U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

44–392 PDF 2008

ISSUES IN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: THE

911 MODERNIZATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACT

OF 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

THE INTERNET

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 3403

SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

Serial No. 110–66

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

Vice Chairman

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

JOE BARTON, Texas

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director

(II)

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

Vice Chairman

JANE HARMAN, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

GENE GREEN, Texas

LOIS CAPPS, California

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)

FRED UPTON, Michigan

Ranking Member

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSELLA, New York

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2

Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 3

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois, opening statement .................................................................................. 4

Hon. Bart Gordon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee,

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

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement ........................................................................................ 8

Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 10

Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 10

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 11

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 11

Hon. Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from the State of California,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 12

WITNESSES

Jason Barbour, president, National Emergency Number Association, 911 director, Johnston County, NC ............................................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Catherine Avgiris, senior vice president, general manager, voice services,

Comcast Corportation .......................................................................................... 19

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

Robert Mayer, vice president, industry and state affairs, United States

Telecom Association ............................................................................................. 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26

Christopher Putala, executive vice president, EarthLink, Incorporated ............ 29

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

Craig Donaldson, senior vice president, Intrado, Incorporated ........................... 43

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 3403, to promote and enhance public safety by facilitating the rapid

deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E–911 services, encouraging the Nation’s

transition to a national IP-enabled emergency network and improve 911

and E–911 access to those with disabilities. ...................................................... 65

Tim Lorello, senior vice president, Telecommunications Systems, Incorporated, submitted statement ............................................................................. 78

(1)

ISSUES IN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS:

THE 911 MODERNIZATION AND PUBLIC

SAFETY ACT OF 2007

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey

(chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Doyle, Inslee, Gordon, Eshoo, Stupak,

Green, Upton, Hastert, Deal, Shimkus, Wilson, Pickering, Bono,

and Walden.

Staff present: Amy Levine, Tim Powderly, Mark Seifert, David

Vogel, Colin Crowell, Philip Murphy, Neil Fried, and Courtney

Reinhard.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. MARKEY. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so

much for coming today to this very important hearing.

Today’s hearing focuses upon emergency communications and,

more specifically, the provisions of H.R. 3403, legislation introduced by our colleagues Representative Bob Gordon of Tennessee

and cosponsored by Mr. Shimkus of Illinois, Ms. Eshoo of California, Mr. Pickering of Mississippi, and other colleagues.

[The bill appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

Mr. MARKEY. The proposed bill is designed to ensure that a consumer calling 911 in an emergency from an Internet phone, using

so-called VoIP service, can do so with a degree of confidence matching that of traditional phone service and wireless service. The bill

seeks to achieve this goal through two key provisions.

The first provision extends liability protections to VoIP service

providers. The Federal Communications Commission lacks authority to grant liability protection to VoIP service providers, and therefore, Congress must take action to achieve this policy objective.

This is similar to action this subcommittee took in 1999 when such

liability protection was accorded to wireless providers.

The second key provision in the bill establishes the right of VoIP

providers to access the parts of the 911 infrastructure they need in

2

order to complete 911 calls for our consumers. This is an important

provision because, while the FCC has acted to require VoIP providers to meet enhanced 911 service obligations, the Commission did

not order that such VoIP providers had a legal right to the components of the 911 infrastructure they would need to fulfill their E–

911 obligations under the Commission’s own rules.

As we consider this bill, our job, in my view, should be to assure

the public that the simple act of picking up a phone, any phone,

including a traditional phone, a wireless phone or an Internet VoIP

phone, and dialing 911 and successfully reaching the appropriate

dispatch operator should not hinge on the type of technology a consumer uses. This straightforward public policy mission should be

achieved in a timely and in a common-sense fashion, and this is

what we need to focus on.

If a 911 call fails in an emergency, in a moment when a loved

one may be in dire circumstances or when many lives may hang

in the balance, a consumer will not stand for long-winded explanations on the fine points of interconnection rules or the implications of liability protection. When they ask why the call did not go

through, they are going to be very angry at whoever was responsible for blocking that from happening.

Today’s hearing will permit Members to hear testimony on the

legislation and to weigh any adjustments that may be necessary to

fine-tune the language in the bill. It is my intention that the subcommittee obtain such testimony, as well as input from other

stakeholders, and work in a bipartisan, consensus fashion to see if

we might be able to move this bill through the legislative process

in the coming weeks.

I want to commend Mr. Gordon for his fine work on this bill, as

well as commend the other cosponsors. And I also look forward to

working with Ranking Member Upton, Chairman Dingell, full committee ranking member Mr. Barton, and our other colleagues as we

move forward.

The time for the opening statement by the Chair has expired.

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.

Upton.

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed to submit their opening statements for the record.

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. UPTON. I want to say good morning. Thank you for calling

this hearing, an important hearing for sure.

We are holding a legislative hearing on H.R. 3403, the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007, which was introduced by

our colleague Mr. Gordon. And I want to publicly commend and

thank Mr. Shimkus and Ms. Eshoo for their outstanding leadership

on this issue as we move forward.

Just last night, leaving the office, I heard a story on national

radio, highlighting the importance of E–911. A mother in Washington State was playing with her 2-year-old daughter, Elena, one

night last week when a migraine suddenly hit her. She collapsed,

3

became dizzy. Her 2-year-old daughter—2-year-old daughter—

Elena, while watching her mom collapse, walked over to the coffee

table, picked up the phone, called 911, and simply said, ‘‘Mother,

ouch.’’

Those two words alone were enough to send the paramedics to

their home, where they found her on the floor and Elena in the

other room, getting a blanket for her mom, who was shivering.

Thank goodness it is a good story; she was released from the hospital the same day. But without the technology, who knows where

the situation would have taken us. This is a 2-year-old figuring out

how to dial 911.

Just in the last 2 weeks, I have made two 911 calls in my district, as I have traveled on interstate I–94, reporting accidents. The

system works. It continues to evolve. Much progress has been

made, but we need to make sure that we can do better.

The FCC helped move the ball forward in June of 2005 by requiring that VoIP providers provide the 911 services to their customers.

And while technologically it is more complicated for VoIP providers

to provide that service, it is of equal importance. We have all heard

the horror stories in the past of folks trying to unsuccessfully use

911 from their home or mobile phones. And I am hopeful, with the

leaps taken so far, along with this legislation, that all consumers,

regardless of their phone service or location or even, perhaps, their

age, will be better served in an emergency.

H.R. 3403 seeks to address a number of issues surrounding 911

service. And while there may be ways that we can improve the bill,

it has some important provisions that certainly take us in the right

direction. We must work to ensure that this life-saving technology

is available for every call, whether it be over a landline, wireless

or VoIP.

I look forward to working with you, the authors of this legislation

and all of my colleagues. I look forward to the testimony from this

morning’s panelists. Your input will be of great assistance as we

move forward.

I yield back my time.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.

Doyle.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing

on this important bill.

When the FCC introduced themselves to the subcommittee earlier this year, Mr. Chairman, you might recall that I had some

questions about the way the FCC has addressed what happens

when a person picks up a phone and dials 911 in an emergency.

I had uncovered an early version of a report that Chairman Kevin

Martin had spiked from a respected expert on 911. One of the report’s conclusions was that the FCC should do more to ensure enhanced location information accuracy for 911 calls made from wireless and digital Internet calls.

4

Since then, Chairman Martin announced efforts to improve that

accuracy for wireless calls. I am pleased that the wireless industry

and public safety officials came together last week and struck a

deal on new rules that will help the FCC keep its promise to the

American public that their emergency operator will be able to locate them when they urgently need their help.

That was wireless. Now it is time for Congress to do its part to

make sure that consumers who are choosing digital phone services

from standalone providers like Vonage and EarthLink or in bundles from cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner have fair

and appropriate access to the critical network elements that allow

them to directly connect to the 911 system.

Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, one of the ways I

made a living was in the insurance business. In that line of work,

you did not sell a policy to a family unless all of their issues and

whatever hopes and fears they had were laid out on the table and

were able to be discussed. And that is all we are asking of each

of you today.

No one is opposed to the bill. Everyone here has a lot they like

about it. We all know that the bill needs to pass, and it needs to

pass this year. I am not asking you to cast aside your worries and

join hands and sing ‘‘Kumbaya.’’ What I am asking you to do is to

clearly raise your issues so that they can be addressed. Think of

this hearing today as you would group therapy, and we are your

psychotherapists. We want to help you, but we cannot do that unless you talk to us about your issues that affect you deep down.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend Bart

Gordon from Tennessee, John Shimkus from Illinois and all of my

colleagues for getting together for such an important public purpose. We need this bill, and I applaud you for your work.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.

I am already married to a psychiatrist, so I welcome the rest of

the committee to the program, and this bill will be our first project.

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I will defer for questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. HASTERT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to, certainly, welcome the panel today, and I look

forward to hearing the comments that each of the witnesses has to

offer.

H.R. 3403 brings another viewpoint on how we move forward on

the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act. We have come a long

way since I remember, in 1965, when emergency calls were first

made available to the public. It was Congress that implemented a

universal 911 concept that made access to emergency services a reality for all Americans.

I think, if you are as old as I am and you go back to the party

line system, it was the operator who used to be the 911. You hoped

you had somebody responsible who would answer who would follow

through on it, but today has changed.

5

As of 1965, things have changed also, and since then, technological advances in telecommunications have afforded consumers

the choice to use wireless, wireline and IP-based technology. Nonetheless, when a consumer picks up a phone to dial 911, they expect

to be able to reach an emergency operator, no matter what technology the phone utilizes. Moreover, we teach our children that dialing 911 on any phone will ensure access to emergency personnel.

It is unfortunate that tragic situations have occurred due to consumers’ inability to access life-saving emergency services using

VoIP. I understand that the FCC has taken the steps to extend 911

obligations to all phone providers, including VoIP providers. However, there may be more that needs to be done.

It was Congress that initially decided how to make 911 services

in the United States available to all citizens. Therefore, we must

continue that legacy and ensure that all telephone services have

access to 911 infrastructure so that they have the ability to provide

all consumers 911 service.

However, we must be cautious that our goals to provide 911 to

all Americans does not give any provider a competitive advantage.

And let us not let technological challenges hinder our goals to modernize our public safety system. Access to emergency services is

vital to all Americans, and not until you have to or one of your children has to dial those three digits do you really appreciate the infrastructure that we have in place. We want to improve on it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, especially. I yield back

my time.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, the principal sponsor of this legislation.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing

on this bipartisan bill, the 911 Modernization and Public Safety

Act.

Drafting this bill has been a collaborative process, and I want to

thank Representatives Shimkus, Eshoo and Pickering for the E–

911 Caucus support but, more importantly, for their advice as we

try to put this bill together.

I want to thank the committee staff, the National Emergency

Number Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, the Coalition of Organizations of Accessible Technologies, and a host of other groups that have worked for 21⁄2 years

on this bill to improve public safety.

Certainly, I want to thank Dana Lichtenberg on my staff. I think

that she feels that she has been or should have her certification for

psychiatry now, in that most of these folks in the room have been

on the couch for quite a while as we have discussed this. But now

it is time to move on and to get something done for public service

and safety.

When Americans dial 911, they expect the call to go through, regardless of what phone they use. That is why Congress acted in

2004 to ensure all Americans had access to 911 services on their

6

wireless phones. Congress now needs to act to ensure that all

Americans have access to 911 on their Internet or VoIP phones.

The FCC obligated VoIP companies to provide 911 and E–911

services to their customers in 2005. Since then, the VoIP industry

has made good progress, reaching 70 percent of all public safety answering points. However, VoIP providers do not yet have access to

the remaining 30 percent of the 911 network, mostly in hard-toreach rural areas.

My bill will facilitate the rapid development of VoIP 911 to the

rest of the country by giving VoIP providers direct access to the

911 system so they can provide full 911 service to their customers.

Importantly, the bill will also extend liability protection to VoIP

911 calls and 911 calls made using nonvoice technologies used by

the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. This is essential; otherwise, public safety answering points may be hesitant to take these

calls.

In addition, the bill stops States from directing fees used to support 911 to other purposes, and it will help modernize the Nation’s

911 system by requiring the National 911 Coordination Office to

develop a plan to move the Nation to an IP-based emergency response network and to allow the new PSAP grants to be used for

IP equipment. Events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina have highlighted why a robust, IP-based 911 system that can handle a range

of technologies—digital or analog, wireless phone, video, text-messaging, data, satellite or VoIP—must be a priority.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and

I look forward to hearing the witnesses on this pending legislation.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Deal.

Mr. DEAL. I waive my statement.

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas,

Mr. Green.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your calling

and holding this hearing on emergency communications legislation

to facilitate 911 and E–911 service for IP-voice service providers.

Improving public safety is a constant struggle, and I have

learned from working on improving 911 in the Houston area and

in the entire State of Texas as a State legislator.

It is interesting, though. This morning, you have been invited to

tell us your deepest thoughts and fears and hopes. Mr. Chairman,

we lost our only member of the committee who was a psychologist.

He was elected Governor of Ohio, Congressman and now Governor

Ted Strickland. In a private, earlier life, I did mental health work,

and I did mainly involuntary commitment. So I guess we ought to

explain to our witnesses that, if you do not tell us your deepest

thoughts and fears and hopes, then you may get a 90-day commitment in an institution of our choosing, maybe in the FCC.

But our subcommittee has had numerous hearings on the future

of wireless and the importance of broadband and a number of other

issues, but the life-saving services that 911 and E–911 provide are

among the most important telecommunications issues we deal with.

7

I would like to thank my friend Mr. Gordon for his work on the

bill after trying to address this issue for several years, because I

remember, in 1997, in Houston, with a now-defunct cell company,

trying to do locator services, at least in a certain part of our community. So it has been a long-running battle, and maybe this legislation will move us down that road even further.

Voice-over-Internet Protocol is a growing service, and we need to

ensure that it is on par with wireless and wireline when it comes

to the E–911 regulations. And I am pleased to hear that there is

broad collaboration on the bill from all entities involved. And I

know that there are small adjustments that specific parties would

like to see made. I think it is a good bill, and I hope that we continue to work out the few remaining differences.

Everyone agrees on the importance of providing E–911 service,

and the liability protections of this bill would extend to the Voiceover-Internet Protocol providers. It is necessary that we extend the

same protections to Voice-over-IP providers that wireless and

wireline have. I want to ensure, however, that language in the bill

does not have unintended consequences, which should be addressed

outside the context of public safety and not in this bill. Voice-overIP providers should have access to the parts of the network necessary to protect their customers, which is provided by the statutory authority given to the FCC in title I of the bill.

We need to ensure Voice-over-Internet Protocol customers calling

911 are connected to the correct public safety answering point just

as other users in the public telephone switched network are. I do

not think we need to go beyond that. However, I have concern that

the bill could be interpreted otherwise.

First and foremost, the aim of 911 legislation should be to protect

the public, and I think that this legislation does that. And I hope

language that could be construed as vague or unclear will be

shored up. And I will look forward to further committee action on

the issue, so we can send the legislation to the full House and to

the President.

Again, I want to thank my colleague for introducing the bill, and

I want to thank its cosponsors.

I yield back my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much.

We had, in Massachusetts, a very famous involuntary commitment where there was a State senator, about 35 years ago, and he

was dressed as the head of the Knights of Columbus and was in

his full uniform and in all of his regalia. And at the end of the parade, as the parade came to an end, one of his constituents came

up to him and said, ‘‘They have put my husband in the mental institution. You have to help me.’’ he said, ‘‘Let’s go.’’ So they arrived

at the front door of the mental institution, and he said to the person at the door, ‘‘You have one of my constituents in here, and I

am the State senator from this district.’’ The attendant said, ‘‘Sure,

you are, Senator. Come on in.’’

So, under Massachusetts State law, once you have been committed, you cannot get out until you have been given a certificate of

sanity. Then, for the rest of his career on the 40-person Senate

floor in Massachusetts, at the height of a debate, he would hold up

that certificate, and he would say, ‘‘I am the only certifiably sane

8

person in this institution. This is the craziest debate I have ever

heard.’’

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo.

Ms. ESHOO. I do not have any mental health stories, so——

Mr. MARKEY. Serve in Congress here a while longer.

Ms. ESHOO. I am going to keep this very sane.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.

I think that every hearing you have had since the beginning of this

year has really packed a real punch, important issues that we not

only need to examine and drill down on, but also to take action on.

And the action part of this is what I think is so important.

Mr. Gordon has done a terrific job on this E–911 legislation. E–

911 is something that I am familiar with. I have been on it for a

long time, going back to 1996. I remember grilling Reed Hundt and

trying to get the administration, at that time, interested in the

issue, because I saw that there was a great need that we were not

addressing on behalf of the American people.

And this bill really brings together all of the aspects that need

to be brought together so that 98 million Americans who live in

areas where VoIP providers do not yet have access to the 911 network—they are really unable to receive reliable services. So there

will be a lot that will be corrected when this bill is passed.

So I welcome it. I salute Mr. Gordon for the work that he has

done, and I salute all of the stakeholders who are a part of it.

In this effort to promote E–911 across our country and to have

a ubiquitous system, Mr. Shimkus has really been a terrific leader

in this, with our E–911 Caucus, and I recognize him for the work

that he has done. We have really worked closely together to pass

legislation that would provide the Federal grants that are needed

to enhance the emergency communication system.

All Members should know that, so far, there has been no funding, though, appropriated for this purpose. But we were successful

in the Commerce/State/Justice legislation to pass an amendment to

that appropriations bill to add $5 million for the grant program. So

this bill is going to do a lot, and we need to shepherd this through

and make sure that it gets to the President’s desk, but there is always a tag line in these things. We need to make sure that appropriations fit the passion that we have about this issue, so that we

can stay on a path, or create a path, so that every single community, the PSAPs, everyone who is involved in this, that we have a

commitment in terms of dollars.

So this is a terrific bill. It is not overly broad. Obviously, I

strongly support it.

To all of the stakeholders who have worked with Mr. Gordon and

with his staff and with all of us, and certainly to the chairman, let

us get this one done. And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, asking questions and, moreover, taking today and

making it a reality. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.

9

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding today’s hearing.

I appreciate our witnesses appearing here today and look forward to Congress weighing in on this important issue.

I have been working for years on ways to improve the emergency

communications between first responders. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the other side of emergency communications, ensuring that Americans have access to reliable and efficient 911

service.

Just as important as interoperable communications for our first

responders is ensuring that everyone has the ability to contact

those first responders. Once a call is made, we need to make sure

that the appropriate emergency personnel can locate those in need

regardless of what type of phone service they use.

The FCC has taken the first step in requiring interconnected

VoIP providers to provide E–911 service to their customers. However, more must be done to ensure that VoIP providers can do so

in an effective and in a reliable manner.

VoIP providers should have access to the 911 infrastructure on

the same rates, terms and conditions as wireless providers. Without these assurances, it can be extremely difficult for them to ensure that they can effectively and reliably provide emergency services to their customers. VoIP should also have the same liability

protections that are already in place for landlines and cell phones.

This is important to eliminate any legal issues that may prevent

or delay 911 access.

As we address these issues, I hope we can rise above the competitive battles between VoIP and wireline. The importance of providing the American people with reliable 911 service should overcome any differences between these providers. Neither traditional

nor VoIP providers should be working to gain a competitive advantage on an issue as serious as emergency assistance.

As this legislation moves forward, I look forward to addressing

any concerns regarding title III, which prohibits the use of 911 information to be used for any purpose other than for emergency

services. I understand that Government agencies and other entities

depend on this information. While we should do everything possible

to prevent individuals’ information from being used by outside

sources, it is my hope that we can modify this language to protect

consumers’ information without blocking legitimate users.

As a former first responder myself, I understand the importance

of ensuring that Americans have access to emergency 911 services.

This bill strikes the right balance by allowing VoIP providers the

same access and the same liability protections that cellular and

wireline providers are afforded.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue, and I hope Congress

can provide the support needed to ensure that all Americans have

access to reliable 911 service, no matter what type of phone they

use.

I have another hearing, and I will be bouncing in and out, but

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

10

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and bringing

this bill up.

And congratulations to Mr. Gordon.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

And all time for opening statements from members of the subcommittee has expired.

Any additional statements will be included in the record.

[The prepared statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Few things are more important than the public safety of our citizens, and one critical component of our Nation’s public safety network is 911 service. When faced with

any threat or emergency, Americans expect to be able to pick up the phone, dial

911 and obtain an immediate response no matter what kind of phone or technology

they use to make the call.

As the ways people make phone calls have changed, Congress has been mindful

to ensure that the 911 system also evolves. For example, in 1999, recognizing the

widespread and growing use of wireless phones, Congress passed legislation to ensure that consumers could reach 911 from their cell phones.

An increasing number of Americans now use a technology called ‘‘Voice over Internet Protocol,’’ or VoIP, to make phone calls. It is therefore appropriate to once again

update our laws so that consumers can be confident of receiving emergency assistance when they dial 911 from a VoIP connection.

I commend those companies that control access to the 911 system for not using

their dominant position to profit from the safety of the public. This is consistent

with my strong belief that when it comes to the 911 infrastructure, our focus should

be on ensuring consumer access to public safety rather than on using the 911 system for competitive advantage. I am confident that as we examine the important

piece of legislation before us, this wise course of focusing on the safety of our citizens will continue.

I want to express my appreciation to Rep. Gordon for his tireless efforts to bring

H.R. 3403, the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007, before the Subcommittee. Rep. Gordon, along with his staff, has labored long and hard over the

last several years to ensure 911 access for VoIP customers, and we commend his

dedication and hard work.

I want to also commend the other members of the 911 Caucus, Representatives

Eshoo, Shimkus, and Pickering, for their ongoing work in this important area. Their

efforts continue to raise awareness about the ongoing need to improve and advance

our 911 system.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses about how we can ensure that

all consumers using any technology have the best possible access to our Nation’s

emergency 911 system.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and I would like to welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming to testify.

I am excited to see that we are acting to update our telecommunications laws to

keep up with the constant change in technologies. Just as new technologies replace

old ones, so have the laws and regulations by which we govern the industry.

The introduction of Voice over Internet Protocol—VoIP—has made a profound

change in this industry. It has rapidly introduced a new level of competition into

the voice market.

One of the companies which provides services to about 90 percent of my district,

Cablevision, is fully compatible with the 911 systems with their VoIP service. They

accomplish this by handing off all their calls to a CLEC who then transfers these

calls to the public safety answering points. I applaud them for their efforts. They

are serving as an example of a VoIP provider doing the right thing.

I would argue that to solve what are more regulatory problems than technical

problems, Cablevision has set up its CLEC so that it would have a clear framework

in law and regulation to operate within. In terms of compliance with 911, this provides an interconnect guarantee. However, if they were just a VoIP provider, they

would not enjoy the benefit of a right to interconnect.

11

Thus, we in Congress expect and will soon legislate that VoIP be 911 compatible.

But, right now they do not have the legal right to fulfill this responsibility.

Before we can finalize any legislation, I think that there are some questions we

should explore. I am curious to learn from the witness testimony of the costs and

challenges VoIP providers incur by having to obtain access to the wireline 911 network through a CLEC as compared to the costs that VoIP providers already incur

to obtain access to the public switched telephone network.

VoIP should work seamlessly with the emergency 911 systems and be accessible

by people with disabilities, and we as a Committee should make it easier, not harder, for VoIP to provide these services. VoIP has the potential to revolutionize the

telephone industry by making it far more efficient.— However, we have an obligation to ensure that criminals and terrorists do not use this as a way to plan their

crimes and attacks while integrating it with our existing emergency and disabled

communications systems.

I look forward to hearing the testimony from these witnesses.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Chairman Markey, for holding this important legislative hearing on

H.R.3403, E–911, and the future of our Nation’s emergency communications network.

As we will hear today, the incredible advances in communications devices that

consumers have enjoyed for over a decade have not necessarily translated into advanced emergency communications services.

Most of us have, at some point, experienced a situation that required us to dial

911.

If we were calling from a landline, the operator on the other end received automatic information detailing the location of the caller.

This bill takes us one step closer to ensuring that automatic location identification

is the standard across all communications technologies.

This is especially important as the use of VoIP technology among American consumers has nearly doubled in 1 year to 11.5 million.

Also, the number of households with wireless-only phones has surpassed the number of households with wireline-only phones for the first time.

I additionally want to comment on the transition that hearing and speech-impaired individuals are making from traditional TTY services to text messaging, IPrelay and video-relay services that may not be currently able to connect directly to

911.

This shift further underscores why the prompt dispatch of emergency services to

individuals in distress should be available regardless of the technology used to call

or dial 911.

Part of the solution to this problem, as I am sure we will hear today, involves

moving toward an IP-based Next Generation 911 system.

This system could allow for the transmission of voice, data, and video to 911 public safety access points regardless of the technology used to call or dial 911.

The ability to send more complete information about an emergency situation—and

the ability of our 911 network to receive and process that information—should be

something we strive for and enable through our public policies.

I am pleased that H.R. 3403 includes provisions on Next Generation 911 that will

move us closer to achieving a more robust emergency communications service.

Consumers have come to reasonably expect that institutions of public trust like

the 911 system will keep pace with the technological advancements in their everyday lives.

Both elected representatives and private sector actors have a responsibility to hasten this development by setting aside partisan and industry differences to assure

that everyone has access to reliable E–911 services.

I again want to commend Chairman Markey for holding this hearing and look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you Chairman Markey for holding this legislative hearing on H.R. 3403,

the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007. I want to praise the work of

my colleague Bart Gordon who has provided strong leadership in addressing the

12

VoIP E–911 challenge. I also commend the House Co-Chairs of the Congressional

E–911 Caucus, Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Shimkus, for their tireless work to advance all

911 issues.

Voice-over-Internet-Protocol is revolutionizing the way we communicate by adding

the flexibility and innovation of the Internet to the traditional phone call. VoIP also

creates challenges, however, and bringing 911 into the Internet age is one of them.

When someone calls 911 today, the system relies on traditional phone lines and the

person’s phone number to try to identify who and where help is needed. The ability

to identify the who and the where turns critical when the caller cannot speak or

the call is suddenly disconnected. VoIP calls use data networks and Internet addresses instead of the traditional phone lines and phone numbers that can be related to a specific physical location. Until recently, only a handful of 911 centers were

prepared to receive VoIP calls. This left VoIP providers with no easy way to deliver

911 service to their subscribers.

A couple of years ago in Florida, a mother could not reach 911 over her VoIP service when her 3-month-old girl stopped breathing. The baby died. I wish I could tell

you this is the only case in which someone had difficulty reaching 911 on a VoIP

phone, but I can’t.

The FCC responded in June 2005 by requiring VoIP providers to incorporate 911

capability into their service. Since then, VoIP providers have come a long way, and

911 access is now almost universally available to VoIP subscribers. There may still

be a few more things that need to be done, however, which is why we have this

bill before us. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what challenges

remain and whether we have the right language before us to solve them.

I understand there is still some controversy over parts of this bill. I hope that this

hearing will help us identify how we can resolve that controversy and get on with

the business of saving lives.

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

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Upton, I would like to thank you both for

your leadership on this very important issue.

Additionally, I would like to thank our distinguished panel for joining us today.

In 2002, the FCC hired Mr. Dale Hatfield to conduct an independent inquiry and

to produce a report discussing the hurdles that stood in the way of effective Automatic Numbering Identification deployment. Mr. Hatfield’s report concluded that

the public and private stakeholders needed to coordinate and cooperate with each

other in order to have an effective 911 system. It is my hope that all of you are

here today in that spirit of cooperation; and hopefully that same spirit will be interwoven in the next generation of 911 service trends as well.

Since the 1960s, 911 services have saved countless lives by enabling emergency

personnel to respond to crises as quickly as possible. Each year, an estimated 200

million calls are made to 911. That is why I believe it is appropriate at this time

for us to thank the people who receive these calls and talk to people in their hour

of need. These operators, like the emergency personnel rushing to these emergencies, are truly American heroes.

Technological developments in communications such as VoIP and the growth of

the wireless industry in the telecom sector are taking the place of traditional

landline phones. This requires us to continuously adapt our 911 laws and regulations. For instance, recent statistics offered by the National Emergency Number Association state that as much as one-third of 911 calls are made by wireless phones.

As we evaluate H.R. 3403 today, I will be looking at specific issues such as access

to facilities and pricing, the role of states versus the Federal Government in terms

of regulating 911, the extension of liability protections to VoIP carriers and emergency communications providers that the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 gave to wireless providers, and the use of 911 databases for nonemergency purposes.

Again, I look forward to hearing your positions on the state of 911 in the United

States and how we can improve the system to help it perform at its maximum level

and fulfill its promise to the American citizenry.

Thank you again Chairman Markey and Ranking Member Upton for holding this

hearing.

Mr. MARKEY. We will now turn to our very distinguished panel.

13

We will begin with Mr. Jason Barbour, who is the president of

NENA, the National Emergency Number Association. And he is

also here today on behalf of APCO, the Association of Public-Safety

Communications Officials. Mr. Barbour also has real-world experience in the 911 infrastructure, as the director of the 911 system for

Johnston County, North Carolina.

Welcome, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin.

STATEMENT OF JASON BARBOUR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

EMERGENCY NUMBER ASSOCIATION, 911 DIRECTOR, JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC

Mr. BARBOUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. Thank you very much for providing me the opportunity

to appear before you today.

As you said, my name is Jason Barbour. I am a national certified

emergency number professional, serving Johnston County, NC, as

their 911 director. I am also a volunteer firefighter, as well as a

deputy sheriff. I am currently the president of the National Emergency Number Association, a nonprofit organization consisting of

nearly 7,000 members dedicated to the advancement of 911 and

emergency communications. Finally, I am also a member of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, and I am

pleased to be here today on behalf of both NENA and APCO.

Chairman Markey and Ranking Member Upton, thank you for

holding this hearing today. I appreciate your initiative and, in particular, the leadership of Representative Gordon and the House E–

911 Caucus cochairs, Representatives Eshoo and Shimkus, for continuing to move this important legislation forward. On behalf of

NENA and APCO, I am here to testify in support of the goals of

the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007.

While there are differences of opinion over the details of some of

the aspects of the bill, I encourage all of you who will testify today

and the members of this committee to focus on the title of this bill,

911 Modernization and Public Safety. That is the intent of the bill’s

sponsors and will be the focus of my testimony today. I urge all

parties involved to ensure that this bill remains focused on improving 911 today and into the future. We must not allow the bill to

become hostage to a broader communications debate among competing industries.

NENA and APCO support the FCC’s VoIP E–911 order in section

6 of H.R. 3403, making it clear that IP-enabled voice service providers must provide E–911 in accordance with the FCC’s regulations. Moreover, we urge the inclusion of a savings clause in the

bill, making it clear that nothing in this bill in any way alters or

modifies actions the FCC has already taken in this regard.

We will also wish to make sure that no aspects of the bill tie the

hands of the FCC from any future actions placing 911 obligations

on other services in which consumers have a reasonable expectation of 911 service. We also believe it is important that VoIP providers are given access to the 911 components necessary to complete 911 calls in accordance with the FCC rules in this bill. Past

experience in the deployment of E–911 has shown that a lack of

legal clarity on the issue of liability can lead to the lack of E–911

14

deployment and delays in the provisioning of E–911 service. Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the liability provision of H.R. 3403.

We are particularly pleased that the bill’s language is forwardthinking to ensure that every time a new service is given 911 obligations or voluntarily elects to connect to the 911 system with the

appropriate approvals we do not need to return to Congress and

ask for future extension of liability protections.

Maintaining current funding levels and providing funding for the

development of next-generation 911 is one of the most important

issues facing 911 today. Thus, while we have suggested a very

slight change in the structure of the funding section, we strongly

support the current language in H.R. 3403, confirming the State

and local authority to impose and collect 911 fees on IP-enabled

voice services. State and local authority over 911 fees is important.

So, too, is ensuring the central role for the States in managing the

system. Recent debates in Washington have focused on Federal authority versus State authority over IP-enabled services. There is

room for a debate on the optimal regulatory environment for IP-enabled services, but nothing in this bill should alter the current

State role over 911 service.

Finally, NENA and APCO are strong proponents of the need to

modernize today’s 911 system. Migration to an IP-based next-generation 911 system is not just a luxury; it is essential. Advancing

to a fully IP-based next-generation 911 system will certainly require some legislative and regulatory change. Therefore, we fully

support section 102 of H.R. 3403, requiring a plan for the migration

from today’s 911 system toward an IP-enabled emergency communications system.

In conclusion, NENA supports the goals of H.R. 3403 because it

addresses the current VoIP E–911 needs, including the issues of

911 funding and the liability parity, and it also addresses the critical need for 911 to advance to an IP-based next-generation capability.

On behalf of the thousands of NENA and APCO members, I

thank you for your support and opportunity to be here.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barbour follows:]

STATEMENT OF JASON BARBOUR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, thank you very much for providing

me the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Jason Barbour, and I

am a nationally certified Emergency Number Professional (ENP), serving Johnston

County, North Carolina, as the 911 Director. I am also a volunteer fire fighter and

a Deputy Sheriff. I have been working in the field of public safety communications

for the better part of two decades and know firsthand the importance of our Nation’s

911 system.

I’m also the president of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA),

an organization consisting of nearly 7,000 members in 48 chapters across the U.S.,

Canada and Mexico representing public officials, fire, EMS, law enforcement and

equipment and service vendors of the 911 community. Finally, I am also a member

of our sister organization, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials

(APCO) International, and I am pleased to be here today on behalf of both NENA

and APCO.

Today I appear before the committee representing NENA and APCO but also on

behalf of the thousands of 911 professionals in America who work tirelessly to help

those people who dial 911 in times of need. Admirable colleagues like those on my

team in Johnston County and others across the country continue to find ways to

get the job done in the face of staffing, funding and technology challenges. I would

15

like to thank the national leadership of the House, co-chairs of the Congressional

E–911 Caucus, both members of this committee, Representatives Eshoo and

Shimkus, and other leaders of this committee for working with NENA and APCO

to promote policy to advance and improve our Nation’s 911 system.

Chairman Markey and Vice-Chairman Upton, thank you and your staff for holding this hearing today. I applaud your initiative and, in particular, the leadership

of Representatives Gordon, Eshoo and Shimkus for continuing to move this important legislation forward. On behalf of NENA and APCO I am here today to testify

in support of the goals of the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007.

While there may be some differences of opinion over details of some aspects of the

bill, I encourage all of those who will testify today and the Members of this Committee to focus on the words in the title of the bill: 911, Modernization and Public Safety. That is the intent of the bill’s sponsors and will be the focus of my testimony

today. I urge all parties involved to ensure that this bill remains focused on improving 911 today and into the future. We must not allow the bill to become hostage

to a broader communications debate among competing industries.

My comments will focus on four areas: First, codifying the FCC’s VoIP E–911

Order and requiring IP-enabled Voice Service Providers to provide 911 and E–911

in accordance with FCC regulations; second, liability parity; third, preserving state

authority to impose 911 fees on IP-enabled voice service providers and maintaining

state authority to manage the 911 system and enforce Federal E–911 requirements;

fourth, modernization of the 911 system.

Before addressing each of these points, I believe it is important to understand the

overall status of the 911 system today, the challenges we currently face, the need

to transition to an IP-enabled Next Generation (NG) 911 system and how this legislation addresses these issues.

THE CURRENT STATE OF 911 AND E–911 SERVICE

Since its inception, the 911 system has been THE first responder in times of individual and mass emergencies. Every day, Americans call 911 at the time of their

greatest need. Today we are averaging over 200 million 911 calls per year. Ninetyseven percent of the Nation’s geography is covered by at least some basic 911; ninety-nine percent of the American public has access to 911. For the caller and the public, the successful completion of a 911 call can mean the difference between danger

and security, injury and recovery, or life and death.

In the past year alone tremendous strides have been made regarding a number

of critically important issues facing the 911 industry. One year ago in September

of 2006, less than 80 percent of the population of the United States resided in areas

covered by Phase II wireless E–911. Today, that number has jumped to over 85 percent, representing an increase in coverage for nearly 25 million Americans who previously were not protected by this vital aspect of our 911 system. Additionally, the

percentage of counties that are covered by Phase II wireless E–911 has increased

from 52 percent to 65 percent from a year ago, a 13 percent increase. Progress is

being made. At the same time, there is still a 911 divide between densely populated

and low population areas. As of today there are still nearly 225 counties, mostly

rural, that lack E–911 for their landline telephone service, let alone wireless or VoIP

service. It is important that the U.S. population is increasingly being covered by

wireline and wireless E–911, but we are truly a mobile society, so we must consider

not only where people live, but also where they may travel. And thus, we need to

continue to strive for 100 percent E–911 deployment for all areas and all technologies. This legislation is a step in the right direction to make this goal a reality.

Of course the last 2 years have also seen a tremendous amount of progress on

the issue of 911 and E–911 for VoIP. We applaud the continued leadership of FCC

Chairman Martin and his colleagues at the Commission for adopting the VoIP E–

911 Order and their focus on improved emergency communications. FCC action and

the steps taken by the public safety community working together with VoIP providers and their vendors have led to the fastest-ever national rollout of E–911 service.

Like the early days of wireless, it has been no easy task to retrofit an existing 911

system that was not designed for a new technology. But we have stepped up and

largely met the challenge. The system currently being employed for VoIP is not perfect, and it requires significant cooperation among numerous parties to work. We

have only touched the surface on where we need to be concerning IP-enabled services.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the diligent work of the all-volunteer NENA Technical, Operations and Regulatory Committees who have done an

amazing amount of work developing standards, deployment checklists and policies

to assist with VoIP E–911 implementation. Still, many areas lack E–911 for VoIP

16

service for many of the same reasons that E–911 is not universally available for

wireline or wireless service. Primarily, those reasons can be boiled down to a lack

of funding, a lack of cooperation among key parties in some instances and a failure

of leadership at the state and local level in some areas where 911 service has not

been made the priority it needs to be. Additionally, there has been a lack of Federal

action in certain areas that we are confident will be addressed through the passage

of H.R. 3403 and in other measures by this Congress.

NEEDED TOOLS FOR VOIP E–911 AND NEXT GENERATION (NG) 911 IMPLEMENTATION

NENA and APCO support the goals of the 911 Modernization and Public Safety

Act of 2007 because it strengthens the FCC’s VoIP E–911 Order by codifying the

obligation of all IP-enabled voice service providers to provide 911 and E–911 in accordance with FCC regulations. Additionally, the bill provides needed tools to assist

in the completion of E–911 deployment for VoIP service in all parts of the United

States and addresses the issue of NG911. Having said that, we believe that a few

modifications to the bill will fine-tune its effectiveness.

H.R. 3403 provides several key elements to enable nationwide VoIP E–911 deployment, including the following:

• liability parity for PSAPs, service providers and their third party vendors equivalent to existing liability protections already in place for wireline and wireless service. Liability protections are extended to VoIP and any other technologies obligated

by the FCC to provide 911 in the future and any services voluntarily providing 911

calls and information to PSAPs that are approved by state and local 911 authorities;

• confirmation of state and local authority to impose and collect 911 fees from IPenabled voice service providers;

• a requirement on the National 911 Implementation and Coordination Office

(ICO) to produce a report to Congress on the migration to an IP-enabled emergency

network; and

• a statutory requirement that owners of the E–911 infrastructure provide access

to VoIP providers who require such access to provide E–911 service.

Each of these items will assist with current VoIP E–911 implementation and 911

service for future technologies.

CODIFYING FCC VOIP E–911 REQUIREMENTS

With the growing adoption of Internet telephony, NENA and APCO continue to

believe it is critical for VoIP companies to provide 911 and E–911 for their customers. We therefore support the FCC’s VoIP E–911 Order and section 6 of H.R.

3403 making clear that IP-enabled voice service providers must provide 911 and E–

911 in accordance with FCC regulations. Moreover, we urge the inclusion of a Savings Clause in the bill making it clear that nothing in this bill in any way alters

or modifies actions the FCC has already taken in this regard. We also wish to make

sure that no definitions in the bill tie the hands of the FCC from any future actions

placing 911 obligations on other services in which consumers have a reasonable expectation of 911 service.

NENA and APCO also believe it is important that VoIP providers are given access

to the 911 components necessary to complete 911 calls in accordance with FCC

rules. We do not wish to insert ourselves into a debate among competing industries

over the specific language needed to achieve this goal. We simply wish to ensure

that all elements needed to comply with 911 requirements are made available to

VoIP providers and that such access is based on accepted industry standards that

promote open and secure access to the 911 system. For example, it is the preference

of public safety for MSAG (Master Street Address Guide) validated addresses. In

order for VoIP providers to comply with this request they must have access to this

information which is traditionally maintained by the local 911 System Service Provider (typically an ILEC).

LIABILITY PARITY

H.R. 3403 provides immunity from liability for PSAPs, service providers and their

third party vendors equivalent to existing liability protections already in place for

wireline and wireless service. Liability protections are extended to VoIP and any

other technologies obligated by the FCC to provide 911 in the future and any services voluntarily providing 911 calls and information to PSAPs that are approved by

state and local 911 authorities.

Past experience in the deployment of E–911 has shown that a lack of legal clarity

on the issue of liability parity can lead to a lack of E–911 deployment and delays

17

in the provisioning of E–911 service. Therefore, NENA and APCO wholeheartedly

support the liability provision of H.R. 3403, which only Congress can provide at the

Federal level. We are particularly pleased that the bill’s language is not just limited

to currently-defined IP-enabled voice services. The bill is appropriately forwardthinking to ensure that every time a new service is given 911 obligations or voluntarily elects to connect to 911 with appropriate approvals, we do not need to return

to Congress and ask for a further extension of liability protections.

PRESERVING STATE AUTHORITY OVER 911 FEES, MANAGING THE 911 SYSTEM AND

ENFORCING FEDERAL E–911 REQUIREMENTS

Maintaining current funding levels and providing funding for the development of

the next generation 911 system is one of the most important issues for 911 today.

The public safety community is extremely concerned by the immediate and growing

impact of changes in the communications landscape that are leading to a loss of conventional 911 revenue through 911 fees and surcharges. Fourteen percent of households have abandoned their wireline service, relying only on wireless service, and

millions are turning in their traditional telephone service for VoIP service, leading

to uncertainty in the states as to how the traditional revenue from 911 fees on

wireline service, collected at the local level, will be replaced.

NENA and APCO are keenly aware of the limitations of the current 911 system

funding model and that changes will be needed to sustain service while also advancing toward an IP-based NG911 system. While that may be the case, it is essential

that Congress do nothing to compromise current state and local authority to impose

and collect 911 fees on all services regardless of the type of technology involved.

Some parties advocate for sweeping Federal action to replace the layered funding

approach in the states. We have initiated a dialogue in a variety of forums on funding issues to sustain high quality 911 service today and advance 911 into the next

generation. This issue needs to be thoroughly discussed and debated to identify effective solutions, but changes to 911 funding models are best handled within the

states that know the intricacies of individual state and local 911 systems and funding needs. Thus, while we have suggested a very slight change in the structure of

the funding section, NENA and APCO strongly support the current language in

H.R. 3403 confirming state and local authority to impose and collect 911 fees on IPenabled voice services. Conversely, NENA and APCO oppose any efforts to preempt

state and local authority over 911 fees.

We also support the concern of the bill’s sponsors of state diversion of 911 fees

and believe an important aspect of the bill is the requirement of an FCC Fee Accountability Report. The bill directs the Commission to submit an annual report to

Congress on the status of state fees and whether or not any of the fees were used

for unauthorized purposes.

Finally, the bill is forward-looking and understands that Federal grant programs

should allow funding for today’s challenges but should also provide funds for the advancement of Next Generation solutions. H.R. 3403 takes an important step by

broadening the eligible use of ENHANCE 911 Act grant funds to include not only

wireless E–911 deployment, but also the development and implementation of an IPbased emergency communications network.

State and local authority over 911 fees is important. So too is ensuring a central

role for the states in managing the system. State and local governments have traditionally played a significant role in overseeing the 911 system within the states and

enforcing Federal E–911 requirements. An effective 911 system requires a number

of moving parts to work together, including PSAPs, communications service providers, 911 vendors, 911 System Service Providers and government agencies. For such

a system to work, policy makers must seek a regulatory scheme in implementing

E–911 that embodies cooperative federalism between state and Federal Governments. Recent debates in Washington have focused on Federal authority versus

state authority over IP-enabled services. There is room for a debate on the optimal

regulatory environment for IP-enabled services, but NENA and APCO believe it is

essential to maintain the appropriate role of the states in the management of the

911 system and enforcement of Federal E–911 requirements in the states. Nothing

in this bill should alter the state role.

911 MODERNIZATION: THE FUTURE OF 911 AND EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

Advancements in communications and network technologies are quickly blurring

the lines of familiarity in the world of emergency communications and 911. No

longer can we discuss 911 solely in the context of the public switched telephone network (PSTN). No longer can we discuss the routing of 911 calls as being dependent

on the use of the existing analog, circuit-switched telephone network. NENA started

18

with ‘‘One nation—One number,’’ and now we add, ‘‘any device, from anywhere, at

anytime.’’ As 911 and emergency communications continue to advance, it is critical

that communications regulation at all levels of government evolve in a parallel fashion and is flexible enough to accommodate future advancements that have yet to be

considered.

Already, nearly 100 million Americans are using some form of broadband Internet

access offering exciting new communications possibilities. Voice over IP is no longer

just coming, it is here. Wi-Fi and WiMax networks continue to expand. IP-enabled

services are dynamic, competitive, innovative and most of all, an opportunity to improve all of our communications systems. Better, faster, cheaper technology and

communications service is vital to American consumers and business, but it may

prove even more vital for emergency communications.

An NG911 system is not just a luxury, it is essential. Let me provide one example

to explain why: Ensuring direct access to 911 for those who are deaf and hard of

hearing and those with speech disabilities. A large and growing number of deaf individuals are replacing their traditional TTYs in favor of text messaging, IP-Relay

Services and Video Relay Services. These text and video based technologies are very

popular among deaf users, but they are not currently able to connect directly to 911

over the existing E–911 system due to limitations in the current system. This causes

delays in access to 911 and could inevitably lead to unnecessary death or injury,

which is unacceptable in today’s world of modern technology. So too are younger

Americans increasingly communicating with text messaging and instant messaging.

These technologies continue to gain in popularity, and users will have a reasonable

expectation that our 911 system will be able to accept communications to 911 from

these devices.

There are other information and communications services currently available that

911 is ill-equipped to handle as well. Automatic crash notification (ACN) data from

telematics service providers like OnStar; bio-chemical information from sensors in

a subway system; video from bank cameras or video taken by a bystander to a vehicle crash; photos from a cell phone capturing the identity of a criminal. The data

is available, but the 911 system simply is not equipped to receive it, much less

seamlessly share the data with appropriate emergency response agencies. However,

increasing public expectations are beginning to demand that we be able to receive

text and multi-media messages over a system that was not designed to handle such

data. With that reality in mind, NENA and APCO continue to make NG911 one of

our top priorities. NENA and APCO are pleased to be working together on this important issue through NENA’s NG Partner Program, APCO’s Project 41 and other

supporting activities.

Migrating to a fully IP-based next generation 911 system will certainly require

some legislative and regulatory change. Issues of funding, jurisdiction, cost sharing,

interoperability, and automatic location requirements for IP devices and networks

are only a few areas that have to be addressed. The Federal Government has a key

role to play in providing overall system coordination and funding where appropriate

to assist efforts in the states to implement standardized IP-based emergency communications networks, much like the Federal Government did in the 1950s in establishing the Federal highway system. Therefore, NENA and APCO fully support section 102 of the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act requiring the National 911

Implementation and Coordination Office to provide a plan for the migration from

today’s 911 system towards an IP-enabled emergency network.

Our Nation’s 911 system is a vital public safety and homeland security asset.

Every day 911 callers seek critical emergency assistance and are the eyes and ears

helping others during emergencies in local communities and assisting with our Nation’s homeland security. Modern communication capabilities offer an opportunity to

improve the system as we know it, but they also offer challenges. The 911 community must embrace and react to change quickly, to better serve the American public,

industry, and the consumer in all emergencies. We need help from Congress to do

so.

NENA supports the goals of H.R. 3403 because it addresses current VoIP E–911

needs, including the issues of 911 funding and liability parity and also includes language requiring a report on the migration to a fully IP-based NG911 system and

would allow ENHANCE 911 Act grants to be used to fund the ‘‘migration to an IPenabled emergency network.’’

As previously mentioned we believe a few minor modifications will improve the

bill that will make great contributions toward public safety and security. On behalf

of thousands of NENA and APCO members, 911 professionals and all involved in

supporting their work, I thank you for your support and the opportunity to be here

today.

19

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Barbour, very much.

Our second witness is Catherine Avgiris. Ms. Avgiris is the senior vice president and general manager for voice services of

Comcast, where she oversees the Comcast provision of VoIP service

to over 3 million customers. Ms. Avgiris, as a CPA, brings particular expertise on the business side of VoIP service, having also

served as vice president of finance for Comcast.

Welcome. Whenever you are ready, please begin.

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE AVGIRIS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, VOICE SERVICES, COMCAST

CORPORATION

Ms. AVGIRIS. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 3403, the

911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007. My name is

Catherine Avgiris, and I am the senior vice president and general

manager of voice services for Comcast Corporation. I am responsible for all aspects of Comcast voice business, including the rollout of our IP-based voice service, known as Comcast Digital Voice.

Today, our service is available in over 70 markets, reaching 37

million homes nationwide. More than 3 million customers are enjoying the savings from our competitive offering, and as a result of

this phenomenal consumer demand, we are the largest facilitiesbased competitive provider of residential voice service in the United

States.

Comcast also serves more than 24 million cable and 12 million

high-speed Internet customers. Comcast Digital Voice is a key driver behind the success of our Triple Play bundle, which offers consumers digital voice, cable and high-speed Internet services from

one company for one low price with innovative features. Comcast

Digital Voice has also helped spur the adoption of broadband services throughout the Nation.

Before being required to do so, we designed Comcast Digital

Voice to include the same 911 and E–911 functionalities that customers expect from traditional telephone companies. Unlike some

other IP-based voice services, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate

and travel over a privately managed network and not the public

Internet, and we have spent more than $45 billion to make that

network robust and reliable.

We are very pleased that the committee called this hearing

today, and we urge Congress to enact H.R. 3403. As Congress and

this committee have long recognized, the ability to access emergency services by dialing 911 any time from anywhere is vital to

the Nation’s public safety and emergency preparedness. Our Nation’s 911 system must keep pace with advances in technology and

competition. As new technologies and services, including IP-enabled voice services, are used to transmit voice communications via

wireless cable and traditional wireline infrastructure, it is critical

to update 911 regulations. H.R. 3403 will advance public safety and

spur additional competition by addressing three anomalies with the

current law and regulations.

First, the legislation requires that every interstate provider of

IP-enabled voice service offer 911 and E–911 services. All AmeriVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:23 Oct 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-66 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
20

cans expect that, when they pick up their home phones, they will

be able to call for help in an emergency regardless of which technology is being used to transport those calls. Comcast Digital Voice

was architected with 911 and E–911 as central features, and we

think it is reasonable for Congress to require every IP-enabled

voice provider to provide these services, just as you would expect

from wireless and traditional telephone companies.

Second, the legislation directs the FCC to issue regulations that

grant IP-enabled voice providers access to the critical network components necessary to provide 911 and E–911 services and ensures

that they are available at the same rates, terms and conditions

that wireless carriers enjoy. Most of these network components are

owned or effectively controlled by the incumbent telephone companies. This bill eliminates any question about our ability to gain access to these essential facilities. Not only do we need access to the

critical network components, but we need access at rates identical

to what other voice providers pay. Our entry into the market

should not become an opportunity for the incumbent telephone

companies to charge monopoly rates for facilities that cannot be duplicated as a means of preserving their overwhelming share of the

residential voice market. This bill ensures that competitive issues

do not get in the way of the paramount goal, which is the promotion of public safety.

Third, this bill extends to IP-enabled voice services the same liability protections already in place for wireless and traditional

wireline services. The bill correctly updates the current law to recognize this new technology.

In conclusion, Comcast supports H.R. 3403. The legislation will

advance public safety, promote the availability of 911 and E–911

services and stimulate more competition in the voice market.

We would like to thank Representative Gordon for his leadership

on this issue, and we look forward to working with the committee

on any technical issues that may arise as the bill moves through

the legislative process.

Thank you for the opportunity, and I would be happy to answer

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Avgiris follows:]

21

22

23

24

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Robert Mayer, who is the vice president

of industry and state affairs for the United States Telecom Association, where he is responsible for, among other things, U.S.

Telecom’s policy issues for safety and security issues that include

provisioning of E–911. He had particular experience with these

issues in his previous employment as the director of telecommunications for the New York PSC, addressing, among other issues, coordinating the efforts in New York related to E–911 provisioning

efforts between VoIP providers and incumbent LECs.

We thank you. Mr. Mayer, whenever you are ready, please begin.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MAYER, VICE PRESIDENT, INDUSTRY

AND STATE AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION

Mr. MAYER. Thank you, sir.

Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton and members of the

subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you

today to discuss emergency communications and, specifically, our

views on H.R. 3403, the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act

of 2007. It is a timely moment for the subcommittee to hold this

hearing.

U.S. Telecom represents innovative companies ranging from the

smallest rural telecoms in the Nation to some of the largest corporations in the United States economy. Our member companies

offer a wide range of services across the communications landscape,

including voice, video, data and broadband services over local exchange, long distance, Internet and cable networks. U.S. Telecom

is the Nation’s most established and largest association representing rural telecom providers.

U.S. Telecom and its member companies have been instrumental

in providing emergency communication services to American consumers. For years, wireline customers have benefited from the fact

that their telephones work even when they have no electricity during an emergency and that local dispatchers know the address of

wireline customers who have dialed 911 and can provide the address to emergency personnel.

I am pleased to report that there has been substantial progress

made in linking the public safety features of the wireline network

to Voice-over-Internet Protocol technology. According to industry

sources, 97 percent of VoIP customers are now supported with full

911 capabilities. This is a remarkable accomplishment, given the

relatively short period of time, the untested nature of the technology and the numerous interfaces, standards and entities that

were required to coordinate technical, operational and administrative activities.

As the recent director of telecommunications for the New York

Public Service Commission and the State chair of the FCC Joint

Federal/State VoIP Enhanced 911 Enforcement Task Force, I can

attest to the magnitude of this accomplishment. And I can assure

you that it could not have been accomplished without unprecedented levels of cooperation and coordination among all of the industry and government stakeholder organizations.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on

H.R. 3403, the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007.

25

Our members support the goal of this proposed legislation, namely,

the full and complete access of every American to emergency communications.

Furthermore, there are a variety of provisions that our members

can support without any reservation. For example, the legislation

recognizes the need for a national IP-enabled emergency network

that can accommodate emerging network architectures, platforms

and devices and can coordinate the sharing of information among

a variety of response entities. Our members continue to play an important role in the planning, design and construction of the emerging next-generation E–911 platforms. We also find the parity provisions that extend liability protections to IP-enabled voice service

providers and other emergency communication providers to be

helpful and appropriate.

As the committee continues to hone this bill, let me offer two

areas where we would like to continue to work with the committee

toward a bill that will truly move toward the committee’s objectives. The first area deals with access to 911 components, and the

second area deals with the current bill’s proposal to limit the use

of customer information.

With respect to access to 911 components, let me state emphatically that we support the notion that VoIP providers should be able

to get the connectivity necessary to transmit 911 calls to PSAPs.

U.S. Telecom members currently utilize a variety of mechanisms to

ensure that VoIP calls are delivered to PSAPs: negotiating directly

with VoIP providers, negotiating with CLECs that partner with

VoIP providers, and making tariffs available to VoIP providers.

The legislation proposes to treat, for 911 purposes, VoIP providers in the same way as wireless carriers. However, the bill, as currently drafted, appears to grant additional access rights beyond

those currently afforded to wireless carriers. We note that wireless

carriers generally negotiate commercial agreements or use tariff

services to obtain 911 connectivity, and VoIP providers should be

afforded no less and no more than the wireless carriers.

While we recognize and value the role of States to engage in vital

911 matters, we believe that, in light of the FCC determination

that VoIP is an interstate service, the FCC is the logical entity to

enforce E–911 obligations. We think that Congress articulated the

proper federalism model in the Enhanced 911 Act of 2004 when it

noted that, ‘‘Enhanced 911 is a high national priority, and it requires Federal leadership, working in cooperation with State and

local governments and with the numerous organizations dedicated

to delivering emergency communication services.’’ Accordingly, if

authority is delegated to the States to review and to resolve disputes, we believe that the States should exercise such authority in

accordance with FCC-established standards and procedures.

There is some commentary on the provision regarding customer

information. Our concern is similar to the concern that the congressman mentioned, and that is that there are Federal regulatory

agencies that use that information in ways that we believe promote

good social policy.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayer follows:]

26

27

28

29

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Mayer, very much.

Our next witness, Mr. Christopher Putala, is the executive vice

president of public policy at EarthLink, a VoIP provider, and he is

here today representing the Voice on the Net, or VON, Coalition.

Chris worked at CTIA and, before that, served as a senior staff

member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Welcome back.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER PUTALA, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY, EARTHLINK, INCORPORATED

Mr. PUTALA. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member

Upton and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting

me today.

EarthLink provides Internet access and services to more than 4

million subscribers nationwide. EarthLink also offers both fixed

and nomadic interconnected VoIP services.

As Chairman Markey indicated, I am testifying today in addition

to EarthLink on behalf of the VON Coalition, which consists of the

leading VoIP companies on the cutting edge of developing and delivering voice innovations over the Internet.

I ask that my full statement be made a part of the record, and

I will summarize.

At the outset, let me state that EarthLink and the VON Coalition are pleased with H.R. 3403. Congressman Gordon and the cosponsors—Congresswoman Eshoo, Congressman Shimkus, Congressman Pickering and others—have long worked on this and

other 911 issues, and we commend their leadership.

Dialing 911 can be the most important call a person ever makes.

That is why EarthLink and VoIP carriers have made providing 911

emergency service in an Internet world a fundamental priority.

In June 2005, the FCC’s E–911 ruling set out an ambitious 120-

day timetable for interconnected VoIP providers to develop and deploy E–911 capabilities, to provide callback and location information, and to deliver that information automatically to PSAPs. We

are proud to tell you that interconnected VoIP services met the

fastest-ever, widest-ever implementation of E–911, and we now

provide 911 to all customers and E–911 to fully 97 percent of our

subscribers. In EarthLink’s case, we have 100 percent E–911 coverage, as we are deploying our VoIP products simultaneous of the

FCC rules. So far, so good.

The issue is that the footprint where VoIP providers can deploy

E–911 is limited. Inside the footprint, we have achieved E–911

compliance, but outside the footprint, E–911 is not available, and

so, by FCC rule, VoIP providers cannot and do not offer VoIP services. This effectively denies VoIP services to around 20 percent of

the U.S. population, 98 million consumers, as Congressman Gordon

indicated, putting businesses and consumers in these underserved

areas at a competitive disadvantage.

That is why, notwithstanding 97 percent inside-the-footprint success, H.R. 3403 is needed and needed urgently. Interconnected

VoIP providers have done all we can to develop and to deploy E–

911 solutions. We need this legislation to accelerate current-generation E–911 to bring E–911 services to areas where they cannot

30

be offered today and to try to pass the next-generation E–911 solutions. H.R. 3403 responds correctly to all of these challenges.

Importantly, H.R. 3403, as has been mentioned, gives public safety, interconnected VoIP providers and others involved in handling

911 calls the same liability protections whether that call comes

from a cell phone, a landline phone or a VoIP service. The 911 network is essential, unique and cannot be replicated. As such, it is

vitally important to give interconnected VoIP providers access to

the same tools for implementing 911 and E–911 as mobile service

providers and to do so on the same rates, terms and conditions.

This prevents the use of critical 911 components as a tool to delay,

disrupt or inhibit competition from interconnected VoIP. Again,

H.R. 3403 responds appropriately.

H.R. 3403 also advances the deployment of next-generation IP

911 systems. It precludes the FCC from creating technology-specific

911 and E–911 solutions by utilizing the FCC’s definition of ‘‘interconnected VoIP services’’ and maintains the focus of E–911 obligations on telephone replacement services. And it protects the 911

and E–911 databases from misuse for private gain.

Verizon and Qwest have told the FCC that CPNI protections do

not apply to them when they operate 911 databases. They are seeking to treat 911 databases as their own private data, even with respect to information that their competitors are required to supply

for 911 service. Interconnected VoIP providers are already providing 911 and E–911 service, along with contributing to universal

service, meeting Federal disability access requirements and CPNI

requirements, and paying FCC regulatory fees. At this point, we

simply ask that we have the same tools and protections as all other

communications providers when we, in public safety, implement E–

911 and 911 service.

In closing, I reiterate our support for H.R. 3403. We thank the

sponsors. And we are pleased to answer any questions you may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Putala follows:]

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Putala, very much.

Our final witness, Mr. Craig Donaldson, is the senior vice president for regulatory and government affairs at Intrado, Incorporated. Intrado is one of a handful of companies that plays a critical role in the 911 infrastructure by providing the technical fix that

allows the 911 system to identify the locations of wireless and VoIP

callers through a series of databases. Prior to his work for Intrado,

Mr. Donaldson was a trial and appellate lawyer in private practice.

We thank you so much for being here. Whenever you are ready,

please begin.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG DONALDSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, INTRADO, INCORPORATED

Mr. DONALDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am

Craig Donaldson, the senior vice president of regulatory and government affairs at Intrado, Incorporated.

Intrado commends Representative Gordon and his staff, along

with others, for their efforts in pressing this important legislation.

We appreciate the invitation to testify.

For those not familiar with our company, Intrado provides the

core of America’s 911 data management and call-routing infrastructure, and it is a central figure in the integration of multiple technologies that interoperate with that infrastructure. We employ

many former first responders, public safety communications professionals, law enforcement and EMT professionals, and leading-edge

engineering and operations experts. We therefore have a unique

vantage point for evaluating the issues facing 911 today and for envisioning how and why the system must evolve.

Americans have come to expect a highly reliable 911 system and

perhaps more notably in recent years, one that is fortified against

manmade and natural disasters. Intrado’s very existence centers on

meeting these expectations.

Intrado supports the vast majority of House bill 3403. Chief

among its many objectives should be preserving the efficacy of the

911 infrastructure, and we believe this would be best accomplished

by continuing to maintain a cooperative Federal and State construct which, as it has for decades, relies heavily on local public

safety agencies and State regulators.

Our country’s 911 system is migrating to an IP-based platform

that will permit the delivery of critical life-saving data, such as

medical information, building blueprints, photos and videos. With

this functionality comes the broader use of and access to the system, which will increase the technical complexity of the system and

will require more oversight if we are to maintain high performance

standards, but more importantly, operational and security risks are

likely to increase dramatically.

This is not a theoretical concern. The system will be more vulnerable to attack by poorly managed or illegitimate enterprises, which

could include hostile foreign governments. The system could be inadvertently or intentionally flooded with phantom calls that prevent the handling of actual emergencies, or the entire system could

be made inoperable.

Such risk can be mitigated by ensuring that States continue to

have oversight of basic 911 components mentioned in the bill.

44

For nearly four decades, State and local governments have been

the guardians of America’s emergency communications and data infrastructure. They have done this successfully because they have

had authority to ensure that service providers are at least minimally qualified to interconnect with public networks, including 911

networks and their related databases.

Virtually all of the operational and administrative oversight of

the 911 system is performed by State and local governments. By

comparison, the FCC plays a tiny role in overseeing 911 operations,

although the Commission has done its part by shaping 911 policy

and implementing high-level performance mandates. There is no

reason to overhaul the joint model. And most notably, States and

local governments give America its only meaningful chance to mitigate risks of attack on the 911 system.

What will not work well, however, absent some adjustment, is

the manner in which VoIP 911 is regulated. States should not

apply typical CLEC regulations, which have limited applicability in

an IP-based environment. Yet states should avoid disparate regulatory regimes based on differences in technologies while moving

toward a model that is technology-neutral.

This will take time, thoughtful policy-making and effort. So what

is needed from the Federal Government is a road map for the transition and for the long run that strikes a balance between three

principal interests: First, States must continue to be permitted to

maintain high standards and to institute appropriate safeguards

for 911. Second, States must avoid so-called legacy regulation and

legislation while migrating to a 21st-century model. And third, in

the meantime, Federal and State Governments must not unnecessarily tip market conditions in favor of one kind of provider over

another.

Somewhat complicating these issues are pending FCC proceedings relative to the preemption of VoIP services in general, which

involve determinations that bear directly on this bill. These unresolved matters, coupled with the bill’s current language, leave

states somewhat in limbo relative to their jurisdiction over the administration and deployment of VoIP 911.

One final point: Fundamental to keeping the 911 infrastructure

secure are the safeguards currently in place that prevent disclosure

of 911 data to entities that are unqualified or not legitimately involved in delivering 911 service. This includes such data as information from which the locations of switches and related transport

elements can be extrapolated, call routing codes, testing procedures

and so on.

The bill would give the FCC discretion to release this information to the general public. Intrado strongly believes that simply releasing such data to the general public would be reckless, as it

could easily fall into the hands of enemies of the United States and

be used to sabotage the 911 system.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and

I would be happy to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donaldson follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

50

Mr. MARKEY. Our time for opening statements from witnesses

has expired, and now we will turn to questions from the subcommittee members.

And the Chair will recognize himself. And I would ask for brief

answers to my questions.

And the first to you, Mr. Mayer: Do you think it is appropriate

to consider 911 or E–911 services as a marketplace, or is it more

properly understood as a nonmarketplace, public interest, public

safety mission? Mr. Mayer?

Mr. MAYER. Chairman Markey, I think that is a great question.

I think emphatically the answer is it should not be treated as a

marketplace. It is a public service, a public safety obligation. That

is how our members treat it. And I think it is very important that

it not be confused with a market-based product.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Putala?

Mr. PUTALA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe the 911 system is a public trust, not a tool for competitive gain. And I think H.R. 3403 strikes exactly the right balance

in specifying that the rates, terms and conditions offered to VoIP

providers will be the same as wireless, as well as providing the

comprehensive list of all the 911 elements that come from a variety

of players—PSAPs, ILECs, CLECs, whatever—a comprehensive list

of those activities to make sure that 911 remains a public trust and

not a tool for competitive gain.

Mr. MARKEY. Great.

Ms. Avgiris?

Ms. AVGIRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We do not believe that 911 should be a marketplace event. This

bill protects that. It is the necessary facilities interconnection and

databases that are required for every phone provider, competitive

phone provider, to provide 911 and E–911 service, regardless of

technology.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you.

Mr. Mayer, at the New York Public Service Commission, did you

ever encounter a situation where a phone company refused interconnection for a VoIP provider for 911 services? And how did you

resolve it?

Mr. MAYER. We encountered one situation where one provider

did not appear to us to be going fast enough with implementation.

We then looked at our rules and regulations. We stepped in immediately, and we told the provider that our expectation was that

they would facilitate the interconnection necessary. And, within 24

hours, it was handled.

Mr. MARKEY. It was handled?

Mr. MAYER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. OK, great.

I am particularly pleased with the steps this bill takes to ensure

access to people with disabilities to 911 and enhanced 911 services.

The bill requires the NTIA to develop a plan and to consult with

groups representing people with disabilities and with industry to

identify solutions in an IP-based context for 911 and E–911 services.

Do you support, yes or no, the provision in this bill? Mr.

Barbour?

51

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes, we do. We believe that that part of our community should have equal access to the 911 system. It is sad that,

today, they are communicating amongst themselves with video and

messaging devices, but unfortunately, they cannot use those same

devices to communicate to today’s 911 system.

Mr. MARKEY. OK.

Ms. Avgiris?

Ms. AVGIRIS. Yes, we do believe that all Americans with disabilities should have the same access to 911 and E–911.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Mayer?

Mr. MAYER. Absolutely.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Putala?

Mr. PUTALA. I second that, absolutely.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Donaldson?

Mr. DONALDSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do agree.

Mr. MARKEY. Great.

So this is really a very good piece of legislation. I commend all

of you for your work on this issue.

My time has expired. I will turn and recognize the gentleman

from Michigan, Mr. Upton.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Are any of you aware of any VoIP providers that, because of liability concerns, the PSAPs refuse to receive VoIP calls? Is that an

issue that is out there?

Mr. Putala?

Mr. PUTALA. Mr. Upton, we do understand it is not an issue with

EarthLink, but I understand that other VON Coalition members

have had some concerns expressed to them by some PSAPs, I believe in Illinois, where their lawyers were looking at the system

and saying, ‘‘Look, where is the liability protection for us?’’

And I think that the testimony of Mr. Barbour underscores the

point that public safety answering points need this same liability

priority no matter what flavor of call they are taking, whether it

is cell phone, wireline or VoIP.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Barbour, do you want to——

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes, we totally agree that all public safety is asking here is the same liability that has already been afforded to us

in wireline and wireless related calls. We would like the same protection in VoIP calls. It is not dealing with negligence; that is not

what we are asking for. We are asking for liability protection as

it relates to call setup and delivery.

Mr. UPTON. Ms. Avgiris and Mr. Putala, is there anywhere in the

Comcast or EarthLink system where your VoIP consumers don’t

have access to E–911 or 911 service?

Ms. AVGIRIS. With respect to Comcast, 100 percent of the footprint that we are deployed in have access to 911. The very small

percentage of our footprint that is not available for E–911 is because the PSAP needs the modernization to be able accept it, not

from our end.

Mr. UPTON. Right. Do you have a location?

Ms. AVGIRIS. We can get you the details. It is a very small percentage.

Mr. UPTON. It is not my district, right?

Ms. AVGIRIS. No.

52

Mr. PUTALA. EarthLink is 100 percent compliant, where we have

access. The issue is, how do we move outside of that roughly 80

percent footprint where there is competitive infrastructure coverage? The PSAPs are ready. They have the right routers and the

right trunking system so they can get the E–911 callback and location information automatically. The issue is, how do we get access

to the elements that would allow it?

Mr. UPTON. How long do you think it would take those PSAPs

to actually get within a footprint, in fact, where they will have 100

percent?

Mr. PUTALA. First off, it is important to recognize that inside this

98 million Americans who are not covered by VoIP and E–911,

there are today PSAPs that have the technical capabilities to accept E–911 information from VoIP providers. That is not 100 percent of that 20 percent, but there is a significant share. The PSAP

community continues to upgrade so we can get to 100 percent.

But, again, the issue is there are PSAPs today who are ready

and have the infrastructure available to accept 911 information

from VoIP providers, but we don’t have the access through either

vendors or competitive options to be able to reach those E–911-capable PSAPs. And that is where H.R. 3403 is so important.

Mr. UPTON. I would like to hear from each of you. Would you say

that is probably the overwhelming concern, in terms of why we

don’t have 100 percent? Is there anything else that we can do to

try and encourage that to end up happening?

Mr. PUTALA. I think the other important provisions relative to liability protection——

Mr. UPTON. No, no, but I mean outside of this bill. Is there anything that is not in this bill that would be helpful, that we ought

to add in, to end up ultimately with 100 percent?

Mr. PUTALA. I think that my good friend Mr. Mayer would express concerns if we were to go into some of the other issues relative to interconnection that are not related to 911. I think those

are important, but again, I think the scope of this bill is purely

about 911 infrastructure, and I think that is how we have to keep

it.

Mr. UPTON. Ms. Avgiris.

Ms. AVGIRIS. There are some local jurisdictions in which we offer

service that have not implemented the addressing scheme that is

necessary to comply with Master Street Access Guide requirements. It is a small percentage but to give them the ability to update their systems, whatever they need, so that they can identify

and comply with MSAG.

There are also a couple of local communities that don’t have the

funding, have not been given the funding, to implement E–911. So

they should be given the funding so that there is uniform and ubiquitous availability.

Mr. PUTALA. Just one quick comment on that. I think the inclusion in the bill of making sure that 911 funds are not diverted

away from the PSAPs is a very important addition and will bring

more resources to our Nation’s PSAPs.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Markey.

53

You, better than most folks, know that when you deal with technology issues, oftentimes the bill you start off with can be outdated

by the time the President signs it. That is the reason, in this bill,

in title II, we try to look to the future.

And, Mr. Barbour, you mentioned that. And would you tell us a

little more about next-generation 911?

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes. Next-generation 911 is transitioning today’s

911 infrastructure into an IP-based infrastructure into where we

have an emergency communication network, not just involving 911,

but it could also be push-to-talk conversations between the first responders. It could also be the public also communicating on such

an IP-enabled solution.

So we need to get today’s 911 system into an IP solution so that

we can take advantage of all the technologies that are being afforded to a lot of the public today. It is sad that, in today’s environment, teenagers or the public can take pictures of crimes in

progress, but they cannot transmit them straight to the responding

units, with today’s 911 system.

Mr. GORDON. What kind of time frame, would you say, is involved in getting to this next generation?

Mr. BARBOUR. I think, with the provisions set forth here and

with some funding, we could get this in the next couple of years,

3 to 5 years.

Mr. GORDON. Good.

There was quite a bit of unanimity in support for the bill.

Mr. Mayer, you said you generally supported the bill but had a

couple of concerns. I guess it boils down to the fear that your competitors might have a back-door access to other elements that are

not directly related here or that they would be treated differently.

Let me just assure you that, upon reading this bill, you will see

that it says very specifically that VoIP will be treated the same as

wireless, the same rates, terms and conditions. It says very specifically that it is limited to the elements necessary to completion of

911.

This will be in the report language. I don’t see how the FCC, a

court or anyone else could misinterpret the intention of this Congress. We have said it over and over, and I wanted to be sure it

was said again today.

I yield back my time.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to really congratulate Mr. Gordon on his great work. And

appreciate my friend Anna and the staff. It has really been a good

work product, especially the 911 Caucus and working with you all.

And it has really been a team as we have moved forward to really

amazing percentages of coverage, versus how quickly technology

rolls out and a couple of bad stories. And we move as a team to

try to correct those.

So I want to thank you all for being here and really thank you

for the great effort we have done to be very, very successful.

Now we are trying to codify issues, and FCC has done some stuff

to help us move down the road, but we want to get some stuff into

the statutory language. And Bart has been shepherding a pretty

54

good process; it has been pretty open. And so we appreciate—and

this is a continuation of that.

So, Bart kind of mentioned this earlier, but really, the elephant

in the room is costs, compensation, as Bart said, what is access and

what is the cost for doing that.

So let me go to Mr. Mayer, then Chris, if you would, kind of talk

about how and why do you feel that the VoIP providers should be

charged for their access, and what is necessary?

I don’t want to cause a big—but that is what we have a legislative hearing for. That is, kind of, what we are trying to work out.

Mr. MAYER. Well, here is where the therapy, I guess, starts.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Everybody has been so nice.

Mr. MAYER. I think what we are hearing here is that we have

a system that has to migrate to a next-generation platform. And

there is a lot of unknowns about the technology, but one thing we

know is that the next 911 system has to be very different, and it

is going to require a substantial amount of investment. And it is

going to require investment that not only our members are going

to have to make but the PSAPs are going to have to make and all

the entities, essentially, that are going to have to interconnect with

this next-generation system.

So in terms of costs, what would be of concern to us is a cost

mechanism that doesn’t allow our members to, frankly, recover the

cost that is required for that investment. And we want to be in a

situation where we embrace this migration to next-generation technologies. We firmly believe in it. But we also want to make sure

that the mechanism is in place that there is no risk that the costs

are——

Mr. SHIMKUS. If I could jump on that point, next generation, do

we feel that moving to a next generation, that there will still be,

in essence, piggybacking on the LECs, basic service provider, so

there is always going to be this relationship which everybody has

to work together to provide this stuff?

Mr. MAYER. It is a very complex relationship right now, as you

know, and it is probably only going to get more complex. There is

going to be, I think, a continuing major role for our members as

911 service providers. And I think that we are going to have to

work together, as we have done recently, to evolve the concepts, in

terms of how this all works going forward.

I think the notion that we have to all be committed to 911 and

make this happen in a way that does not benefit one industry versus another—because, at the end of the day, I am firmly convinced

that we really believe that citizens need access to the best 911 system they can get in the country.

Mr. SHIMKUS. A very symbiotic relationship. That is the word I

was looking for.

Chris?

Mr. PUTALA. I think, as Congressman Gordon pointed out, all

this bill says is the same rates, terms and conditions as wireless.

This is just about parity; this is not about advantage for VoIP providers. It is not about advantage for ILEC’s.

I think it is also important to recognize that it is not just ILECs

infrastructure that is involved here. The PSAPs will control elements of some of the databases, the street address guide. The FCC

55

is in charge of the pseudo-ANIs, the numbers that you have to back

up the numbers to make sure that a system where a location is a

variable can work.

So I do not see any competitive advantage here. That is properly

so for this bill. Chairman Markey underscored it. We all agreed E–

911 is a public trust, not for competitive advantage, and H.R. 3403

adheres to that goal.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you.

Mr. Mayer, and the bill confines itself solely to 911 purposes. Do

you agree with that?

Mr. MAYER. I think there is some opportunity to refine some of

the language, especially with respect to some of the components

that are enunciated. We would be comfortable with language that

makes a complete analogy to the CMRS and wireline capabilities.

There are some words in here that speak to equipment and networks that could potentially go beyond what we think are the existing rights of the carriers, of the other industries. We don’t think

there should be a sector-specific set of requirements.

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Thank you.

Let me go to the next, I think, little elephant in the room, which

is the 911 database issue and the fact that the 911 database issue

is used to help us define through what is a competitive market in

particular areas.

So talk to me about—and let us go Mr. Mayer first and then

Chris, if you would, and then we can let anybody else chime in.

Mr. MAYER. I think if you go back to probably the late nineties,

1999, we know that the 911 data, at an aggregated level, without

consumer information, was very instrumental in furthering the

process whereby companies got entry into long distance. I know, as

a State regulator, we often found that the 911 database, again, on

an aggregated level, was the most reliable source of information for

us to make assessments about the nature of competition in our

markets.

So we very strongly believe that Government regulatory agencies

that are making important policy considerations—have in the past

and going forward—that hinge on matters related to competition

should have access to this reliable information, again, at the aggregate basis, stripped of any customer information.

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. If you all could follow up—my time is running

out, and I would like everyone to get a chance to answer this.

Mr. PUTALA. Nothing in this bill prevents the FCC or State regulatory authorities from reviewing the aggregated 911 database information. All it states is that the incumbent LECs who get this

information from competitors, because we have to provide it so the

911 system can work, cannot themselves decide that CPNI does not

apply to them.

This is not about whether regulators have access to this information. This is about whether the information we are required as

competitors to give to our competitors does not give them a leg up

in terms of regulatory proceedings.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And obviously, with heads shaking, there is still

disagreement here. That is OK; that is what this is about.

Anyone else want to chime in?

56

Ms. AVGIRIS. We support the provision that is in the bill, as it

is stated. We respect and protect the privacy rights of our customers. And we do not use the information that is obtained for the

purposes of provisioning 911 for any other purpose. And we don’t

believe that it should be for any other purpose other than 911.

Mr. SHIMKUS. My time is up, but if the chairman would

allow——

Mr. MARKEY. If I would indulge in a conversation with the gentleman, there are roll-calls that are going to go off in just a minute

or so, and I would like to have the other Members have questions,

if that is all right. Thank you.

Mr. SHIMKUS. You are the chairman.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo.

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all of the witnesses. I think this has been instructive.

Mr. Mayer, am I correct that you are the only one on the panel

that is not ready to support the bill?

Is there anyone else—I should just ask the question, does everyone on the panel support the bill?

Mr. PUTALA. We do.

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

Ms. AVGIRIS. Yes.

Mr. MAYER. We support the bill with some minor modifications,

yes.

Ms. ESHOO. So the USTA has endorsed the bill?

Mr. MAYER. With minor modifications, yes.

Ms. ESHOO. Let me ask you this. At the end of the day, we know

that these fights are about money. Money drives everything, who

has a leg up, how much money they are going to make, whose ox

is gored. And I think that that just needs to be an acknowledgment

that is on the table.

To Mr. Mayer, are there certain wireless components that are

different from VoIP components that are necessary for VoIP carriers to interconnect with 911?

Mr. MAYER. I am not a technology expert, but I can say I think

you would have to distinguish between fixed VoIP providers, like

the cable industry, and the nomadic VoIP providers. I think there

are distinctions there. Beyond that, I am not aware of any technical distinctions.

Mr. PUTALA. Just very briefly, wireless does not require access

to the Master Street Access Guide. The nomadic VoIP does require

access to that database, different from wireless, because the location we have to give to the PSAP is the home address, so therefore

it is different than the wireless. So that is a very different element

that wireless does not require but nomadic VoIP does.

Ms. ESHOO. Now, Mr. Shimkus raised, I think, a very important

issue here, and that is, should carriers be permitted to use information from 911 databases? And Ms. Avgiris answered very clearly

and succinctly what Comcast’s position is on that. Do you all agree

with that?

Mr. PUTALA. EarthLink does.

Ms. ESHOO. Yes.

Mr. Donaldson?

57

Mr. DONALDSON. I have a sort of modified view of it.

Ms. ESHOO. How do you modify it?

Mr. DONALDSON. Somewhere in between.

Ms. ESHOO. Use some of it?

Mr. DONALDSON. What we have to do is distinguish the role that

the ILECs, the incumbents, play as local exchange carriers versus

their role as a 911 service provider, where they are still a monopoly

situation in their territories where they are the aggregators of traffic and the keepers of the data.

What I would say I would agree with is that there is an absolute

need for, sort of, a firewall, if you will, so that the LEC part of the

company does not get to go over to the 911 provider and say, ‘‘Give

me the ALI data so I can use it for competitive reasons.’’

Ms. ESHOO. Very excellent point. I think it would be particularly

insidious if a carrier used this information because no other competitive carrier has access to the 911 database.

Mr. Mayer?

Mr. MAYER. Congresswoman, we agree with that.

Ms. ESHOO. You agree?

Mr. MAYER. Absolutely. We don’t think that our members should

use information in the 911 databases——

Ms. ESHOO. Have your members all adhered to that?

Mr. MAYER. Absolutely. I think it is covered under the CPNI requirements, where, business and marketing, we cannot use that information, and we do not.

Mr. PUTALA. Qwest and Verizon specifically filed recently at the

FCC, stating that the CPNI rules did not cover the use of 911 databases as they chose fit in a regulatory proceeding.

Ms. ESHOO. So that is in direct contrast to——

Mr. PUTALA. Direct contrast.

Ms. ESHOO. So how do you respond to that?

Mr. MAYER. Let me respond to it this way. We think that government agencies that are making determinations of policy based on

competition can benefit from having reliable and credible information from 911.

And we have to realize that the entire industry was restructured,

in large part, the whole long distance approval process, the 271 review process, relied heavily on 911 information. 911 information

has been used by the Department of Justice; it has been used by

States. And we think it is all about informing them to make good

policy.

And it is not customer information. It is aggregated information

that gives them a very good indication of who owns the customer.

It is reliable. That is why we used it in New York; we trusted it.

Ms. ESHOO. Well, I think if this information is used, especially

in forbearance petitions at the FCC, this whole issue, I think it is

a violation of section 222. But, that is my call on it. And I have

to tell you, I think it is a real misuse of information if someone

does that.

And it puts a provider in a position of a real leg up against other

people. There has to be equity across the board in this, so that everything is on the level, so that there is a real integration and an

assurance that everyone is directed to do and provide this service

for the American people.

58

The chairman is banging his gavel, so thank you, everyone. I

think this has been a good hearing.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert.

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the chairman.

Let me come at this from a different angle. I go back to my constituency, and I have a small county. It is about 18 miles square,

the old-style sections. And they were really kind of the pioneers,

small county, 40,000 people. And they, really, kind of figured this

thing out. And you could pick up the phone and, no matter what

corner of the county you are in, you get a central agency. They will

take you right to where the information is. And whether you had

a very, very terrible accident in front of you in an automobile or

you are calling about your lost dog, they can get you the right people right away. It happens.

However, the county to the north is a large county. It is probably

about 60 miles by 20 miles in proportion. And, actually, there are

three separate spheres to that county, where the influence is and

where emergency services are. And you could almost divide them

up to the southern part of the county and middle part and the

northern part. As a matter of fact, the northern part has influence

in, actually, another county; the middle part has influence to the

county to the east; and the bottom part has influence to the other

little county that is underneath it, as far as services and fire departments and help. So it is a difficult thing to figure out. As a

matter of fact, the northern county still hasn’t quite figured out

how 911 is really supposed to work.

My question to Mr. Mayer and to Mr. Putala and Ms. Avgiris,

do you agree with Intrado’s claim that more State and local control

over VoIP providers is needed to protect an IP-based E–911 system? Very quickly.

Mr. MAYER. No. I think, sir, that the States have all the authority right now to implement all of the 911 functionality, and I think

that has been clearly demonstrated.

And I think when you hear what Mr. Donaldson suggested, in

terms of some of the risks associated as we go forward in building

next-generation platforms, if you exponentially think about 50

States developing different standards to control for that, I think we

are looking at potentially a very complicated problem.

So I think the Congress, when they talked about Federal leadership, I think is the right model, and the States can be very effective

with implementation. They certainly can be effective with facilitation. But I don’t think they should be able to independently direct

different solutions at a time when we are going into great vulnerability and uncertainty.

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you.

Mr. PUTALA. I completely agree with Mr. Mayer. And I would

point out that the legislation underscores the right of States to collect 911 fees from VoIP providers.

Ms. AVGIRIS. I agree, as well, that there should be a balance between Federal and State enforcement. And you need the States in

the operation of the local public service answering points.

Mr. BARBOUR. We agree that the Federal Government can play

a huge role in the implementation and coordination effort of this

59

next-generation 911 system but continuing to allow the States to

be able to handle the funding control issues and set the rates.

Mr. DONALDSON. Mr. Hastert, I have to tell you that if you are

going to have a bill that says that the States are allowed to collect

fees for VoIP and not let them touch all the de facto regulations

at the local safety agencies as well as the State level, I don’t know

how that works.

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you. I don’t either. But I see differences in

local entities and the leadership they have and the ability they

have to put things together. And it is not necessarily the biggest,

most powerful counties that figure this thing out first. Sometimes

it is the smaller communities that can do that.

So I want to congratulate, first of all, the chairman of this committee for allowing this thing to come forward and also the work

of Mr. Gordon and Mr. Shimkus, who have done yeoman’s work in

moving this forward.

And I yield back my time.

Mr. MARKEY. And the gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Barbour, does this bill provide the Federal guidance necessary while allowing the State and local governments the appropriate authority to set guidelines, especially the segment numbers

for 911?

Mr. BARBOUR. We feel that it does, yes.

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Are there any improvements you would make

upon that?

Mr. BARBOUR. We could get back with you, but we feel that it

addresses the issues that we talked about today, the liability parity, the coordination of 911, and having the national 911 office report back to you all on the progress of a next-generation 911 system.

Mr. STUPAK. OK.

Mr. Mayer, in response to Ms. Eshoo’s questions about you supporting the bill with modifications, so you will not support the bill

unless the modifications are made? Or do you support the bill,

wishing there were modifications? Is it wish or want?

Mr. MAYER. I don’t think I am authorized to answer that question right now, sir. I think we would prefer to see the bill with

some modifications which we think would align very much with

what the objectives are of the committee.

Mr. STUPAK. In your testimony, you state that the bill grants additional access rights beyond what is provided to wireless carriers.

Do you want to explain that a little bit?

Mr. MAYER. There is some language in the bill that lists a variety of components, and it goes—I don’t have the bill in front of me.

I can get it. But my recollection is that there are, like, 11 or so

components that are identified here.

Some of them—and this is what is called necessary components.

For example, we are not sure what ‘‘equipment’’ is, because we

don’t generally use equipment in terms of provisioning 911 interconnection. We think that the ‘‘network’’ term is a little bit too

broad.

60

But I want to emphasize that we are not opposed—and I think

this is the most important point here—to granting access to any

element that is essential to support 911 functionality. So it may be

a little nuanced, but I think it is just giving us some assurances

that we are not going to go beyond those elements that are required.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, let me ask you this. You also mention in your

testimony that E–911 data is legitimately used by the FCC, State

commissions and other Government entities.

Do you believe the provisions in title III of the bill regarding protecting individual information are restrictive enough on that use?

Would you like to see it expanded?

Mr. MAYER. No. I think Mr. Putala indicated that he thought

there was nothing in the bill that would prevent, for example, the

Department of Justice using aggregated 911 data for them to make

certain determinations. We would just like to see some assurances

that Government agencies could use aggregated data stripped of

customer information, both in the State and Federal arena. It has

served a lot of very important policy considerations. And, by the

way, it does not always benefit our members. There are many

times when you have accurate information that can just as easily

benefit a competitor.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Putala, do you want to——

Mr. PUTALA. The question goes to whether it is at a Government

agency’s request, which I think is appropriate. We do not think it

is appropriate that, because there is monopoly access—necessarily

so—to these 911 databases, those should not be used by other portions of a corporate entity to advantage them in their regulatory

proceedings.

Mr. STUPAK. Just because the Government requests it, do you

think they should just automatically have access to it? Or should

we put some limitation even on what the Government should request?

Mr. PUTALA. Obviously, there should be some limitations on the

inquiries that the Justice Department could make, the cases in

front of them. I think there would also be, and are in place, similar

restrictions on the FCC or any other administrative agency about

when they could go asking for that information.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Barbour?

Mr. BARBOUR. I just want to make sure that we point out that

there are some public safety uses for this database, other than just

receiving the call. Last week, in my jurisdiction, we had five tornado warnings in 2 hours.

We can take this database and then, in turn, call the public back

and give them an emergency notification of such an event.

So we need to make sure that we don’t restrict this data to just

being able to get the call into the 911 center. The 911 center can

use this data for other purposes.

Mr. STUPAK. I recognize that, but there are also times when the

Government crosses the line too. We want to make sure that does

not happen.

Mr. BARBOUR. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Donaldson, you talked about the importance of

preserving the State and local governments’ ability to manage the

61

system to prevent possible terrorist attacks. Do you believe this bill

strikes the right balance to preserve State and local governments’

abilities?

Mr. DONALDSON. I think that the current language is a little bit

ambiguous that we have mentioned to staffers about. It could be

a little bit more clear. I think we just need to work on nuance. I

don’t think, generally, it is a problem, but I think it is an important fact that we need to recognize. And we need to make sure the

language is trimmed up.

Mr. STUPAK. My time has expired. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Michigan, it is ‘‘Mr. Putala’’ is testifying before us. ‘‘Mr. Polluter’’ is testifying before the Environment Committee this morning.

We have 15 minutes for a roll-call. What I would ask is unanimous consent—there are three members remaining—that each

member be given 3 minutes, if that would be all right with the

members.

And we will begin by recognizing the gentleman from Oregon,

Mr. Walden.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and make this

quick.

Mr. Putala, do nomadic VoIP providers have different 911 needs

than fixed VoIP providers?

Mr. PUTALA. Yes.

Mr. WALDEN. And, if so, do the differences warrant treating fixed

and nomadic VoIP providers differently for purposes of access to E–

911 service? And, if so, elaborate.

Mr. PUTALA. No. I think it just highlights the importance of having, as H.R. 3403 does, a comprehensive list of the databases and

the network elements that go there. Nomadic VoIP needs access to

the P-ANIs but also to the street access guides. So it is just a different set. And we have to make sure that we have hit it all, so

that we can get the comprehensive solution we need.

Mr. WALDEN. Yes?

Ms. AVGIRIS. As a fixed IP-based phone provider, we believe that

the clarity that is presently in the bill is what is necessary for the

provision of 911 services and access to the databases and the information, the network facilities that are important. You don’t want

to have any ambiguity when it comes to 911.

Mr. WALDEN. Does anybody disagree with that? OK. Fine.

This question is for the entire panel. To date, VoIP has been classified as an interstate service subject to Federal but not State jurisdiction. VoIP, so far, has not been classified as a telecommunications service.

What implications does this have for VoIP 911 service, and what

impact would this bill have on those issues, as currently drafted?

I have a total of a minute and a half combined here for all of you.

Yes, sir?

Mr. DONALDSON. First of all, the premise that the FCC has, in

final conclusory form, decided that VoIP services, including 911,

are entirely interstate, I think is—maybe that is not what you said,

but this is a 911 context here in this hearing. So I want to be careVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:23 Oct 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-66 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
62

ful to not sweep away 911 with whatever Federal preemption has

occurred at the Federal level on general VoIP.

With respect to the impacts, I would tell you that what we are

facing here is the prospect of multiple regulatory schemes. We are

already operating under three: traditional wireline, wireless and

VoIP. Traditional wireline has the highest standards of all with respect to call routing, caller location accuracy. Wireless and VoIP

are below that standard somewhat.

So if we jump to an IP-based standard and regulatory scheme ultimately, without considering what it takes to get there, we are

going to be in big trouble. We will be opting for the standards at

the Federal level that are not as high as the standards at the State

level.

Mr. WALDEN. OK. I am down to about 16 seconds.

Mr. PUTALA. As we stated before, the Federal jurisdiction is the

appropriate level, and the bill strikes the appropriate balance.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Any other comments?

Ms. AVGIRIS. I agree with that.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you.

Mr. INSLEE [presiding]. The interim Chair will recognize himself.

This is not the end of the Markey era, I want to assure you.

I want to ask you about access for folks with disabilities. I am

told that a number of deaf and hard-of-hearing people are jettisoning their TTY devices and are relying on text and video services.

And I would just ask you to address how you see this legislation

assuring provision for the disabled.

I note that there is some provision about requiring plans, but I

wonder about the legal obligation to continue these services as we

migrate to these IP-enabled networks. Could any of you give us

confidence about this?

Mr. BARBOUR. Well, we think this bill helps move along the nextgeneration 911 system, because, as you said, this part of our community already has the technology and is communicating amongst

themselves using this technology. And we have to get our 911 system up to speed so that we can do messaging back and forth and

video-messaging back and forth.

Because it is sad that the deaf and hard-of-hearing community

is not using the TTY devices or they are not buying them or purchasing them like they should. And unfortunately, right now, that

is the only way they can communicate with 911.

Mr. PUTALA. We support the bill legislation. In addition to that,

the VON Coalition and the VoIP industry is working together with

the disability community at the FCC to try and solve these very

practical issues. I know there are a variety of working groups going

on under ambitious timetables, and we are working forward on

that, outside the scope of this bill.

Mr. INSLEE. Do you all support this as being a binding legal obligation, as opposed to working groups? Does the industry support

that?

Mr. PUTALA. I think we are under—it is just a question of what

exactly the time of the FCC obligation—I think right now it is 60

days? Right now we are under a 60-day obligation to meet these

standards.

63

The only thing we have looked at is whether we can extend that

for a short amount of time, just to make sure that it all technically

works and is feasible. It is not a question of ‘‘if’’; we agree with the

legal protections. It is just a question of a few weeks, literally,

extra, to make sure we have it done it right.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we appreciate that, because those of us who

are lucky are temporarily abled. So we all have a potential stake

in this. And we appreciate your efforts to provide leadership on

that.

I would like to recognize Mrs. Bono.

Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Interim Chair.

And to the panel, thank you for your time. And something

strange might happen. I am going to ask my question; I might

leave during your answer. I apologize for that. But remember that

we will look at what you said later on in the record.

So to each of you, Intrado was concerned that, once we move to

an IP-based E–911 platform, that our entire 911 system will be

more vulnerable to attack. Do you share this concern?

And 2 minutes and 37 seconds is all yours. Go.

Mr. MAYER. I don’t think we should ever ignore that kind of risk.

So I think we should all be concerned about that. And whatever we

do, going forward, with respect to developing standards and procedures, I think we have to be very vigilant about what the risk is,

with respect to security and risk. And I think that is part of the

next-generation construct, is to include that.

Mr. BARBOUR. And through our committee work—I mean,

through our next-generation program partner, we are definitely

looking at this through our technical expertise, because we need to

ensure the integrity and safety of our next-generation 911 networks. We definitely believe that it is something that we need to

keep in the forefront of our thinking as we transition toward this

type of infrastructure.

Mr. PUTALA. We believe that the legislation does make clear, the

regulatory structures already make clear, that VoIP providers have

to, in essence, register with the FCC. I think that is one important

step we can do, but we always need to be vigilant to those very important kinds of concerns.

Mr. DONALDSON. If I could just add, there is a role for States to

play here as well. This is not an appropriate situation just for the

FCC to oversee. Because of the way the 911 operates at a local and

State level, it would be inappropriate to carve them out of this situation.

Ms. AVGIRIS. Likewise, I think the 911 system needs to keep up

with the technology. That does not mean that we sacrifice the safety and security of the system to advance the technological opportunities that exist there.

Mrs. BONO. Thank you all very much.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.

With that, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the

record material submitted by Mr. Tim Lorello of TCS Company and

ask that all Members’ statements be included in the record as well.

Hearing no objection, so ordered.

I thank the witnesses for trying to help Congress keep speed

with the geniuses in the private sector. Thanks a million.

64

With that, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

TESTIMONY OF TIM LORELLO

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

I appreciate the opportunity today to provide testimony on the importance of H.R.

3403 to the advancement of 911 and public safety.

I want to thank Representative Gordon and his Legislative Director, Dana

Lichtenberg, for their work on this legislation. Additionally, I would like to thank

Chairman Markey, the E–911 Caucus, and the entire Committee for their commitment to improve emergency communications. TCS would like to express our deep

appreciation for the time and effort that has been put into moving this bill forward

in a way that will hopefully ensure passage of this important legislation in the very

near future.

Telecommunication Systems, Inc. (TCS) is a leading innovator in Enhanced 911

solutions and extracts and transmits the location data needed to support almost half

of all cellular and nomadic Voice Over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, 911 calls. We have

been responsible for developing the technologies necessary to bring E–911 capabilities to the VOIP community and are currently looking for new ways to use data

such as text and video to provide improved alternative E–911 solutions. We believe

that this bill under consideration by this committee today both completes a task set

in motion by the FCC over 2 years ago and establishes the framework for continued

progress and improvement for E–911.

Over 10 years ago, the 911 community faced similar challenges as it has over

these past two years. A new technology, cellular communications, was becoming immensely popular. Yet it was impossible to place a 911 call from this technology. This

is because the entire 911 infrastructure of over 6,100 Public Safety Answering

Points was built around the concept of fixed landline communications. The phone

number of the caller was used to look up the fixed street address of the caller. But

a cellular caller was not at a fixed location, and a fixed database of street addresses

could not be used to find a cellular caller’s location. Ten years ago, on September

5 in fact, TCS introduced and demonstrated the innovation that today delivers the

mobile location of over 100 million cellular E–911 calls every year.

Two years ago, TCS brought this same spirit of innovation to the VoIP marketplace and introduced the techniques now in use across the nation. In 2 short years,

TCS has succeeded in deploying the capability of handling E–911 calls for nomadic

VoIP users into over 5,000 PSAPs across the Nation.

Yet TCS, and many companies like us and even smaller, entered into this environment without the liability protection afforded to companies providing such solutions for cellular and landline communications. As such, we have all taken great

risks to meet the FCC’s mandate. We did so because we believed it was right and

necessary. We believe that this Committee has similarly understood that correcting

this liability disparity through this legislation is also right and necessary.

TCS fully supports the objectives of H.R. 3403 to improve emergency communications and foster public safety innovation. Today, I would like to specifically focus

my testimony on two sections of this bill that I believe are essential to advancing

new technologies and E–911 services long into the future: liability protection and

access.

PARITY OF LIABILITY PROTECTION

As a location data provider to VoIP Service Providers, known as VSPs, TCS is

very concerned about the lack of liability protection to vendors like us that operate

on behalf of a VSP to provide 911 services. Traditional telephone and wireless carriers, their employees and vendors currently have liability protection if something

should go wrong during a 911 call. Liability protection limits lawsuits to those that

suggest gross negligence. Without liability protection like that afforded to traditional telecommunications and wireless carriers, all involved in a VoIP E–911 call

are put at risk for frivolous legal action. In fact, even the Public Safety officials answering these VoIP E–911 calls are exposed to the risks of such legal action. We

have no intent to defend negligence, but we do need assurance that we are equally

afforded liability protection.

We also agree with the principle of the legislation that extends liability protection

to entities defined as ‘‘other emergency communications service providers,’’ but we

have concern that the ambiguity of this definition as currently written could inadvertently exclude some viable emergency communications providers. TCS serves as

an example of such a provider. As a data communications company that serves as

an aggregator and intermediary for 911 services, and being a proven innovator in

this field, TCS believes we are developing technologies that will significantly imVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:23 Oct 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-66 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
79

prove current and future 911 services. We are finding new ways to use data such

as text and video to improve public safety. As we like to say, this is not your father’s

telecommunications network any longer! We believe that the committee fully understands this truth and that it is the intent of the bill to include emerging technologies, including future uses of text and video. Thus, we feel it is important to

recognize the new types of companies that will participate in these new solutions

and that the Committee should clarify the bill’s definition of the term ‘‘other emergency communications service provider’’ so that traditional certification is not the

only method of achieving authorization to provide 911 services. Rather, by acknowledging that these other emergency communications service providers exist and

should be equally afforded liability protection, we believe it would be helpful to

allow such a provider to meet one of the following criteria: (1) establish itself as a

viable entity through testing with PSAPs; (2) obtain recognition as a viable entity

from a national or Federal Public Safety organization such as from NENA, APCO,

or NASNA; (3) receive a letter from a PSAP agreeing to purchase services; or (4)

obtain another form of approval as designated by the State or local governing authority, such approval which could of course be the traditional form of certification.

This distinction is important to ensure this legislation looks to the future and recognizes all viable providers that are volunteering to provide E–911 services but that

may not fit into traditional voice carrier certification criteria.

ACCESS TO 911 COMPONENTS

TCS understands that access has been a difficult issue while developing this legislation. We recognize the bill’s authors were inclusive of all interested parties and

as a result the language in H.R. 3403 granting access to necessary 911 components

is the minimum to ensure VSPs can provide the service effectively. In order for companies like TCS to provide the information necessary to complete an E–911 call,

VSPs must have access to the basic 911 components. If they do not have this access

or interconnection, it is impossible to complete a 911 call. Some may tell you that

telecommunications companies are already providing this access. To some extent,

this is true, but not in all cases. Perhaps more important, without legislative directive there is no guarantee that access will be provided in the future as the 911 infrastructure evolves while embracing these new internet-based technologies. With wireless, legislation was required to ensure access to the 911 components. Likewise, we

believe VSPs require the same legislative action. We cannot afford to have a request

for connectivity be refused due to the lack of a mandate.

TCS would like to note that as the Committee looks to future legislation, we

would encourage you to include other emergency communications service providers

such as voice and video into the mandate for interconnection access. As the industry

moves forward with new data-based technologies, it will be important that other

providers have the same access. TCS is working with entities that provide important communications services but which would not meet the current definition of a

traditional landline or wireless carrier or the added definition of a VoIP Service Provider. Telematics companies and those providing services for the disabled, deaf, or

hard of hearing are similarly looking for access to the 911 infrastructure in order

to provide life-saving services to their customers and constituents. In the spirit of

this legislation, we hope that the committee will continue to look to the future. Allowing access sooner rather than later will permit development and implementation

of these modern technologies.

Again, I would like to thank you for your time and look forward to answering any

questions. You may contact me at (410) 280–1275, tlorello@telecomsys.com.

Æ