service to agencies supporting District first responders within the city.

Unfortunately, no integrated, dual-mode (P25 and SmartZone) network existed.

Moreover, the availability of the 700 MHz band was limited by the presence of

TV broadcasters in our region. Therefore, we had to conclude that this option not

feasible and halted efforts to build a Project 25-compatible network.

Split Existing 800 MHz Channels to Create up to 32 Total Channels

To implement this solution, a vendor would have to enable the use of adjacent

channels at 12.5 kHz (instead of the existing 25 kHz) without interfering among the

channels. Given the preponderance of SmartZone TM systems in the region, we first

explored creating a SmartZone system that could utilize the half-spaced channels.

Unfortunately, this option proved infeasible because the SmartZone system could

not tune to those interspaced frequencies.

Create a Dual-Band 460/800 MHz Network

The dual band option would provide city-wide service from all sites at both bands

and integrate them at a central hub. Analysis revealed that this option was not only

feasible, but highly advantageous. It relied on existing frequencies licensed to the

District of Columbia, and therefore presented limited risk of interference and licensing issues with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Motorola’s existing

SmartZone architecture could create a zone at 460 MHz and 800 MHz. This solution

27

could incorporate all of the existing 800 MHz radios and over half of the MPD radios. It also allowed adjacent agencies using 800 MHz radios to communicate with

MPD radios at 460 MHz through the central hub. Further, by incorporating trunked

radio technology, this solution delivered the maximum number of individual communications paths for simultaneous incidents. For example, this solution allows our

first responders to communicate with Prince George’s County Police while simultaneously maintaining a separate communications channel with United States Park

Police but not consume resources when those channels were not needed. In addition,

because WMATA uses a Motorola SmartZone network operating at 490 MHz, MPD

could gain direct interoperability with WMATA and MPD will gain coverage within

the tunnel system in July 2004. The dual-band option could also support a total of

27 trunked voice channels, providing adequate capacity for the first time.

The main disadvantage of this option was lack of interoperability for MPD officers

operating outside the coverage area of our District of Columbia 460 MHz network.

However, the disadvantage proves relatively insignificant. MPD officers travel outside our coverage area infrequently, as most mutual support situations (e.g., July

4th, Presidential Inaugurations, marches, and demonstrations) bring officers from

neighboring municipalities into the District.

Upgrade Implementation

We implemented the coverage, interoperability, and capacity solutions I’ve just described on a fast track (April 2002-March 2004, less than two years from conception

to completion) and at a relatively reasonable total cost of $42 million ($36 million

in federal emergency preparedness funds, $2.5 million in grants, and $3.45 million

in District funds). The results, as I’ve indicated, were overwhelmingly successful: we

now have a full-coverage, 27 trunked voice channels, regionally interoperable system

providing clear voice communication, encryption, and other digital features for all

our first responders.

Of course, we faced numerous challenges along the way. We overcame these challenges through clear, unified direction and support from our Mayor, City Council,

Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Chiefs of Police and FEMS, Chief Technology Officer, and police and fire unions. In addition, we were fortunate in having strong,

knowledgeable, and driven corporate partners, Motorola, Inc. and Televate, LLC.

RADIO INTEROPERABILITY WITHIN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION/COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENTS

The National Capital Region (NCR) consists of in two states (Virginia and Maryland) and the District of Columbia. Voice radio interoperability for public safety entities in this region is essential. Equally essential for the District is interoperable

communications with multiple critical federal agencies including the FBI, Secret

Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the State Department, and others. There are also over 40

federal law enforcement agencies operating in the city, including Capital Police,

Park Police, Mint Police and many others, with whom MPD dispatch and police officers must have direct communications. Finally, it is important that the District

maintain communications within the WMATA subway tunnels and directly with police and airport authorities at the Reagan National Airport.

As illustrated in Attachment II (Regional Public Safety Wireless Communications

Interoperability), establishing voice radio interoperability with this wide array of

agencies, many of which are operating multiple radio technologies in different regions of the radio spectrum, including VHF, UHF and 800 MHz, is a major technical, operational and administrative challenge. The interoperability cube in the attachment depicts the levels of interoperability planned by the region. The region

continues to implement solutions to further enhance and simplify radio communications. More funding for technical and operational standards development and training, along with the installation of permanent, dedicated ‘‘interoperability’’ managers

and technicians is required to ensure that these solutions remain readily available

on demand in the community.

In order to simplify this complex radio communications effort, interoperability has

been engineered into three levels.

Level One Interoperability: Spare incident radios (radio cache) operating on

common interoperable channels, including mutual aid, are made available to local

and national responders who do not have programmed UHF and 800 MHz trunked

radios or conventional radios on regional mutual aid channels. The simplest, but not

necessarily the most effective, means to achieve interoperability is to distribute onlocation radios to incident commanders and responders. Existing radio caches and

excess spare radio inventories within the District and NCR/COG are distributed as

appropriate. In response to an identified shortage of spare radios in the NCR, the

28

federal government provided a grant in FY 2004 to increase the availability of 800

MHz trunked radios. A 1,000 unit COG Radio Cache will be available beginning in

mid-summer of 2004, just weeks away.

Level Two Interoperability: In order to achieve a higher level of interoperability within the NCR between separate public safety portable/mobile radios and

telephone system exchanges, regional partners have implemented a ‘‘radio interface

module’’ manufactured by JPS Communications, the ACU-1000. With assistance

from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wireless division, SAFECOM,

this technology has been successfully implemented in most of the jurisdictions and

agencies (local, state and federal) in the region. The ACU-1000 device provides communication ‘‘patching’’ between agencies by integrating agency radios into an interface module. Radio patching allows dispatchers to manually facilitate radio communications between users of different technologies and frequencies. The District’s

ACU-1000 unit encompasses 21 distinct radios, supporting all local fire and police

agencies and critical federal agencies.

Radio patching through the ACU-1000 or similar devices, while effective in enhancing interoperability, has various limitations and presents operational challenges. Agency radios must be integrated, maintained and programmed to reflect

the latest radio user template. Since templates change almost annually for most

public safety radio users, it is difficult to maintain up-to-date radios in the device.

The technology also entails complicated set-up protocols, requires user training, and

lacks standardized operational procedures. Because these devices are not daily

equipment, end users can become ‘‘rusty’’ and function improperly. Because the networks are not integrated, this is the only means to connect multiple networks today.

Level Three Interoperability: The most effective route to interoperability for

co-located work groups is to install directly compatible, same-technology systems

and radios (trunked or conventional). Trunked networks, common in the NCR, must

be programmed with common trunked system and radio IDs and interoperable

talkgroups. Most of the fire department users in the region, except for Prince

George’s County in Maryland, have direct access to each other’s 800 MHz trunked

radio networks. When first responders in the region enter the city to assist the District’s fire department, they can communicate on the District’s radio network or vice

versa. All users are operating on a common radio network using the same radio

technology.

The new MPD radio network, while not at 800 MHz where surrounding county

police reside, was designed to be fully compatible with local law enforcement radio

networks through the use of a Motorola SmartZone radio network switch. The District is able to provide local law enforcement users access to the District 800 MHz

trunked network, which supports direct communications with MPD radio users on

their UHF network.

An alternative to direct radio network compatibility is to establish mutual aid

channels for non-standard network users with call-in capability to a dispatch console. The District has implemented a conventional VHF channel that facilitates direct access for several federal agencies to the District’s citywide MPD dispatcher.

A federal user with this channel programmed into his/her radio can direct call the

MPD dispatcher to request MPD support and/or communication with individual

MPD officers. The District is now working with SAFECOM to enhance this mutual

aid network, expand the number of usable channels to three, and extend coverage

throughout the NCR. This approach will support regional interoperability between

the District and federal user agencies and enhance interoperability among federal

agencies and between federal users and surrounding NCR first responders. While

not a perfect interoperability solution, the mutual-aid-channel design will provide

near-term mobile communications between responder agencies.

Attachment III (DC-Regional PS Voice Interoperability Status) presents a tabular

view of current and in progress interoperability within the NCR. This summary reflects the work of hundreds of public safety officials, first responders and technologists, who, with the support of Congress, dedicate their energy and lives to ensuring reliable and functional radio communications within the region and beyond.

However, while our success to date is encouraging, we have more work to do to

achieve simple, on demand regional and federal interoperability within the region.

Public safety radios must be programmed directly to change talkgroups or frequencies. Therefore, while an interoperable network infrastructure exists, a considerable amount of work still remains to reprogram thousands of radios and train first

responders how to use the new capabilities. Additionally, as discussed below, the

Washington, DC NRC does not have interoperability with key Department of Defense agencies that is vital to higher-level emergency response.

29

INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AGENCIES

District officials and technologists have recently begun discussions with various

Department of Defense (DoD) agencies to analyze the current state of interoperability between the parties. While the investigation is still in its infancy, hampered

by lack of dedicated staff and capital resources, the results are clear: interoperability between NCR first responders and critical DoD agencies is insufficient and

must be increased now to ensure that the affected agencies can meet near-term

emergency communications requirements. The recommendations agreed upon between the DoD and NCR include implementing technical and operational solutions

that are available today and expanding and institutionalizing the dialogue between

the affected agencies to ensure that planned radio network changes and upgrades

are regularly addressed and incorporated into the interoperability operations. It is

important to note, however, that the District is already providing technical support

to the Washington National Guard and has designed interoperability into a radio

network enhancement that the Guard is now undertaking.

WIRELESS BROADBAND DATA NEEDS

The Challenge of High-speed Wireless Data Communication

The District’s current wireless data communications capabilities rely on commercial cellular offerings at low speed (19.2 kbps). This speed provides extremely limited capabilities, largely restricted to text transmission. It also places public safety

at risk from commercial networks that are not built to withstand long periods without power (e.g., hurricanes and winter storms) and lack enough redundancy to

maintain connectivity between transceiver sites and central hubs. Additionally, the

commercial technology upon which the District’s public safety communications relies

will be dismantled in 2005 forcing the District, and all such users nationally, to migrate to an alternative wireless transport technology.

Adequate response to emergencies ranging from multiple-alarm building fires to

chemical, biological and other terrorist attacks requires immediate and rapid communications among multiple first-responders including fire, police, and emergency

medical services. Currently, first-responders must rely on voice communications to

receive time-sensitive information about an emergency incident. Information often

comes too late or is lost altogether. Broadband wireless networks can dramatically

improve public safety communications and operations nationally by providing fullmotion, high-resolution video and other bandwidth-intensive monitoring tools to

multiple first responders. These tools will allow sharing of time-critical information

needed to respond more effectively to both routine and catastrophic events.

The demand on a wireless broadband network from one user can range from lowspeed web browsing at 50-200 kilobits per second (kbps) to multiple real-time

streaming video images transmitted at 1.2 megabits per second (Mbps). The District

has demonstrated that its aggregate citywide demand on a network can exceed 50

Mbps and that usage can be concentrated in one area to require 10 Mbps per transmission site. Unfortunately, current public safety spectrum allocations at 700 MHz

and 4.9 GHz for wireless data do not meet these needs, as data speeds do not meet

individual and aggregate demand levels, or service is limited geographically and

first responders must travel to hotspots to secure information—potentially losing

critical life-saving time. Attachment IV (Public Safety Spectrum Overview 1 and 2)

provides an analysis of the options available to public safety to satisfy high-speed

wireless data needs.

At the root of the problem are radio propagation and channel bandwidth. The

former results in signal degradation as the first responder travels farther from the

transmission site (or when walls or other obstructions lie between the two

endpoints). The latter results in decreased channel rates.

The propagation characteristics of radio frequency waves at 4.9 GHz and radio

frequency waves at 700 MHz are so different that they result in extremely high deployment costs and operational costs for 4.9 GHz systems. In particular, as the

transmitted frequency rises, the RF wave propagation transmission losses increase,

thus reducing the coverage area of a base station. Therefore, assuming the deployment of the same technology, complete coverage of a city like Washington, DC would

require significantly more sites at 4.9 GHz rather than at 700 MHz.

For instance, if we assume free space propagation conditions, all things besides

the frequency considered being equal, the range of a 4.9 GHz base station would

30

3The free space propagation at 1 km is 89.3 dB at 700 MHz, and 106.2 dB at 4.9 GHz. Those

17 dB propagation difference would result in a coverage radius ratio of 7 (coverage area ratio

of 49), between the two frequency bands. Therefore obtaining the same services provided by the

10 sites covering the city at 700 MHz today would require more than 400 sites at 4.9 GHz. 4See http://www.troposnetworks.com/pdf/SpectrumlWhitepaper.pdf for further details. 5This represents the paired amount of spectrum for frequency duplexed operation. Of this 12

MHz, 5.4 MHz is reserved for future applications by the FCC. The total number of 150 kHz

paired channels is 40.

be seven times smaller than the range of a 700 MHz station.3 Consequently, to provide citywide coverage would require almost 50 times the number of antenna sites

at 4.9 GHz as at 700 MHz. The District of Columbia has estimated that about 420

sites would be needed to provide comprehensive coverage throughout the city at 4.9

GHz instead of the 10 required at 700 MHz, leading to significant deployment costs

and prohibitive operational costs.

Actually, these comparisons are optimistic, as they are based on a free-space propagation assumption. In fact, the reality of the mobile propagation environment is

worse, and actually worsens for higher frequencies. As described in a white paper

published by TROPOS networks 4 natural or man-made obstacles generate propagation losses in addition to the free space propagation loss. In the referenced paper

the authors compare 2.4 GHz to 4.9 GHz propagation characteristics. However, for

the reasons explained above (propagation performance worsens as the frequency increases), the numbers in this paper would have to be considered lower bounds of

propagation differences between 700 MHz and 4.9 GHz.

Those significant additional signal losses at the higher frequencies suggest that

50 to 100 times more sites would be needed for wireless coverage at 4.9 GHz to

match coverage at 700 MHz. Thus, the 4.9 GHz spectrum is fundamentally limited

in reach and requires numerous repeaters to reach even marginal distances. It is

actually best suited to line-of-sight propagation, e.g. rooftop-to-rooftop communications, mesh-type networks where users can create a daisy chain for end-to-end communications, or short-distance communications around a fixed location (hot-spots).

Most public safety wireless data applications are expected to reach or support first

responders wherever they are located in the District, whether driving car in a park

or working in buildings. The 700 MHz band is the best-suited spectrum to support

those applications.

Channel Bandwidth and Numbers of Channels

The maximum channel bandwidth in the existing 700 MHz allocation to public

safety is 150 kHz. Technologies such as the standardized TIA-902 Scalable Adaptive

Modulation have been tailored to this channel bandwidth and offer speeds up to 460

kbps. Unfortunately, this bandwidth does not support multiple video streams for an

individual user. Furthermore, the 12 MHz 5 of radio spectrum set aside for wideband

data must be shared among three states and over a dozen public safety agencies.

Consequently, the District expects no more than three or four paired channels offering peak citywide throughput of 1.4 to 1.9 Mbps—far less than projected citywide

demand and much less than aggregate demand for one transmission site.

Requirements for Broadband Wireless Data for First Responders

First responders need video, Geographical Information Systems (GIS), high-resolution still images, and other broadband data wherever their work takes them. On

the highways, high-resolution images must be delivered as soon as possible. At the

farthest points of any service area, first responders need to send and receive video

for appropriate support. Further, first responders need broadband data delivered

deep inside buildings on portable handheld devices, just as voice signals are now

delivered by our new voice network. Table-1 below outlines the multiple requirements for broadband wireless data for first responders:

Table 1: Summary of Technical Requirements

General Requirements

User Throughput ................................................................................. Designed to 80% load

Downlink (kbps) ............................................................................. 1,500

Uplink (kbps) ................................................................................. 500

Scalability ........................................................................................... High, Minimal coordination burden when increasing

capacity.

Mobility ............................................................................................... Vehicular (>80 mph)

Coverage ............................................................................................. Wide area (95% of Outdoor Area)

Connectivity ........................................................................................ All IP addressable.

31

Table 1: Summary of Technical Requirements—Continued

Cost .................................................................................................... Comparable with existing cellular solutions.

Terminals ............................................................................................ Supports standard device interfaces and offers low

power consumption and small form factor options.

Large-Scale Incident Throughput Requirements

Aggregate Demand (Entire District) ..................................................

Downlink (kbps) ............................................................................. 56,100

Uplink (kbps) ................................................................................. 20,080

Throughput Concentration .................................................................. 70% of major incident traffic in 20% of the city geography

Per Site Throughput (demand) .......................................................... 10 sites with the above throughput concentration

Downlink (kbps) ............................................................................. 7,860

Uplink (kbps) ................................................................................. 2,951

Per Site Throughput (with margin) .................................................... Designed to ∼ 80% load

Downlink (kbps) ............................................................................. 10,000

Uplink (kbps) ................................................................................. 3,700

Net Capacity (Entire District) ............................................................

Downlink (kbps) ............................................................................. 100,000

Uplink (kbps) ................................................................................. 37,000

NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND SPECTRUM

Recognizing that our wireless high-speed broadband data needs were the same as

those of the rest of the nation, the District of Columbia founded the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety (see Attachment V, Spectrum Coalition Fact Sheet). Thirty

States, counties, cities, regions and public safety organizations quickly joined the

Coalition. The public safety communications organizations documented their support

in the attached letter (Attachment VI, Public Safety Organization Support for New

Broadband Spectrum Allocation). The Coalition’s objectives are to pursue legislation

that would require the FCC to reserve 10 MHz of radio spectrum for wide area public safety broadband wireless uses; to enable competitive, affordable technologies

that meet first-response requirements; and to facilitate nationwide network deployment. We have developed draft legislation (Attachment VII, First Responders Enhancement Act (FREA)) that calls for the spectrum allocation changes and have

briefed more than 35 House and Senate member offices on our goals.

Design and Installation of Pilot Network

The urgent needs of first responders in the District of Columbia required more

than pursuing legislation to facilitate network deployment. Our need is real and immediate. With the support of our public safety, technology, legislative, and executive

leaders and our corporate partners—Motorola, Inc. and Flarion Technologies, Inc.—

we obtained an experimental license from the FCC and are now installing the nation’s first high-speed broadband wide-area wireless network for public safety. One

additional partner, SAIC, is assisting us with application analysis. We have one live

transceiver site and can transmit broadband radio signals throughout the Capitol

Hill area. In late summer of 2004 we will complete installation of all 10 transceiver

sites in the network and will provide broadband radio coverage throughout the District of Columbia. We will use the pilot to refine our system requirements for

usability, scalability, reliability, and security. The applications planned for testing

on the network include remote chemical and biological agent detection, video surveillance; helicopter video support, bomb squad video support, GIS applications, and

EMS remote doctor support. This pilot network, with the full 10 MHZ allocation,

will meet the requirements outlined in Table 1.

CONCLUSION

As the nation’s capital, the District of Columbia faces unique and unusual public

safety communications challenges. We have met the first level of these challenges

by upgrading our public safety voice network to one of the best in the nation. We

look forward to complementing that network with the nation’s first citywide wireless

broadband public safety network, and we hope that our leadership of the Spectrum

Coalition will enable other jurisdictions to have the same public safety tools in the

near future. We appreciate the support that the Coalition has received in both the

Senate and House of Representatives and look forward to continuing our dialogue

with the nation’s leaders on the Coalition’s critical objectives.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Muleta? Welcome back.

32

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. MULETA

Mr. MULETA. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Upton,

Ranking Member Markey and other members of the Subcommittee

on Telecommunications and the Internet. I want to thank you for

this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the FCC to discuss our work in facilitating interoperability between the Nation’s

40,000 public safety communications systems.

Under the leadership of Chairman Powell, the commission has

intensified its efforts in this area and designated homeland security

and public safety issues one of the commission’s six core strategic

objectives. As September 11th vividly demonstrated, the ability of

public safety systems to communicate seamlessly at incident sites

with minimal onsite coordination is critical to saving lives and

property. The FCC is therefore committed to use all of its resources

to promote and enhance the interoperability of the thousands of

public safety systems that make up a critical part of our Nation’s

homeland security network.

Interoperability requires focus on more than spectrum, technology and equipment issues. It also requires focus on the organizational and personnel coordination and communication that is

necessary to make it available in the time of our greatest need. For

its part, the commission directs its efforts to, No. 1, providing additional spectrum for public safety systems; two, nurturing technological developments that enhance interoperability; and, three, providing its expertise and input for interagency efforts such as

SAFECOM to improve our homeland security.

To date, specific FCC efforts have included designating blocks of

spectrum between 100 and 900 megahertz for interoperability and

emergency services; adopting regional planning as an alternative

approach for spectrum licensing and management to drive coordination and communication, promoting and sharing of radio spectrum facilities, and adopting recommendations set by the Public

Safety National Coordination Committee, exploring the potential of

new technologies such as cognitive radios to enhance interoperability, and, finally, developing stronger day-to-day working relationship with SAFECOM and other critical organizations that help

drive interoperability.

It is important to note that despite all of our efforts, there are

limitations to what the FCC can do. The FCC is only one stakeholder in the process, and many of the challenges to interoperability exist because disparate governmental interests, local, State,

and Federal, individually operate portions of our national public

safety system. Each of these interests has different capabilities in

terms of funding and technological sophistication, making it difficult to develop and deploy interoperability strategies uniformly

throughout the country. Regardless of these problems, we at the

FCC continue to advance policies that enable all of the stakeholders to do their best in maintaining a strong and viable national

public safety system.

Turning to spectrum for public safety, the commission has currently designated throughout the country approximately 97 megahertz of spectrum from 10 different bands for public safety use.

Public safety entities also actively use spectrum-based services in

other spectrum bands.

33

For example, under the ultra-wideband rules, the ground penetrating radars and imaging systems enable public safety users to

detect the location or movement of people behind or within walls

or other structures, an important and potentially lifesaving tool.

Moreover, the available priority access services on some commercial wireless networks gives certain emergency personnel greater

ability to access commercial, cellular and personal communication

services in times of crises.

Looking at more recent public safety spectrum allocations, in the

last few years, the commission has made two allocations that illustrate the importance placed on assuring that public safety entities

have the sufficient spectrum to carry out their critical missions.

First, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the FCC

identified and allocated 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band for public safety used, as has been noted by many folks

today.

As part of this proceeding, the FCC dedicated 2.6 megahertz of

this spectrum for interoperability purposes. Given the central role

that states play managing emergency communications, the FCC

also concluded that the states are best suited for administrative

interoperability spectrum and that State level administration will

promote safety of lives, property through seamless coordinated

communications on interoperability spectrum.

The FCC also designated 50 megahertz of spectrum at 4.9

gigahertz for public safety users in the response to requests from

the public safety community for additional spectrum for broadband

data communications. The 4.9 gigahertz band will also foster interoperability in two ways: One, by providing a regulatory framework

where traditional public safety entities can license it on a shared

basis and where they can also pursue strategic partnership with

other non-public safety actors as needed for the completion of their

mission.

In addition to using its resources to identify additional spectrum,

the FCC has also provided for, No. 1, innovative licensing methods;

two, creating planning methods that encourage better coordination

and communication; and, No. 3, promoted new technologies. Foremost in this area, the commission adopted the regional planning

approach to spectrum management as an alternative to the traditional long-held belief in first-in-the-door approach to spectrum licensing and management in the public safety context.

In order to promote interoperability, the commission also permits

2 types of spectrum sharing. First, the FCC’s rules specifically provide for shared use of radio stations where licensees may share facilities on a non-profit, cost-shared basis with other public safety

organizations and end users. In July of 2000, the commission expanded this sharing provision. This rule also allows Federal Government entities to share these facilities as end users.

A second type of sharing is unique to the 700 megahertz public

safety spectrum. In this band, State and local public safety licensees may construct and operate joint facilities with the Federal Government. The commission took this action to encourage partnership

of FCC-licensed State or local government entities with Federal entities in order to promote interoperability and more efficient use of

the spectrum.

34

To promote the new technologies, the FCC chartered the Public

Safety National Coordination Committee, NCC, which operated as

a Federal advisory committee between 1999 and 2003. The NCC

recommended technical and operational standards to assure interoperability in the 700 megahertz public safety band. The NCC

worked with the Telecommunications Industry Association, a credited standard developer, to develop interoperability technical standards that are open and non-proprietary.

Moving on to the coordination issue, the FCC recognizes interagency coordination as an essential factor in developing effective

interoperability. To that end, my staff and other staff of the FCC

routinely confers with critical organizations, including APCO, the

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and International Association of

Chiefs of Police.

Moreover, my staff has been working closely with the Department of Homeland Security’s SAFECOM. The FCC and SAFECOM

share the common goal of improving public safety communications

interoperability. We are continuing to work on our collaborative efforts to develop a strong working relationship, both formally and

informally.

For example, the FCC is an active member of SAFECOM’s Advisory Group. In addition, FCC staff meets routinely with staff from

SAFECOM, including on several occasions where information was

exchanged and we received briefings. Most recently, we did this on

a March 11 presentation to SAFECOM’s Executive Committee on

matters pending before the commission. The FCC has also attended

and participated in several events hosted by SAFECOM, including

its 2003 Summit on Interoperable Communications for Public Safety and the 2004 Public Safety Communications Interoperability

Conference.

Moreover, on a personal level, Dr. Boyd and I have established

direct lines of communication between us to promote and ensure effective coordination regarding homeland security and public safety

communications initiatives.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in front

of you on this important issue affecting our homeland security, and

I will gladly answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of John B. Muleta follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. MULETA, CHIEF, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey and other Members

of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Thank you for this

opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Federal Communications Commission to discuss our work in facilitating interoperability between the nation’s public

safety communications systems.

Currently, there are more than 40,000 spectrum licenses designated for public

safety systems under the Communications Act. The Commission has the unique role

of providing spectrum for state and local governments to use as part of these systems. As a result, the Commission has had a long-standing commitment to the protection and enhancement of public safety communications systems. Under the leadership of Chairman Michael K. Powell, the Commission has intensified its efforts

in this area and designated homeland security and public safety issues one of the

Commission’s six core strategic objectives. As September 11, 2001 demonstrated, the

ability of public safety systems to communicate seamlessly at incident sites with

35

minimal on-site coordination is critical to saving lives and property. The FCC is

therefore committed to use all of its resources to promote and enhance the interoperability of the thousands of public safety systems that make up a critical part

of our nation’s homeland security network.

The Commission’s experience indicates that a holistic approach is the best method

for fostering interoperability. Achieving interoperability requires an emphasis on

more than spectrum, technology and equipment issues—it also requires a focus on

the organizational and personnel coordination and communication necessary to

make interoperability available in times of greatest need. For its part, the Commission directs its efforts toward providing additional spectrum for public safety systems, nurturing technological developments enhancing interoperability and providing its expertise and input for interagency efforts such as SAFECOM.

There are limitations, however, to what the FCC can do. The Commission is only

one stakeholder in the process and many of the challenges facing interoperability

are a result of the disparate governmental interests—local, state, and federal—that

individually operate portions of our national public safety system. Each of these interests has different capabilities in terms of funding and technological sophistication, making it difficult to develop and deploy interoperability strategies uniformly

throughout the country. Regardless of these problems, we at the FCC continue to

advance policies that enable all of the stakeholders to do their best in maintaining

a strong and viable national public safety system.

COMMISSION RESOURCES

The FCC works in an integrated and flexible fashion to assign spectrum for public

safety purposes. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and the Office of

Engineering and Technology (OET) share significant responsibility for intra-agency

projects related to interoperability technology and policy development. The Commission also maintains a Homeland Security Policy Council (HSPC) and created the Office of Homeland Security within the Enforcement Bureau to facilitate intergovernmental communications on homeland security issues.

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

WTB underwent a reorganization this past year that created the Public Safety

and Critical Infrastructure Division (PS&CID). PS&CID now has a clear focus—its

job is to administer the licensing rules for public safety radio networks and the related radio networks of critical infrastructure industries such as the nation’s utilities. The division also has the responsibility of promulgating rules that require wireless carriers to deploy E911 systems throughout the country for the benefit and use

of over 160 million cell phone subscribers—another critical element of the nation’s

homeland security system. The division’s routine day-to-day contact with public

safety licensees, their vendors and other stakeholders allows it to closely monitor

industry trends and needs. In 2003, WTB processed more than 529,000 public safety

and other private and mobile applications, including applications for new licenses,

license modifications and renewals, waivers, and requests for special temporary authority.

Office of Engineering and Technology

In addition to its responsibility for spectrum allocations, OET routinely assesses

vulnerabilities in communications networks and equipment and makes recommendations for facilitating improvements to network security, reliability and integrity. OET also evaluates new technologies and makes recommendations to the

Commission for rule changes which would enable their use to improve the communications capability of the nation’s public safety community. OET is the agency’s

principal point of contact with the National Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA) and in this role works with NTIA on spectrum issues that

affect both non-Federal and Federal government spectrum users, including state,

local and federal first responders.

Homeland Security Policy Council and Office of Homeland Security

The FCC’s Homeland Security Policy Council (HSPC), created in November, 2001

and composed of senior managers of the Agency’s policy bureaus and offices, and

the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) assist the Commission in implementing the

Homeland Security Action Plan. Among the directives of the Action Plan is to ensure that public safety, public health, and other emergency and defense personnel

have effective communications services available to them as needed.

Equally as important, HSPC and OHS ensure coordination with other federal,

state, and local entities that are involved with Homeland Security. For example, as

a partner with the Department of Homeland Security, the FCC has promoted regVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:44 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95444.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
36

istration of states and localities in the Telecommunications Service Priority and the

Wireless Priority Access Service programs. These programs provide wireline and

wireless telephone dial tone to public safety entities on a priority basis during and

following a disaster. HSPC members are also working with disabilities rights organizations to identify and resolve communications issues that have an impact on that

community during national emergencies.

In addition, HSPC and OHS work closely to support the Network Reliability and

Interoperability Council (NRIC VII) and Media Security and Reliability Council

(MSRC), two of the FCC’s federal advisory committees. Through NRIC VII, communications industry leaders provide recommendations and best practices to the FCC

focused on assuring optimal reliability and interoperability of wireless, wireline, satellite, paging, Internet and cable public communications networks and the rapid restoration of such services following a major disruption. MSRC does much the same

with the goal of achieving optimal reliability, robustness and security of broadcast

and multi-channel video programming distribution facilities. Public safety representatives are part of this effort since, during emergencies, TV and radio are sources

of information for citizens.

SPECTRUM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

The Commission currently has designated throughout the country approximately

97 MHz of spectrum from ten different bands for public safety use. Public safety

entities also actively use spectrum-based services in other spectrum bands. For example, under the ultra-wideband rules, ground penetrating radars and imaging systems enable public safety users to detect the location or movement of people behind

or within walls or other structures, an important and potentially lifesaving tool. In

addition, various frequencies are available from 2 to 25 MHz for emergency communications.

The Commission also grants licenses to public safety entities for non-public safety

spectrum to promote effective and efficient public safety communications. Such actions have allowed public safety entities to implement state-of-the-art communications systems and/or increase interoperability. Also, many public safety entities use

commercial wireless communications to supplement their other non-emergency communications. Finally, the availability of Priority Access Service (PAS) on some commercial wireless networks gives certain emergency personnel greater ability to access commercial cellular and Personal Communications Service (PCS) systems in

times of crisis.

Spectrum Dedicated for Public Safety Interoperability

The Commission has designated certain channels in the public safety bands for

public safety interoperability. A public safety entity may use these designated frequencies only if it uses equipment that permits inter-system interoperability. The

frequencies that have these so-called ‘‘use designations’’ include 2.6 MHz of the 700

MHz band, 5 channels in the 800 MHz band, 5 channels in the 150 MHz band (VHF

Band), and 4 channels in the 450 MHz band (UHF Band).

Starting on January 1, 2005, the Commission will require newly certified public

safety mobile radio units to have the capacity to transmit and receive on the nationwide public safety interoperability calling channel in the UHF and VHF bands in

which it is operating. Also, in the case of certain inland coastal areas, known as

VHF Public Coast areas (VPCs), the Commission has designated several additional

channels in the VHF band to be used exclusively for interoperable communications.

Recent Public Safety Spectrum Allocations

In the last few years, the Commission has made two allocations that illustrate the

importance placed on ensuring that public safety entities have sufficient spectrum

to carry out their critical missions. First, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act

of 1997, the Commission identified and allocated 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700

MHz band for public safety use. Second, the Commission made available for public

safety use 50 MHz of spectrum at 4.9 GHz.

To better facilitate use of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum, the Commission

adopted special rules and policies. It crafted provisions both to address the continuing interoperability issues among various public safety systems and to provide

flexibility to accommodate a wide variety of innovative uses. In particular, the Commission dedicated 2.6 MHz of this spectrum for interoperability purposes. Given the

central role that states provide in managing emergency communications, the Commission concluded that states are well-suited for administering the interoperability

spectrum and that state-level administration would promote safety of life and property through seamless, coordinated communications on the interoperability spectrum.

37

The FCC’s rules provide that the states may manage interoperability channels in

two ways: (1) they may establish a State Interoperability Executive Committee

(SIEC) or its equivalent; or (2) they may designate their Commission established Regional Planning Committees (RPCs). Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia elected to administer their interoperability spectrum. For the fourteen that did

not, the RPCs have been delegated the responsibility to administer this spectrum.

From the beginning, the Commission has recognized that the utility of this spectrum for public safety depended on taking actions, consistent with the current statutory scheme, to minimize, and ultimately clear, the broadcast use of this spectrum.

For instance, during the digital television (‘‘DTV’’) planning, the Commission minimized the use of channels 60-69. As a result, the new 700 MHz public safety spectrum on TV channels 63-64 and 68-69 is available now in many areas of the country. Because of the significance of this spectrum for public safety, especially first responders and interoperability, the Commission is actively considering ways to bring

the digital transition to its conclusion. Indeed, under the direction of Chairman

Powell, the Media Bureau has developed a bold framework that would provide a soft

landing and a clear conclusion for the DTV transition so that, in part, we can provide public safety with this additional spectrum.

The Commission’s second allocation, 50 MHz of spectrum at 4.9 GHz (4940-4990

MHz), promises to permit the use of new advanced wireless technologies by public

safety users. This spectrum is part of a transfer of Federal Government spectrum

to private sector use. The Commission initially proposed to allocate the 4.9 GHz

band for fixed and non-aeronautical mobile services and to auction it to commercial

users, with no designation of the spectrum for public safety use. In response to requests from the public safety community for additional spectrum for broadband data

communication, the Commission designated the 4.9 GHz band for public safety use

in February 2002 and adopted service rules in April 2003.

The Commission intended the 4.9 GHz band to accommodate a variety of new

broadband applications such as high-speed digital technologies, broadband mobile

operations, fixed ‘‘hotspot’’ use, wireless local area networks, and temporary fixed

links. The 4.9 GHz band rules also foster interoperability, by providing a regulatory

framework in which traditional public safety entities can pursue strategic partnerships with others necessary for the completion of their mission.

Licenses for this spectrum will be granted to public safety entities based on a ‘‘jurisdictional’’ geographical licensing approach. Accordingly, the 4.9 GHz spectrum

will be licensed for shared use. Under this approach, the Commission will authorize

4.9 GHz licensees to operate throughout those geographic areas over which they

have jurisdiction and will require them to cooperate with all other 4.9 GHz licensees

in use of the spectrum. In order to increase spectrum use and foster interoperability,

the Commission will permit licensees to enter into sharing agreements or strategic

partnerships with both traditional public safety entities, including Federal Government agencies, and non-public safety entities, such as utilities and commercial entities.

PROMOTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABILITY

There are a range of mechanisms that specifically promote interoperability. As

discussed above, the Commission has used its resources to identify additional spectrum. The Commission also has provided for innovative licensing methods, created

planning methods that encourage better coordination, and promoted new technologies.

Regional Planning

The Commission adopted the regional planning approach to spectrum management as an alternative to the traditional first-in-the-door approach to spectrum licensing and management in the public safety context. Regional planning allows for

maximum flexibility of the RPCs to meet state and local needs and encourage innovative use of the spectrum to accommodate new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology and equipment. The Commission has utilized this approach for

public safety spectrum in the 700 and 800 MHz bands.

Sharing of Radio (Spectrum) Facilities

In order to promote interoperability, the Commission has rules for two types of

spectrum sharing. First, the FCC’s rules specifically provide for shared use of radio

stations where licensees may share their facilities on a nonprofit, cost shared basis

with other public safety organizations as end users. In July 2000, the Commission

expanded this sharing provision. This rule also allows Federal government entities

to share these facilities as end users. A second type of sharing is unique to the 700

MHz public safety spectrum. In this spectrum band, state and local public safety

38

licensees may construct and operate joint facilities with the Federal government.

The Commission took this action to encourage partnering of FCC-licensed state or

local government entities with Federal entities to promote interoperability and spectrum efficiency.

Public Safety National Coordination Committee

The Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC) operated as a federal

advisory committee from 1999 to 2003 and recommended technical and operational

standards to assure interoperability in the 700 MHz public safety band. The over

300 members employed a consensus-based decision-making process to meet its

charge. The NCC was guided by an eleven-member Steering Committee and used

three subcommittees, each of them having several working groups to develop its recommendations, many of them highly technical. It submitted its final recommendations in July 2003.

The NCC developed recommendations on a technical standard for the narrowband

voice and data channels to ensure that police, firefighters, EMS and other public

safety officials using 700 MHz radios can communicate with one another instantly

on common voice and data channels. The same channels are designated for interoperability use everywhere in the United States. The Commission adopted the

narrowband voice standard and also a narrowband data standard in January 2001

as the NCC recommended.

The NCC also developed a recommendation for a wideband data standard and forwarded it to the Commission in July, 2003. This standard would give public safety

agencies a common ‘‘pipeline,’’ on 700 MHz wideband data interoperability channels,

with which to implement such applications as sending mug shots and fingerprints

to police vehicles, medical telemetry from EMS units to hospitals, blueprints of

burning buildings to firefighters and video coverage of incidents to the incident commander. The NCC worked with the Telecommunications Industries Association—an

accredited standards developer—to develop interoperability technical standards that

are open and non-proprietary. The Commission will consider the remaining NCC

recommendations, including the wideband data standard, in a future rulemaking.

Intelligent Transportation Systems Radio Service

In December 2003, the Commission adopted service and licensing rules for the

Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Service in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Radio Service in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band. It is envisioned

that DSRC would provide the critical communications link for ITS, which is key to

reducing highway fatalities, a high priority for the Department of Transportation.

The effective and expeditious implementation of DSRC not only benefits American

consumers by providing solutions to today’s transportation challenges and allowing

life-saving communications. It also provides public safety entities with another communications tool that can assist them in fulfilling their missions. To ensure interoperability and robust safety and public safety communications among DSRC devices nationwide, the Commission adopted rules requiring that the ASTM-DSRC

standard be used. The Commission also adopted licensing and technical rules aimed

at creating a framework that ensures priority for public safety communications,

thereby allowing both public safety and non-public safety use of the 5.9 GHz band.

Further, the Commission adopted a jurisdictional licensing approach similar to that

used for the 4.9 GHz band.

Cognitive Radios Proceedings

The Commission is actively exploring the potential of new technologies to enhance

interoperability and encourage network efficiency of public safety systems. One example of such new technologies is cognitive radios, which have the capability to

change their power and/or frequency, sense their environment, know their location,

and optimize their communication path. This technology holds tremendous promise

for public safety interoperability by making it possible for radios from different public safety systems to operate seamlessly at an incident site without prior coordination. The Commission has initiated a Cognitive Radio Technologies proceeding to examine the enhanced interoperability potential that these even more flexible technologies may offer.

COORDINATION

The FCC recognizes that interagency coordination is an essential factor in developing effective interoperability. To that end, Commission staff routinely confers with

the Department of Homeland Security’s SAFECOM. The FCC and SAFECOM share

the common goal of improving public safety communications interoperability. We are

39

continuing our collaborative efforts to develop a strong working relationship, both

formally and informally. For example, the FCC is an active member of SAFECOM’s

Advisory Group. In addition, FCC staff has met with staff from SAFECOM on several occasions for information exchanges and briefings, including, most recently, a

March 11, 2004 presentation to SAFECOM’s Executive Committee on matters pending before the Commission.

FCC staff also has attended and/or participated in several events hosted by

SAFECOM, including its 2003 Summit on Interoperable Communications for Public

Safety and 2004 Public Safety Communications Interoperability Conference. Moreover, DHS Deputy Director David Boyd and I continue to work together to further

promote and ensure effective coordination regarding homeland security and public

safety communications initiatives. We agree that it is critical that the FCC and

SAFECOM continue to work cooperatively to achieve our common interests of promoting homeland security and interoperability.

CONCLUSION

The FCC is dedicated to marshalling all of its resources and expertise in order

to ensure that adequate spectrum and technology is available for providing interoperability among the nation’s public safety systems. The Commission continues to

work with a wide range of stakeholders to foster and promote new policies, rules,

regulations and technologies related to public safety interoperability. Although some

of the challenges involved in bringing interoperability to public safety systems are

outside the scope of the FCC’s authority, the Commission continues to take a leadership role in trying to resolve these challenges.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue affecting our

homeland security.

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you much, all four of you. At this point,

we will go to questions from members of the panel.

Mr. Grube, I want to say I appreciated very much, your testimony, particularly as you referenced that there was no hard date

on the transition, that you are in limbo. I want to say I know that

I speak for the chairman, who will be asking questions soon, that

we do want a hard date, and we do want people to know when that

date will be, and we intend next month to have a hearing, yet another hearing on the transition, specifically on the Berlin model

and what we can learn from their experience.

Mr. LeGrande, those of us that share DC as a second home, for

those of us that commute from our states, Mr. Stupak and me from

Michigan, we appreciate the work that you have done to upgrade

our city’s resources here, and I have a couple of questions. You indicated in your testimony that the District firefighters had pretty

good interoperability, being able to communicate both above and

below ground with the subway system. Do the police have that

same capability? What about EMS? And what about their ability

to communicate with each other in those same scenarios?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Okay. First, the fire department does have seamless communications, meaning they don’t have to change their

radio channels or anything like that when they go from above or

below ground——

Mr. UPTON. I am actually a member of the Firefighter Caucus,

and actually there was 1 day, not too many years ago, that we actually rode with the department. They didn’t have that capability

then.

Mr. LEGRANDE. March of this year, that is when they got it. And

the police department’s upgrade will be completed in July of this

year.

Mr. UPTON. Will they be able to communicate with each other

then as well?

40

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes. We have intra-District—we call it intra-District interoperability where our police, fire and EMS do have the

capability above ground to interoperate now. When the police come

on in the subway system, they too will be able to interoperate as

they do now above ground.

Mr. UPTON. Did you experience cultural challenges, disputes between the two departments?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes.

Mr. UPTON. You have not sworn under oath, but we want your

honest answer.

Mr. LEGRANDE. I do have to go home after I leave here.

Mr. UPTON. They are outside the door waiting for you.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes, absolutely. But, you know, first, when I

went through the process, honestly, I understood. I paused to understand that over 30 years we have developed these systems and

just understanding based on a finite set of requirements and a

threat that is usually jurisdictional. So I kind of understood that

there was a reluctance on some parts to do that.

But I think what I have found in our first responders, not only

here but also in the various first responders that we have met

through the Public Safety Spectrum Coalition, that there is a commitment on their part, and I think that sometimes the difficulty in

culture is somewhat—I will just say somewhat exaggerated. I know

there are cases where it isn’t, but some cases they are very willing

to work together to help this communications problem.

Mr. UPTON. Dr. Boyd, you referred to their cultural challenges

between different departments. What do you see that we have to

do to overcome some of those challenges?

And, Mr. Muleta, I would like you to respond to that too.

Mr. BOYD. I think your insight that the cultural issue is a critical

piece of interoperability is on the mark. Our experience has been

that there is an increasing interest on the part of all the disciplines

in actually communicating with each other and jurisdictions in

communicating with each other. When you get to the details, it is

sometimes fairly difficult because it begins to threaten existing

structures.

We are finding increasing levels of cooperation, however, interdisciplinary as well interjurisdictionally. And one of the things that

we have discovered as crucial in creating interoperability is a governance structure that works from the lowest level up. Our experience has been that Federal interoperability efforts tend to fail because we try to drive them too often the top instead from working

from the bottom. The same thing happens at the State level. And

if you can build a really good model that starts with the most local

level and work up, then you can begin to really resolve interoperability.

We had a project recently with the State of Virginia, we will be

producing a report shortly, where we worked with them to experiment with exactly that model in the development of a statewide

plan, which we think is working out really well. And we started

that with the most rural, smallest jurisdictions in the State and

then worked our way around. That, we think, is the key to fixing

the cultural issues.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Muleta?

41

Mr. MULETA. I do think cultural issues exist, but at the FCC

what we have tried to do is a couple of things. One is we are spending a great deal of time with the various public safety communities,

both at the Federal and the State level, to sort of understand the

requirements and through the regional planning process sort of define a common set of issues and then work around those. So I think

that has been incredibly helpful.

Inside the FCC we have also make great strides in making sure

that there are no walls between various parts of the FCC. Chairman Powell has created the Office of Homeland Security and there

is a Homeland Policy Council as well as within my organization I

recently reorganized to put in all of the elements of public safety

issues, including E911, which really plays an important role in sort

of threat identification and management, to be part of our overall

look in public safety.

So between better coordination, a more holistic understanding

and planning of issues, we are trying to address these issues, and

I think, unfortunately, the events of the last few years where the

threat, as you mentioned, have been much greater, have helped

make all of us realize that we have to work together.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Stupak?

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

this hearing. I ask that my full statement be made part of the

record.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, all members’ statements will be

made part of the record.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a hearing earlier this month where we discussed basically the same challenges,

and I would be interested in knowing what has happened since

then. From what I can see, not much has happened. We still have

the same challenges, there is no funding, we still have the spectrum interference, as we are hearing about, we still don’t have any

real coordination plan in meeting this goal.

It has been almost 3 years since 9/11 and I really don’t see a lot

happening and I am really disappointed we didn’t have at least

some first responders here today to tell us what they are hearing

on the street, because while we have all these offices and new policies, even in a seamless radio connection like we have here at DC,

if the police officer or the fire department individual who’s out of

his car, out of the station cannot respond back and talk to each

other, it doesn’t do us a whole heck of a lot of good.

So let me ask Mr. LeGrande, in your seamless radio system here,

can a police officer outside his car talk back to stations, thing like

that, on his hand-held?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. All right. Can he talk to a fire department official?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. Can he talk to the Capitol Police?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. How about the Park Police?

Mr. LEGRANDE. In my testimony, there is a detailed status in the

attachment 3——

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

42

Mr. LEGRANDE. [continuing] and there are varying statuses of

where we are. Now, as far as the technical aspects of it, we put in

a system that will allow it. Currently, what we are doing is working through the standard operations procedures. So the technology

exists. We are working through the process to——

Mr. STUPAK. How many agencies do we have just in DC here

alone? Don’t we have like about 25 to 30 different agencies?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Twenty-four in the region.

Mr. STUPAK. Twenty-four. Can we all talk to each other?

Mr. LEGRANDE. From the DC perspective and from the DC police

and fire, we have the capability to talk to each one of those. We

are working on the finalizing the process. Before you can actually

go out and implement that capability, you really have to go

through a process definition and then a very detailed training. So

we are in the process of doing that. We are well on our way.

Mr. STUPAK. So a firefighter out of his wagon there, or whatever

you want to call it, he is in the building, he can’t talk to other

members from other agencies yet. That is still not there.

Mr. LEGRANDE. The capability exists, yes, for him to talk to

other agencies. And if he needs to right now, there is a process of

even patching him through right now. So I guess what I am giving

you a status of is that there is an ability for us to go—for him to

speak——

Mr. STUPAK. I don’t want to dispute it as an ability, but can they

actually do it? Are the actually doing it? I guess that is what I am

asking. It is almost 3 years now, and we saw $100 million in the

budget in fiscal year 2003 for a $6 billion to $8 billion problem. So

we put $100 million in the budget and that is been it.

So I guess what I am trying to get at here today, I have heard

a lot about abilities and robust planning and all this, but I mean

this has been going on for a long time.

I have been associated with law enforcement for 30 years. This

has been going on for 30 years, and we still don’t have it. I am not

blaming you guys. I am just maybe voicing a little frustration, but

I just really think that we really have to get at this and allow that

officer on the street or that emergency medical person to talk to

whoever they need to talk to and not have to worry about having

it patched back through dispatch and dispatch then patch it back

to somebody else.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Okay. Well——

Mr. STUPAK. And that is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. LEGRANDE. All right. Let me try to specifically answer your

question. With regards to the fire department, they have currently

the ability to speak to Washington Airport Authority, Fairfax

County, Fairfax County Police Department, Alexandria Fire Department, Alexandria Police Department, the Arlington Police Department and the Arlington Fire Department right now.

Mr. STUPAK. But can they talk to each other? I guess that is

what I am really asking.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Absolutely.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. LEGRANDE. I am sorry. Maybe I misunderstood your question.

43

Mr. STUPAK. So the command officer on the street can talk to the

guy up in the building and tell him what is going on.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. STUPAK. So we don’ t have the thing that happened at World

Trade Center where those people don’t know what is going on.

Mr. LEGRANDE. There are two questions you are asking——

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

Mr. LEGRANDE. [continuing] and I will just separate the two.

There are 2 problems on 911: Interoperability and in-building coverage.

Mr. STUPAK. Correct.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Okay. If you are in the District of Columbia, that

couldn’t be more underscored with the marble buildings that we

created here and we had to build that in our design. We put in a

new 10-site system which increased the coverage and capacity

within the District. We also added 63 vehicle repeater systems,

such that if there is a major incident, we can go and deploy these

vehicles which will get around building penetration radio signal.

So, yes, they can absolutely speak.

Mr. STUPAK. So in order to talk to them, they have to have that

repeater vehicle there.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Only if it is a very thick building requiring that,

and we know where those buildings are. And, by the way, those

units are some of the first units that are deployed.

Mr. STUPAK. Do you know how much money you have spent on

this system to try to get it to where it is at today?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Approximately $42 million.

Mr. STUPAK. $42 million. And did that come from the Federal

Government?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. STUPAK. So of the $100 million we have spent, $42 million

went to DC?

Mr. LEGRANDE. I believe that is the case. I can’t answer that

question.

Mr. STUPAK. Just sort of magnifies the need across the Nation.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes, it does, sir.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Barton?

Chairman BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

holding this hearing. I want to thank the panel for being here.

My first question is fairly elementary, but I want to make—all

these interoperability channels that we are talking about, are these

channels that only the first responders and law enforcement officials have access to or can anybody with a police scanner or monitor listen in on these channels?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes. These are channels that can be monitored.

Chairman BARTON. So anybody that—a terrorist, if they took the

time to go to Wal-Mart, could get a scanner and hearing everything

that was going on.

Mr. LEGRANDE. We, within the design of our system, at least

within the District of Columbia, included a significant amount of

encryption, which would prevent sensitive communications from

being monitored.

Chairman BARTON. What does that mean in plain language?

44

Mr. LEGRANDE. That we have the ability to make the signal between—an encrypted between one person and the other where they

couldn’t be scanned.

Chairman BARTON. They would just hear static.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Yes, or nothing at all.

Chairman BARTON. How often is that actually done?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Well, right now there hasn’t been any, I believe—I really can’t speak to that how often it has been done, but

the capability exists and is planned to be used in an incident where

we have to communicate sensitive information.

Chairman BARTON. Okay. That leads to my next question, and I

don’t know that this would be possible, but given the fact that most

law enforcement communication equipment can be scanned, would

it be possible to use some sort of a special cell phone or even a regular cell phone that had special priority, so that in the case of an

emergency you could code a certain code into the cell phone and

those calls would go through first and get priority? Because you

cannot or it is very difficult to monitor a cell phone call. Is there

any possibility to use some sort of a system like that?

Mr. MULETA. If I can address that question, I think, first of all,

the general question—maybe Mr. Grube can also address this—is

when you move to digital communications, it is much easier to

encrypt and therefore protect communications even if it is on a

public safety radio system. So part of the transition that we have

all been talking about is moving to a uniform standard that has

interoperability and enables visual communications.

Part of the transition process is to be able to upgrade, you know,

uniformly throughout the country all the systems so that, you

know, they receive the benefits of encryption and various things

like that. I think the second question you asked is is there a way

of providing what is known as priority access, that is, a program

that we have been working with folks at DHS on enabling into the

cellular system so that doing an emergency incident, you know,

such as like 9/11 then certain users, you know, Federal and public

safety users can get priority access on the commercial network. So

that is a program——

Chairman BARTON. That could be done?

Mr. MULETA. And it has been done for some commercial networks. And it is in the process of being rolled out. You know, it

takes a long time to, sort of, get all the procedures right. But we

know of at least one national carrier that has put it in place, and

others are in the process of considering it and trying to implement

that.

Mr. GRUBE. Mr. Chairman, if I could add some comments to that,

when we take a look at the interoperability, you know, it is all

about process, planning and platform, platform being spectrum

standards. When you look at the different levels of interoperability

from basic just sharing radios to level 6 that we talk about, which

is a common standard, the common digital P25 standard that law

enforcement has endorsed adds encryption very easily.

I mean, that was one of the things that the users said they wanted when that standard was devised is the ability to easily encrypt

it to a high level of encryption so that scanners, you know, from

the department store are not going to receive sensitive information.

45

That is available. So as we talk about interoperability in, No. 1,

joining together the people that need to talk to each other when

they need to.

No. 2 is just giving them day-to-day better operation when they

are just working within their jurisdiction. And that might mean

transmitting a mode that others can’t listen to the sensitive information. So as we do move forward with interoperability as the

agencies do move toward the digital standard, P25, they will have

that easy ability to add encryption so that their messages are not

received by others.

Mr. BOYD. If I can add a couple of cautions, though, that we need

to remember here, while P25 will allow encryption and that is built

into the standard for P25, many of the PAP systems currently that

are available that we are going to have to use for some time aren’t

very robust and have a difficult time in handling encryption when

you begin to try to gather systems that aren’t all P25 compatible.

That is the first issue.

And Mr. Stupak addressed, I think, in part the issue that it is

going to take some time for some of these other systems that are

going to have to be included to make that transition. So thinking,

planning—I think the point that Mr. Grube makes that is really

important is prior planning. And that is that the organizations on

the ground have to think out ahead of time both what they need

to encrypt and where it is going to go.

The second piece of it that is important to recall is that as we

think about things like reducing the size of channels, there is an

overhead associated with encryption. And so, we will have to consider the robustness of the encryption algorithms as we make these

decisions.

Chairman BARTON. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Ms. McCarthy?

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I think this hearing and the panelists who have

just testified has been one of the most realistic, down to earth presentations on the matter that we have had. And I appreciate your

pursuing this because I know you know how important it is that

we address this.

And we in the Congress have put out these great expectations

through our earlier legislation, but we have never really come to

grips with our role in carrying out the things that need to change

to make it able for you, Chief LeGrande to accomplish what you so

desire in the testimony you have before us today. So this whole

broadband transfer issue, I would love it if you have some further

wisdom to share on that.

I believe that, based on your testimony and what I have learned

over the past month and years, is really critical to public safety

that transfer has to happen. We have had hearings, but we have

really taken no action as a Congress, as a committee to address it.

But you lay out in your testimony all the reasons why it is necessary for our first responders to do their job adequately. And you

have convinced me that it is now time for the Congress to act.

46

And the funds needed for digital equipment so that wherever

they go they have got the high resolution video, whatever first responders need we haven’t paid for, we haven’t funded. So the Congress again has not done what is needed to make sure our first responders have the equipment that is interoperable.

I come from a community, Kansas City, where I have got two

States kind of like the Virginia, Maryland, and you have got the

District of Columbia to boot. But I understand the whole question

for first responders because that dilemma exists in the greater

Kansas City area, not just Kansas and Missouri and the river, but

even within communities.

In my little community of Independence, Missouri, Harry Truman’s hometown, the police and fire when they were trying to help

with a dramatic ice storm we had a couple of winters ago couldn’t

communicate on their equipment to go in and help each other onsite. They ended up using cell phones. But in a terrorist attack,

that is not a very good way to go.

So I guess my comment is I want to thank each and every one

of you for reminding us today that we have a role to play in this

in the Congress and we ought to be about it. But if you have some

further thoughts to share, I would welcome them at this time in

what little time I have left.

Mr. LEGRANDE. I thank you for your comments. We really appreciate that. I just want to clarify my title. I am not a first responder.

I am am a part of the technology organization, although I do appreciate the compliment.

Broadband is clearly the next thing for, not only first responders,

but it is the Nation. In meeting with, not only within the District

of Columbia, our own MPD and fire, they have provided us with

very stringent requirements on what they would like to be able to

accomplish in order to meet the threat that exists. This system

that we have already started to deploy on a pilot basis we already

have reached out to our Federal partners to create interoperability

with them, the U.S. Park Police and also the U.S. Capitol Police.

In fact, we can demonstrate within our current configuration a

video feed from a U.S. Park Police helicopter from that helicopter

that feed going into the FBI over to the MPD headquarters and out

through our wireless network. We can show you where a first responder in the Capitol Hill region would be able to receive that

feed via an Ipac computer, which is a small pocket computer or a

laptop computer that, of course, is ruggedized.

This type of increase in capability for our first responders is exactly what they need. We have a threat that is multiplying exponentially, and we have to increase our ability to survey or to provide surveillance systems so that our first responders aren’t completely tapped. They still have a domestic responsibility in addition

to the new international threat that is been added to us. So these

types of increases in technology will really help them to address

that need. So we welcome the opportunity to present this much further to this committee, both in the legislation that is already included in our testimony, but also in demonstrations that we are capable of performing now.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment?

Mr. GRUBE. Yes, I would.

47

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Grube.

Mr. GRUBE. Thank you for your kind words. And it is a pleasure

to be here. And I wanted to follow-up on the spectrum issue and

tie that back to the applications that the public safety people seek.

My team at Motorola has been doing trials for several years of

what—to be compared to the last 65 years of two-way voice communications for public safety as breakthrough, revolutionary step

change.

And back in 1997 when together, you know, we said let’s target

100 megahertz, you know, for the public safety community and

started making improvements toward that and most recently with

the 4.9 gigahertz band, at that time, of course, pre-9/11, we didn’t

really understand the total picture yet.

And I think, you know, as leadership operations here in the district and other agencies that we have trialed broadband technology

with, we have come to learn that not only will technology like this

make a difference when these special events happen, but they can

use it day-to-day in their operation to be safer, to be more efficient.

Some of the sound bytes that I have received firsthand from

some of the public safety people trialing this technology is, ‘‘don’t

take it away. I feel safer when that broadband’s streaming video

technology is in my squad car to send an image of that traffic stop

when I am out in the middle of nowhere sending that back to the

dispatch center or to my partners so they can watch my back.’’ I

mean, these are the kind of words that they are telling us.

So we have learned, I guess, just recently in the last couple of

years and since post-9/11 that, in addition to local broadband spectrum allocations of 4.9 gigahertz in addition to the high-speed data

for Internet browsing, some simple video, limited capacity at 700

in the 24 megahertz there is a compelling need—and this is what

the system in the district here is showing everyone for what I will

call—and I will use my words very carefully—wide area broadband

spectrum.

The 700 megahertz band is absolutely a sweet spot in terms of

economics to bring that type of technology which is now coming

into the industry, not only, you know, from companies like Motorola, but the entire industry.

A few weeks ago, the FCC had a very nice get-together on the

wireless broadband topic. I served as a panelist. And there certainly was a common thread that the industry was saying. And this

is not only for public safety. And I was there talking about that in

addition to the consumer world.

But they are saying there is this rich spectrum here. There is

new technology. We could deploy broadband, you know, for the industry. And we could deploy broadband for public safety. So the

key message is the technology is here, the needs are now realized.

And I think this additional spectrum that the district is talking

about at 700 megahertz would be a wonderful thing to really go

after and help enable as part of the platform for the public safety

people.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad I waived my opening remarks.

48

Mr. UPTON. You are lucky. I might just say before I yield to Mr.

Bass that there are a number of us from this panel that actually

witnessed that video transfer in Chicago. I think Mr. Engel was

with us that day. I think Mr. Bass and Mr. Terry were there that

day. And it is nice to hear as we listen to your testimony, Mr.

LeGrande, that it is actually now that we are seeing it come into

the field versus just a demonstration.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Bass?

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was rather surprised to hear that the system that you installed in the district cost $42 million. I am not saying it is high or low, but it is certainly a lot of

money. And wondering about the question as to whether or not as

we plan this interoperability and these new communications systems that we really have the best, most modern, diverse systems

that we can possibly get.

I recall when I was on the Transportation Committee the FAA

was authorized to spend an enormous amount of money on a new

radar system which ended up being obsolete before it even arrived

at the FAA centers, as I recall. And it cost many billions of dollars.

In the course of examining these systems, are you looking—let

me start again. We had a hearing the other day in this committee

in which we looked at the most unbelievably interesting new concepts for broadband communication and so forth.

And it has been my experience when you get into various sectors

of government, the police or the fire departments or, you know, law

enforcement, FAA, other agencies, they tend not to look outside of

their own existing technologies, how they have always communicated, two-way radios with a microphone over your shoulder and

so forth.

The fact is that a cell phone with a little television screen on it

is probably not a bad way to communicate. Or it might be used as

a basis upon which the agency—in this case, homeland security—

looks at entirely new mechanisms and technologies outside of traditional radio communication, which provide by their very definition

interoperability maybe a lot cheaper and with the ability to implement before digital transition occurs.

I am just curious if anybody in the panel has thought about this

or, first of all, understands my question, but second, has thought

about or has observations on whether the decisionmakers here are

really looking at the big picture and trying to come up with a mission or a plan that doesn’t get obsolete before—isn’t obsolete before

it is implemented.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Mr. Bass, first I would like to begin by agreeing

with you that, yes, we should evaluate in parallel to addressing the

urgent need for our first responders today, in parallel to that effort,

you really evaluate emerging technologies and possibilities in the

future. Currently I don’t believe there exists a commercially available solution that we could quickly move to because the threat is

so real and our needs to tie our first responders together is so important right now and time is of the essence.

As Mr. Stupak mentioned earlier, we didn’t have the opportunity,

nor would I suggest that other public safety organizations had the

opportunity to move that quickly to the other solutions that exist.

49

A maturity needs to occur in moving to those solutions. And that

is why we are piloting our broadband network within the district

first.

We are going to run that pilot over a year as an experimental

license that was already approved by the FCC for broadband communications. We are going to test security, reliability, maintainability. And those are some of the just varied components that we

have to go into that maturity model before you can actually deploy

these networks operationally.

The last thing we want to do is move quickly to either a commercially available solution or build our own solution based on commercial technologies without testing it out thoroughly because then

we would run into a much larger problem. And so, what my suggestion to you, sir, is that first you have to start solving your shortterm problem but in parallel work on the long-term solution that

could take you to another place.

Mr. BOYD. I would like to add some——

Mr. BASS. Yes, before others respond, can I just add one other

part to the question? Is there communication between homeland security and the military so that you guys know how the communication systems are working now with soldiers in Iraq, for example,

and how well the interoperability issues that exist there and so on?

Mr. BOYD. In fact, that opens up an interesting question that I

think you need to address in understanding the field. Now the first

one is that I am retired from the United States Army. We are, in

fact, working directly now with the Department of Defense with

Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul McHale’s office. We have

worked with the National Guard, and the National Guard participates as a part of our executive council. And I have gone to address

the Defense Science Board on a number of occasions.

There are a number of things you have to remember. And the defense model is an interesting one to remember. The Defense Department first became interested in becoming interoperable some

10 years before I was commissioned a second lieutenant in the

United States Army. It did work diligently at that. And today,

some 12 years after I retired from the Army, they are almost interoperable. That is four services in a single department that is funded essentially by a single committee.

In this community, we are looking at 50,000 independent agencies who are funded by the city councils, county commissions, by

the states and others. These are organizations which, for the most

part, have communication systems which have a life cycle that is

on the order of 30 or 40 years. Within the technology life cycle, it

is 18 to 24 months.

So part of the difficulty we have is how do you make sure that

you don’t leave behind the community that can’t afford to upgrade

its system but needs interoperability now, too. And so, how do you

bring these together?

It is, I think, tempting to imagine that there is a single standard

and a single technology that is going to solve the problem. There

is not. The reality is that we will always have multiple systems

over a period of time, even when we arrive at fairly common standards because we don’t want to stop the innovation of the technology.

50

And so, you may have newer technologies developing that will always require us to think ahead about how we are going to tie them

together. Which is why the approach—we took a batch of systems—

you need to think about routine communications and emergency

communications. The things that you use routinely need to be the

same things you are going to use in an emergency, otherwise they

not only won’t know how to use them—the military operates on the

same basis—they may not even know where they are stored.

So you need to use the same kinds of systems in both cases. And

you need to understand which parts of your routine communications you can off-load onto, for example, the commercial structures.

In fact, one of the things we are working with local law enforcement with is to help them to understand where they can build in

as part of their plan some of the commercial infrastructure.

But it is important to understand that the cellular and the public

switch telephone network, that is the wired network, are built only

for a capacity that is about 10 percent over the normal capacity,

which is why during rush hour you frequently can’t get a call on

a cell phone. And in an emergency, almost by definition, those systems are overwhelmed almost immediately.

So there has to be an emergency foundation that the public safety community can fall back on. And we have to understand that

while we don’t want to take 45 years as Defense did to get to interoperability, we also are not going to get there in 1 or 2 years.

Mr. BASS. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MULETA. Mr. Engel?

Mr. UPTON. Do you want to respond to that question?

Mr. MULETA. Yes, I think it is an important issue, and I just

wanted to give you a couple of points that I think are very important. One is the kind of requirements development that DHS

through SAFECOM is doing right now will really help. A lot of

times the tradition has been in the public safety environment that

you, sort of, take the equipment as is, that, sort of, technology is

leading as opposed to the requirements leading. So I think that is

a very important step in terms of the cultural change that is going

on.

In terms of what the FCC has been doing, in various proceedings

that we have had regarding public safety radios, we have tried to

incorporate standards-based approach into the use of the spectrum.

So, for example, the 700 megahertz, the process that we used there

included regional planning, and it also included the adoption of

project 25 into what public safety can use there. In terms of the

intelligent transport system, which is something we work cooperatively on with FAA which is about vehicular accident effectively

systems that are just put on a terrestrial basis that feed information or allow communications for DOT and DOT-sponsored organizations. We again used various standards-based technology to be

adopted in that order.

So as, you know, car makers and as people are developing radio

systems to use that, they are, you know, effectively using off-theshelf components. And they are riding the curve, the technology

curve and the cost curve. But the commercial world experiences a

lot faster than the public safety has traditionally.

51

In 4.9 gigahertz band, which is 50 megahertz dedicated to public

safety, again, we used basically equipment, you know, sort of,

standards that are used in the 5.8 gigahertz, which is where a new

allocation of Y5 is being placed. And so, other things that we are

doing are cognitive radios, effectively helping the development of

technology that allows radios to, sort of, flexibly move from one

band to another.

And so, in the case of an emergency if everything is tapped out

in spectrum a, you can move to spectrum band b. So the FCC has

a proceeding on this. So a lot of what we are working on is trying

to get to standards-based solutions and embed them into the regularity model that we are using so that people won’t be caught—you

know, actual operators like Mr. LeGrande won’t be caught short as

technology moves or the cost curve declines significantly in the

commercial world.

Mr. GRUBE. Mr. Chairman, I have another comment.

Mr. UPTON. Just very quickly. I stopped the clock.

Mr. GRUBE. Congressman Bass, Terry and Chairman Upton,

thanks for looking at the high-speed data pilot that we had in Chicago. And I think that, you know, one of the take-aways when public safety looks at deploying their own private networks is your

original question does come up a lot. And that is can we use a consumer-based carrier network for the first responders. And they do

use them from time to time.

But if you look at the economics of a carrier system, it is driven

by putting just the coverage that you need where the highest population of people is. And it may not be the third sub-basement where

the firefighter has to go or the police officer has to go. It may not

be the far reaches of the county where the State patrol officer has

to go. So coverage is always a key thing. And that is one of the reasons the private networks are here.

And I think that—and one of your other questions dealt with the

technology that is here and questioning is this here to stay. I think

the basic two-way voice—if you talk to the people who carry guns

and hoses, their primary need is to push the button and to be instantly heard by someone at the end of that radio communications

path. Others around them that are supporting the scene or supporting, directing what they do, those are the ones that also need

that capability plus all of the richness that we have talked about

in terms of video and Internet access and those things.

And again, if we take a look at the carrier networks, we learned

a big lesson during the major blackout last year in the Northeast.

Half of—about half of the carrier cellular sites were down. And

that is because economics just don’t motivate the carriers, you

know, to design around that. Whereas if you look at the State of

Michigan, their system was fully operational. Everything was

taken into account for, not only capacity spikes, but also in terms

of power outages.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Engel?

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. This proves time and time again why this is a

great subcommittee and why we are always on the cutting edge of

things that are really on people’s minds.

52

I know Mr. Stupak spoke about September 11 and the problem

in my home State of New York about the policemen and firemen

talking to each other. But, you know, just Monday, a couple of days

ago, I was meeting with police, fire and EMS officials in Ramapo

in Rockland County which is a northern suburb of the city of New

York in my district. And we were talking about rail security.

And the fire inspector there said to me, ‘‘You know, our biggest

problem is if we have an emergency, the first cop and first firefighter on the scene can’t talk to each other on their radios.’’ So

this is obviously something that we are still hearing from all across

the country.

I wanted to mention before I asked my questions that I have

worked on a bill, a bipartisan bill with my colleagues on this committee, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Fossella, to provide the funding that

our local first responders need. It is called the Public Safety and

Interoperability Implementation Act, which is H.R. 3370. And what

it does is it would reserve a portion of future spectrum auction revenues and place them in a trust fund for helping State and localities in paying for these new systems.

So, Dr. Boyd, when you mentioned that smaller communities,

smaller areas and towns really don’t have the money, we would envision that if this bill were to be passed and implemented that that

would be a way of providing those kinds of funds.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous consent. I have with me

a letter from the county executive of Rockland County, Scott

Vanderhoef, requesting assistance in obtaining Federal funds for

the complete overhaul and upgrade of emergency communications

in Rockland. Even though he was my opponent in 2002, I will certainly be helping him because he is right. And I would just ask

unanimous consent to enter into the record his letter as an example of what our localities are facing when trying to afford an interoperable system. I will ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection.

[The letter follows:]

COUNTY OF ROCKLAND

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE

NEW CITY, NEW YORK 10956

June 3, 2004

The Honorable ELIOT L. ENGEL

The United States House of Representatives

2264 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-3217

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ENGEL: This letter is to request your assistance with a matter of great importance to the citizens of Rockland County.

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, more than $23 billion have been

appropriated to help States, municipalities, and first responders improve preparedness for future acts of terrorism or other emergencies. And since March 2003 the

Department of Homeland Security has specifically helped first responders prevent,

prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism.

As you know, Rockland County is located a mere 15 miles north of the George

Washington Bridge. Along with its close proximity to New York City, Rockland lies

within the response area for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Center. Interstate

highways, rail traffic and Hudson River access pose certain challenges in protecting

our most vulnerable and valuable assets.

I thank you for introducing the Public Safety Interoperability Implementation Act

in order to focus the resources of the federal government on those areas that are

most vulnerable. Homeland Security Interoperable funds could help facilitate the

implementation of Phase II of Rockland County’s Public Safety System CommunicaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:44 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95444.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
53

tions Project. This project is designed to allow our fire, police and ambulance responders to effectively communicate with each other even under the most challenging of circumstances.

I am sure you can appreciate that this project should be considered one of the

highest of priorities among all government levels. Terrorists are not arbitrary in

their selection of targets and some of the region’s most vulnerable sites and communities lie within the 17th Congressional District.

Therefore, I present the attached project outline in hopes of accessing federal

funds for this invaluable project.

Thank you for your consideration and continued advocacy on behalf of the citizens

of Rockland County.

Very truly yours,

C. SCOTT VANDERHOEF

County Executive

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.

Mr. LeGrande, I appreciate you have put so much time working

into the engineering design of the DC system. Obviously we are all

concerned. We work here. And DC faces many unique problems

caused by overlapping agencies and jurisdictions.

And I applaud you for making interoperability with the Metro

subway system a priority. I am wondering, though, how much

training is going on so that Metro workers, police, fire and EMS,

know what is going on. How many hours of training does a Metro

worker receive? Do they receive training for this sort of thing?

Mr. LEGRANDE. Well, the system that we put in for our fire department doesn’t require any additional training to use it in the

Metro system. It is seamless, and in just the same way they use

it above ground, they use it below ground and while riding on the

trains. So no additional training is needed there.

Mr. ENGEL. What about the Metro worker?

Mr. LEGRANDE. When you speak of the Metro workers, they have

their own communications systems and their own set of training

54

that is gone on. Their systems have been in place for quite some

time, so I don’t think there was any additional training needed for

them. ENGEL: All right. Now you mentioned that your system has

interoperability capabilities with the Capitol Police. Am I correct?

You said that they did.

Mr. LEGRANDE. For the U.S. Capitol Police, who I said is we put

the capabilities in, yes, to have interoperability with them. And we

need to work out those standard operating procedures with them

to facilitate that communication.

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. Obviously Capitol South Metro is adjacent to

the Cannon Building, and our police, the Capitol Police, would respond to an incident there. Has there ever been a drill held at that

location?

Mr. LEGRANDE. None that I am aware of. I am here representing

the technology that we put in. The actual operations of the police—

that would really have to come from the MPD. I can find out the

answer to that question for you, though.

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. And would you know how often drills are

held?

Mr. LEGRANDE. No.

Mr. ENGEL. Do you have any idea if that includes the Metro Police, fire and EMS?

Mr. LEGRANDE. I wouldn’t know the answer to those questions,

no, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. If you could find that out for me, I would appreciate it.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Okay.

Mr. ENGEL. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Grube, I want to thank you for the information. It was very

extensive. There have been some efforts to immediately move to TV

stations operating on channel 63, 64, 68 and 69 off. And I am wondering if you could give me some information about that.

Mr. GRUBE. Well, one of the—there are several methods. And one

is to simply relocate the channels, the TV stations that are in those

channels down to a lower channel but still transmit in the analogue mode. That is one way. And some stations have applied for

waivers to do that, I understand.

Another way is to have them move in the move to the digital

mode when they move out of that band and to provide the 3 percent of the households, according to the independent analysis that

we did, with digital to analogue converter boxes so that they could

still—that those consumers could still continue to use the analogue

TV equipment that they have today. Those are a couple of the

methods.

Mr. ENGEL. Well, we have a problem in New York. I don’t know

if you are aware that there are adjacent TV channels that are in

use. Would those TV signals cause interference? And would we

have to shut down those adjacent channels as well?

Mr. GRUBE. They can’t—yes, they should be included in the analysis because, you know, a 5 megawatt transmitter spectrally next

to, you know, a poor, little homeland security radio could be an

issue. So I think that has been included in the analysis that we

have done. And it is very important to consider those stations as

well.

55

Mr. ENGEL. Because, for instance, in the New York City metropolitan area, channel 67 is Univision on Long Island. And channel

68 is Univision in Newark, New Jersey. And both serve the New

York City area. And during an emergency, obviously Spanishspeaking people turn to Spanish language news. Thus there is a

competing safety concern as well. So I am happy that it is included

as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Fossella?

Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen.

For Mr. Muleta, thank you for your testimony. Currently FCC is

looking at giving public safety additional spectrum and other band

widths. Is that correct?

Mr. MULETA. Yes.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Some have suggested that additional spectrum at

the 700 megahertz band would be more useful for offering interoperable broadband services. Do you agree with this?

Mr. MULETA. Seven hundred megahertz has, as we have talked

about, good propagation characteristics. And there is already 24

megahertz that is been allocated at 700 megahertz for use by public safety.

Mr. FOSSELLA. So in light of the ongoing discussion, do you think

having a larger block of spectrum in that single band width to

allow for more efficient use of spectrum makes the interoperability

easier to achieve than what is currently proposed? Or as stated

otherwise, is a single block of spectrum better than the fragmentation of spectrum and other bandwidths?

Mr. MULETA. Well, I think there is already an allocation of the

700 megahertz. There is 24 megahertz that is been allocated. There

has been a national plan put in place, a unified standard for the

technology in project 25.

I think the issues that, you know—the solution to the problem

that we have today on interoperability have more to do with planning, coordination, communication and, you know, sort of, actual

deploying them, getting the dollars out to get the systems up and

also obviously the fact that that spectrum is encumbered with the

broadcasters.

So additional spectrum—you know, additional blocks of spectrum, I think, would always be useful in any communications context, whether public safety or any other application. I don’t think

the current—that, you know, today an additional block will get us,

sort of, the uniform interoperability that we are all looking for because I think those require communication coordination and planning more so than additional spectrum, from my perspective.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. LEGRANDE. Could I add a response to that question, sir?

From our perspective, the 24, while it has been allocated to public

safety, the current configuration of the 24 does not allow for wide

area broadband use. So on the issue of interoperability, I don’t disagree. But on the issue of deploying wireless broadband technologies in the current 24 megahertz configuration, we cannot do

that over a wide area.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Muleta, in light of that, do you have any comment?

56

Mr. MULETA. Yes, I think there have been several different requests that have come through for additional blocks of spectrum.

I think by statute Congress has—you know, 24 megahertz was allotted to public safety. The additional spectrum was for commercial

uses for auction at various times. And I think there are, you know,

countervailing tradeoffs.

I think again the key is to get interoperability into the hands of

the folks today as quickly as possible. As Mr. LeGrande so aptly

put it, there needs to be interoperability then interoperability and

laying an additional amount of spectrum, although it is useful as

part of our planning process, we need to—I think it needs to go

through the whole process of what the statute has asked FCC to

do, which is to design it for—this additional spectrum for commercial uses.

Mr. LEGRANDE. I would just disagree with the characterization

that it will be helpful. It is needed for public safety to have wireless broadband technologies available in order to address the threat

that exists to our country. So I totally agree that the 24 megahertz

in the current interoperability plans and the efforts that we are all

making here. But it is important that we also move right now to

providing that ability for our first responders.

Mr. GRUBE. Could I add a comment? You know, I think the original Biswick Report did not contemplate at that time wide area

broadband wireless. And what we have been discovering in the last

few years is that there is a real need for this, one that we didn’t

see before so that when we talk about the 700 megahertz band,

presumably we are going to fix this, we are going to clear it. That

is a voice interoperability, the basic data, not the wide area

broadband. And its proximity to the 800 megahertz band in total

makes a very nice economical way for the industry, like Motorola,

to provide product across those 2 adjacent bands.

But in addition to that, to solve the needs that we have been discovering together about broadband, we feel strongly that an additional allocation is required. And since public safety is already

bracketed by the 24 megahertz below and the 800 megahertz

above, it makes a lot of sense to consider public safety and Federal

broadband, wide area broadband interoperability in this 30 megahertz that we are talking about.

And I think that the economics will help determine this as well

because from a propagation point of view, when you take a look at

the cost to go build a 700 megahertz wide area broadband system

for a relatively few number of users—and I say that about public

safety because if you look at the user density per square mile for

public safety, it is a different equation, probably by a factor of 100

relative to the consumer world.

And so, if you are a carrier and you are contemplating the bands,

you are probably already talking about smaller cells that spectrum

such as the 2.1 gigahertz band or others up in that area would be

very attractive in terms of spectrum that they would like and pay

money through an auction. So I think that we have to together look

at those options for the carriers that want to create a business

there and really take as a priority the sweet spot, if you will, at

700 megahertz for public safety.

57

Mr. BOYD. Just as a quick note, the public safety community will

tell you that right now they have a lot of priorities, but two fundamental priorities. One of them is the elimination of the interference

problem on 800 megahertz. And the other is additional spectrum.

And they will tell you their priority concern, while they are interested in all kinds of communications, is always going to be voice.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Stupak has a couple of additional questions.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If the priority and if their basic system is always voice, then

what is standing in the way of just going and getting voice out

there so they can talk to each other? I mean, they all have voice

now as a basic component. They are on different frequencies. And

we have the technology that already exists and has been around for

a long time to allow different frequencies to speak to each other.

So why don’t we as a first step, almost 3 years after 9/11, just do

that part so they can just talk to each other? Can that be done?

Mr. BOYD. A number of efforts were already being done to do

that. In fact, most of the major urban areas, even beyond the U.S.

areas that are defined by ODP have, in fact, patch technologies and

patch devices in place. But even these require some time to put in

place because it is not just a technical problem. Part of it is a technical issue and, of course, the costs associated with training and

planning that goes with it. But the other part of it is very much

a cultural issue.

In 1993 when I first put together an interoperability initiative in

this case, we wanted to try to allow all of the agencies, Federal,

State and local in San Diego County to communicate with each

other. And we used a fairly primitive switching technology, nothing

as good as exists right now.

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. Right.

Mr. BOYD. It took us 30 days to implement the technology with

us paying for it. It took 2 years to get all the agencies to agree to

play a role.

Mr. STUPAK. But don’t you think that is all changed since 9/11?

I mean, not all changed, but has really lessened since 9/11 and the

different needs and different things that we are asking them to do

from the Federal Government from a terrorism point of view?

Mr. BOYD. I think it is much easier to get people on the same

sheet of music.

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

Mr. BOYD. But you still have to take the time to do that.

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

Mr. BOYD. And that means that you need to set up a process that

brings in—the way we talk about it is that you need to set up a

process that lets the local guy have a serious incentive, that makes

him want to be part of this. There is a tendency to try to force

things from the top down, whether it is from the Federal level or

the State level.

Mr. STUPAK. Right, I agree.

Mr. BOYD. And you cannot do that in this community.

Mr. STUPAK. But the incentive for doing it is just basic safety.

It is basic safety. It is more and more municipalities are going to

one-person cars which they did not do before. And I think we can

58

see it from a number of examples. Going back to San Diego there,

if you could do the technology in 30 days, what was the cost then?

Mr. BOYD. Well, at that time, we used an existing Navy switch

panel to do that.

Mr. STUPAK. Right.

Mr. BOYD. And it essentially was a manual patch, and operators

sat there and tied them together.

Mr. STUPAK. Right.

Mr. BOYD. It is not like they put them now. I would say we probably invested to do that in that county just to do the technology

about a half a million dollars. That did not support—understand it

was—it took more to do that.

Mr. STUPAK. Right. Yes.

Mr. BOYD. But that doesn’t support the continuing training and

the manning of the system and so on.

Mr. STUPAK. Right. But now with a lot of jurisdictions going to

911 and emergency 911, E-911, it is a lot easier to do this now, to

get the coordination and jurisdictions down under at least one call

center.

Mr. MULETA. If I could answer that question——

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, go ahead.

Mr. MULETA. Well, I think most jurisdictions, public safety answering points which deal with E-911 are different than the public

safety radio systems which are usually allocated. You know, the

public safety answering point is——

Mr. STUPAK. Sure, but doesn’t the 911 also not only answer but

also dispatches?

Mr. MULETA. It dispatches, but it goes through, I believe—let’s

say it dispatches directly to the metropolitan police department

which then makes a decision to go to. So there isn’t a direct link

to the officer on the ground. It has actually to go through——

Mr. STUPAK. Well, we in the rural areas still do it correctly. We

don’t have a metropolitan to go through. So we are usually receiving and directing right back out to the cars. And that is why interoperability is so important when you are dispatching to a State,

local or county sheriff. I mean, it is all got to be the same.

Mr. Boyd, if I can go back, of the $4.4 or so in Department of

Homeland Security grants that have gone out the last 2 years, do

you know how much has been dedicated to interoperability?

Mr. BOYD. That is a really tough question. And I can explain

why. We know in the case of the interoperability grants in COPS

and FEMA last year, about $75 million in each agency. We know

that that was interoperability money.

Mr. STUPAK. Right.

Mr. BOYD. And, in fact, we participated in helping to set up the

selection process to do that. And we know that the $85 million in

the COPS Office this year is interoperability. Most of the rest of

the money, however, is block grant money which goes to the states.

Mr. STUPAK. Correct. Correct.

Mr. BOYD. And as you know, once it gets to the State, the State

then can provide it to localities for any of a series of authorized

uses. The states aren’t obligated to report back on how much of

that is actually used for interoperability, for example.

59

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. Yes, last week I was going to do an amendment on the House floor, and Chairman Rogers thought that you

might be able to come up with those figures because I didn’t want

to waste the money. I would rather see the money go into the

interoperability——

Mr. BOYD. In fact, we may be able to help you. I am not sure

about——

Mr. STUPAK. But even in Michigan—we called Michigan. They

have received about $120 million, and they could not tell me how

much was interoperability. Hopefully there will be some way we

can focus on this in the next few months because we are looking

at a huge price tag. And we talk a lot about Federal Government

having to take leadership. And we certainly do have to put the

money forward for this. So we would be interested to see what has

gone in there and how much it is going to take.

Mr. BOYD. Yes, one of the pieces that may help you with that,

that we hope will help you with that because we think it is crucial

to what we are doing——

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

Mr. BOYD. [continuing] is a baseline survey which we are initiating right now. Now this survey will take probably about a year

to complete. But we want to try to get a picture of what the level

of interoperability is. And you can’t go to any place now. You can’t

go to a data base.

Mr. STUPAK. Right.

Mr. BOYD. You can’t go to a source and say, ‘‘What is the level.’’

So we want to do a really well-designed survey to get a picture of

what that baseline is because we need to bounce that against the

statement of requirements we have just produced, figure out what

the gap is and then we can give people realistic estimates of what

it is going to take to move to interoperability.

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, and you might want to take a look at Michigan. They have been one of the leaders in it. But still, even with

your new system—they just did it statewide to the State police.

They still have 1,000 public safety agencies in the State still not

tied into it and still don’t have the interoperability. So that is a

good place to start because they just completed theirs last year.

Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir. I spent some time working with Mike Robinson. I am familiar with the system.

Mr. STUPAK. Good.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I would just comment on the fact that

was raised about E-911. I had the occasion to make an E-911 call

the other day at 6:30 in the morning. And the system here works.

I was on the bridge coming from Virginia to DC, saw a terrible accident and called in. I was immediately patched to PSAP somewhere in DC and identified that it was Arlington County. Or the

accident actually was. And they responded. So the system is working.

And this is a very important subject, that one as well as interoperability. I am pleased to see that things seem to be in place and

moving forward in the right direction. But obviously the rest of the

country, whether it be in Michigan or other places are on the ball

as well.

60

And just as I talk about E-911, I lament the fact that this subcommittee and committee in Congress, thanks to bipartisan help in

a major way passed a very good E-911 bill. And it is still languishing more than a year later in the other body, as they like to

say. Some of us like to say the lower body, but we won’t say that.

But again, I appreciate all of your work. This is a very important

topic, not only for us, but for the country. And we appreciate your

leadership. We look forward to working with you as we move the

ball down the field.

This hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ