U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–652 PDF 2016

PROGRESS TOWARD A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC 

SAFETY BROADBAND NETWORK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 16, 2015 

Serial No. 114–57 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California7 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

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

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 6 

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

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 52 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................................................ 53 

WITNESSES

T.J. Kennedy, Acting Executive Director, First Responder Network Authority 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Stu Davis, State Chief Information Officer and Assistant Director, Ohio Department of Administrative Services .................................................................. 19 

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

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of June 12, 2015, from David Hoover, Vice President of Legislative 

Affairs, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association, to Mr. Walden and Ms. 

Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Walden ........................................................................ 54 

(1) 

PROGRESS TOWARD A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC 

SAFETY BROADBAND NETWORK 

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:18 p.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, 

Long, Ellmers, Collins, Cramer, Eshoo, Doyle, Welch, Clarke, 

Loebsack, DeGette, Matsui, McNerney, Luja ́n, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor, Communications 

and Technology; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Gene 

Fullano, Detailee, Communications and Technology; Kelsey 

Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; David Redl, 

Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Charlotte 

Savercool, Legislative Clerk; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; David Goldman, Democratic Chief Counsel, Communications 

and Technology; Ashley Jones, Democratic Director of Communications, Member Services, and Outreach; Lori Maarbjerg, Democratic 

FCC Detailee; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Senior Professional 

Staff Member; Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief Counsel; and 

Ryan Skukowski, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

Mr. WALDEN. I will call to order the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, and I apologize for the delay in getting 

started. We had some votes, and a couple of member things I had 

to deal with, but we are here now. 

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

When we last convened to discuss FirstNet, my goal was to leave 

that hearing with a higher level of comfort with regard to 

FirstNet’s progress and confidence in the way it was conducting its 

business. As we all recognized then, and continue to acknowledge 

today, FirstNet has before it an undertaking which rivals the network deployments of our largest national carriers. In fact, given its 

mandate to build an interoperable wireless broadband service for 

all of our Nation’s first responders, its task will take to all corners 

of the United States. 

2 

Now, early shortcomings in FirstNet’s approach to consultation 

with States and other interested parties had resulted in considerable uncertainty and concern among stakeholders. Confused messaging, a perceived lack of transparency, and unanswered questions regarding FirstNet’s vision for the network, and even 

FirstNet’s vision for itself, further complicated things. Questions 

like, How would FirstNet provide service? Would it build a network, or partner with commercial carriers? What is FirstNet going 

to charge, and how does the opt-out work? Each contributed to the 

concerns raised at the hearing, and answers were far from forthcoming. Now, on top of all the policy concerns, FirstNet was also 

under investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of 

Commerce into alleged conflicts of interest and contracting concerns when we gaveled in last time. 

Now, much has happened since then. There has been some turnover in management, and—with the release of the IG’s report in 

December of last year confirming much of what we feared, that 

FirstNet had been operating without proper processes in place, and 

without compliance with the laws that guard against impropriety. 

It is my hope that the missteps are now behind us, and I believe 

they are. But that is not to say that there aren’t additional challenges. 

On April 28 the U.S. Government Accountability Office released 

a report on FirstNet’s progress in establishing the network, concluding that while FirstNet has made progress carrying out its responsibilities, weaknesses in FirstNet’s internal controls remain. 

For example, it remains unclear how FirstNet is internalizing the 

lessons learned from the Early Builder projects. Those are the five 

jurisdictions that are already deployed—or deploying public safety 

broadband networks using FirstNet spectrum. And while the GAO 

report recommends fixes, it is GAO’s succinct statement of what 

lies ahead that must inform our oversight. FirstNet faces a multitude of risks, significant challenges, and difficult decisions in 

meeting its statutory responsibilities, including how to become a 

self-funding entity. 

To give FirstNet credit, it has made progress. We witnessed 

FirstNet’s information collections, and consultation, and outreach 

activities accelerate through 2014. The feedback gathered has informed discussion on deployment and brought productive debate 

among all stakeholders. Today’s hearing reflects the subcommittee’s commitment to continued and thorough oversight of FirstNet. 

We all share the goal of ensuring that our Nation’s first responders 

realize the promise of truly interoperable state-of-the-art emergency communications networks envisioned by the law. With those 

early missteps behind us today, we look not only at the progress 

FirstNet has made, but also what new challenges lie ahead, our 

goal being to leave with a higher level of comfort in FirstNet’s 

progress, and confidence in the way it is conducting its business. 

So I look forward to hearing from Mr. Kennedy, who can provide 

an update on FirstNet’s progress, put some of the pieces together, 

and share with more specificity developments in FirstNet’s considerations and visions for the public safety broadband network. I also 

would like to thank Mr. Davis for appearing a second time before 

the subcommittee to share his experience as a State Chief InformaVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Jan 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X57SAFETYNETWORKNDEDITSETC\114X57SAFETYNETWORK
3 

tion Officer, and his assessment what needs improvement, and 

where FirstNet is headed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

When we last convened to discuss FirstNet, my goal was to leave that hearing 

with a higher level of comfort with regard to FirstNet’s progress and confidence in 

the way it was conducting its business. As we all recognized then and continue to 

acknowledge today, FirstNet has before it an undertaking which rivals the network 

deployments of our largest national carriers. In fact, given its mandate to build an 

interoperable wireless broadband service for all of our Nation’s First Responders, its 

task will take it to all corners of the United States. 

Early shortcomings in FirstNet’s approach to consultation with States and others 

interested parties had resulted in considerable uncertainty and concern among 

stakeholders. Confused messaging, a perceived lack of transparency, and unanswered questions regarding FirstNet’s vision for the network and even FirstNet vision for itself further complicated things. Questions like: How would FirstNet provide service; would it build a network or partner with commercial carriers; what is 

FirstNet going to charge; and, how does the ‘‘opt out’’ work each contributed to the 

concerns raised at the hearing and answers were far from forthcoming. 

And, on top of all of the policy concerns, FirstNet was also under investigation 

by the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce into alleged conflicts of 

interest and contracting concerns when we gaveled in. 

Much has happened since then. There has been some turnover in management, 

and with the release of the Inspector General’s report in December of last year confirming much of what we feared—that FirstNet had been operating without proper 

processes in place and without compliance with the laws that guard against impropriety—it is my hope that the missteps are behind us. And I believe they are. 

But that is not to say that there aren’t additional challenges. On April 28th, the 

United States Government Accountability Office released a report on FirstNet’s 

progress in establishing the network—concluding that while FirstNet has made 

progress carrying out its responsibilities, weaknesses in FirstNet’s internal controls 

remain. For example, it remains unclear how FirstNet is internalizing the lessons 

learned from the early builder projects—the five jurisdictions that are already deploying public safety broadband networks using FirstNet’s spectrum. And while the 

GAO report recommends fixes, it is GAO’s succinct statement of what lies ahead 

that must inform our oversight—‘‘FirstNet faces a multitude of risks, significant 

challenges, and difficult decisions in meeting its statutory responsibilities, including 

how to become a selffunding entity.’’ 

To give FirstNet credit, it has made progress. We witnessed FirstNet’s information collections and consultation and outreach activities accelerate throughout 2014. 

The feedback gathered has informed discussions on deployment and brought productive debate among stakeholders. 

Today’s hearing reflects the subcommittee’s commitment to continued and thorough oversight of FirstNet. We all share the goal of ensuring that our Nation’s First 

Responders realize the promise of truly interoperable, state-of-the-art emergency 

communications network envisioned by the law. With those early missteps behind 

us, today we look not only at the progress FirstNet has made but also what new 

challenges lie ahead. Our goal being to leave with a higher level of comfort in 

FirstNet’s progress and confidence in the way it is conducting its business. 

I look forward to hearing from Mr. Kennedy who can provide an update on 

FirstNet’s progress; put some of the pieces together, and share with more specificity 

developments in FirstNet’s considerations and vision for the of the public safety 

broadband network. I also would like to thank Mr. Davis for appearing a second 

time before the subcommittee to share his experience as a State Chief Information 

Officer and his assessment what needs improvement and where FirstNet is headed. 

Mr. WALDEN. With that, I turn to the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for any opening comments that he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

again, thanks for holding today’s hearing, and thanks to our witVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Jan 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X57SAFETYNETWORKNDEDITSETC\114X57SAFETYNETWORK
4 

nesses for being back with us today, I really appreciate it, especially Mr. Davis, coming from Ohio. Public safety and emergency 

communications are critical to protecting the lives of Americans. 

That is why we must ensure that the implementation of FirstNet 

is very successful. A reliable nationwide network is essential for 

first responders to facilitate their communication needs and support their everyday missions. 

While I understand developing a nationwide interoperable public 

safety network is a significant undertaking, it is imperative that it 

is properly established to meet the needs of all Americans, especially our first responders. Furthermore, I am eager to see the future developments, as consultations are underway to better incorporate the States’ input into planning and implementation of the 

broadband network. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing, and again 

thank our witnesses for appearing. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank you for your comments and leadership. 

Turn now to the ranking member, my friend from California, Ms. 

Eshoo, for 5 minutes. 

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

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. It has been a 

year and a half since our subcommittee last held a FirstNet oversight hearing, and progress has been made. I think that there 

are—we have a lot of questions. Obviously, since we haven’t been 

together for a year and a half for—to do the oversight that needs 

to be done. But—and we look forward to—I look forward to asking 

those questions, and I am sure that my colleagues do as well. 

Now, in terms of progress, I think amongst the biggest milestones include the release of a strategic road map, ongoing collaboration with States, and most recently the draft request for proposals intended to provide FirstNet with extensive stakeholder 

input. And that is—in my book, that is one of the—that is really 

key. You have to talk to customers. You are not in touch with customers, your company or endeavor is going to flop, in my view. 

So, thanks to the success of the recently completed 

AWS–3 auction, FirstNet will soon have the funds it needs to deliver on the first-ever nationwide interoperable public safety network. And I remind everyone that this was the one recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that the Congress had not made good 

on, but we did for the American people. So a lot rides on this effort. 

A lot rides on this effort, and we got the money for you, and did 

the legislation. It became law, and we want to make sure that this 

is not only done, but done very well, because it is a very big deal. 

It is a big deal for our country. 

Going forward, I think there are three key areas which 

FirstNet’s leadership should give special consideration to. First, I 

think it is critical that wireless carriers of all sizes have an opportunity to partner with FirstNet, just be an equal opportunity outfit, 

in my view. In particular, regional and/or rural providers will have 

an important role to play, both in building the network, as well as 

5 

being able to provide consumers with enhanced wireless broadband 

service when the network is not needed by emergency personnel. 

Second, device competition is critical to the success of FirstNet. $5,000 public safety radios are out, o-u-t, so there is—I don’t 

even—I don’t want to hear about them anymore. As far as I am 

concerned, they don’t exist, and I don’t think any of the dollars that 

are being provided should go to anything like that. That is yesterday. What is in? Highly innovative broadband enabled devices that 

can transmit live video from a robot sent to, for example, to assess 

a suspicious package, view floor plans of a burning building, access 

medical history of a patient in distress, as well as the wide range 

of other mobile applications. In other words, you have to be just as 

21st century as the rest of the—of this ecosystem is in our country. 

These devices have to be truly interoperable, and capable of withstanding the physical challenges that first responders face very 

day. 

And finally, I think that FirstNet should ensure its core operations align with the standards and the technologies related to 

next generation 911. Congressman Shimkus has been, you know, a 

great, great advocate, a coach here of the e-911 caucus. We have 

been working on these issues for more years than we want to 

count, and so there has to be alignment with that operation. The 

call centers around the country are upgrading to NG–911, and they 

are becoming capable of receiving photos, and videos, and text messages, so it only makes sense that this information can be 

seamlessly transmitted to first responders headed to an emergency 

situation. So the—your operations have to be absolutely aligned. 

So as we work toward advancing the next generation of public 

safety communications, I want to thank you for the work that you 

have already done, for what you are going to do, and for being here 

today to testify and give us a good deep dive on where things are, 

and how you see the future. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

In the year and a half since our subcommittee last held a FirstNet oversight hearing, significant progress has been made. Among the biggest milestones include the 

release of a strategic roadmap, ongoing consultation with States, and most recently, 

a draft request for proposals intended to provide FirstNet with extensive stakeholder input. 

Thanks to the success of the recently completed AWS–-3 auction, FirstNet will 

soon have the funds it needs to deliver on the first-ever, nationwide interoperable 

public safety communications network, and with this, Congress making good on the 

last major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. 

This is a big deal. 

Going forward, there are three key areas which FirstNet’s leadership should give 

special consideration: 

First, it’s critical that wireless carriers of all sizes have an opportunity to partner 

with FirstNet. In particular, regional and/or rural providers will have an important 

role to play, both in building the network as well as being able to provide consumers 

with enhanced wireless broadband service when the network is not needed by emergency personnel. 

Second, device competition is critical to the success of FirstNet. Five-thousand-dollar public-safety radios are out. What’s in? Highly innovative, broadband-enabled 

devices that can transmit live video from a robot sent to assess a suspicious package, view floor plans of a burning building, access medical history of a patient in 

distress as well as a wide range of other mobile applications. These devices must 

6 

be truly interoperable and capable of withstanding the physical challenges that first 

responders face every day. 

Finally, FirstNet should ensure its core operations align with the standards and 

technologies related to Next Generation 911. As call centers around the country upgrade to NG911 and become capable of receiving photos, videos, and text messages, 

it only makes senses that this information can be seamlessly transmitted to first 

responders headed to an emergency situation. 

As we work toward advancing the next generation of public safety communications, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to your important testimony. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady and would like to insert in 

the record a letter from the Rural Broadband Association, without 

objection. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. Turn now to the vice chair of the full committee, 

the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank you all for being here to give us an update. As the Chairman 

said in his comments, this is something we have followed, will continue to follow, and do appropriate oversight with you. We are so 

focused on your funding mechanism, how you moved to self-funding 

after that initial tranche of money is exhausted, and then how you 

are going to see that business model developing. 

Also, the issue of interoperability, those of us that have worked 

through the issues of some of our natural disasters want to make 

certain that that is being addressed, and that the stakeholders, 

with all of the first responders across the country, are going to understand, participate, and that we are going to realize this objective 

of having something that is interoperable. 

The other thing I want to touch on, and I will get to this in my 

questions a bit more, the aspects of a secure network. We are realizing more and more the importance of having a secure network, 

and, of course, we realize, closed systems, we are going to deal with 

those one way, enterprise systems another way. When you look at 

something that meets the interoperability component that you are 

going to have, the security of the system is just so important to us. 

We are living in an age where we face cyberattacks not just on 

a monthly basis, a weekly basis, but an hourly basis. So please talk 

with us about this issue of security. It is a heightened concern for 

us as we move into the age of the Internet of everything, and look 

at 50 billion devices being attached by the time we get to the end 

of this decade. So that secure wireless network that is the goal, we 

want to be certain that indeed it is secure, and hear from you as 

much as you can divulge to us that—how you are achieving that. 

With that, I will yield the balance of my time to anyone who is 

seeking time. No takers? Time goes back—— 

Mr. WALDEN. No takers? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [continuing]. To Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. And the gentlelady yields back, and I am told the 

ranking member of the full committee has asked Ms. Matsui to 

take his time, so I now recognize the gentlelady from California. 

7 

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

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding Mr. 

Pallone’s time to me. First of all, let me say FirstNet is a startup, 

let us not forget that. Like every startup, it has had its growing 

pains. For so long there were questions on how FirstNet would be 

funded, but now we know that it was fully funded, and will be 

operational, due to this subcommittee’s diligent work on AWS–3’s 

record setting spectrum auction. Last year FirstNet laid out a road 

map, and I am pleased that they are hitting their milestones so far. 

From the beginning I remained focused on the need for a strong 

governance structure at FirstNet to responsibly govern any nationwide public safety interoperability network. Despite some initial 

concerns about the role of States taking a back seat, I am pleased 

that the FirstNet board took this issue head on and developed a 

strong coordinated relationship with the States. It is my hope that 

we can work together in a bipartisan manner to achieve success for 

America’s first responders. And I yield to anyone on my side who 

would like to take the rest of the time. No? I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. We 

go to our witnesses now, and start with Mr. T.J. Kennedy, Acting 

Executive Director, First Responder Network Authority. We want 

to thank you for your leadership, and appreciate the progress that 

you have been making. And please go ahead with your comments. 

STATEMENTS OF T.J. KENNEDY, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY; AND STU 

DAVIS, STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

SERVICES 

STATEMENT OF T.J. KENNEDY 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member 

Eshoo, members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate being 

here on behalf of the First Respondent Network Authority. I welcome the opportunity to brief you on FirstNet’s progress, and the 

development of deploying an interoperable nationwide public safety 

broadband network. It is also a pleasure to appear here today with 

the CIO of the State of Ohio, Stu Davis. We just recently conducted 

the Ohio consultation last week in Ohio, and his team has been 

very active not just in Ohio itself, but even within the region, in 

setting a great example for our country in how to make this network possible. 

I would like to welcome several members of the public safety 

community who join us here today. This network is all about them. 

When we put reliable, resilient broadband technology in the hands 

of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical services personnel 

across this country, we will enhance public safety like never before. 

We will create new ways that first responders can save lives, and 

improve first responders’ own safety. As this committee is aware, 

we are experiencing growing pains in our early days of existence, 

but we have worked very hard to shore up areas of weakness, and 

8 

to take on as much responsibility as we can. And I am very confident that today you will find our processes and procedures in line 

with your expectations. 

I am leading a dedicated team of professionals, who are working 

tirelessly to achieve both the goals that you have created for us, 

and the internal goals that we strive to achieve every day. Each 

day we work on recruiting and building the most talented team 

possible in order to make this program successful. Under the direction of the Chairwoman of the Board, Mrs. Sue Swinson, we have 

implemented a culture measured by results, while always remembering who we are working for. The network that we will deploy 

is public safety’s network, and this is the key principle that guides 

our work each day. 

The pace at which we are working is very high, and this leads 

to a demanding, but rewarding, work environment. FirstNet resembles a startup, and we have a team that has rolled up its sleeves, 

and is focused on consultation and/or acquisition that will result in 

the successful deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband 

network. Having a wireless startup inside of Government is a challenge that we are overcoming, and you are able to see the progress 

that we have made. Since the release of our strategic road map in 

March of 2014, we have been doing something unusual. We are actually doing what we told you we would do. We released a plan, 

and we are sticking to it, and we are meeting the goals that we 

set out to achieve. 

Since we last testified before this subcommittee in November of 

’13, we have accomplished the following. We released 13 RFIs, 

which examined numerous aspects of the network. We published a 

statement of objectives with a comprehensive network RFI. This 

brought together all of the information that we had received into 

a single document. We conducted three public notices addressing 

various aspects of our enabling statute, and in April we released 

a special notice with draft RFP documents. We have been consulting with States and territories, and conducting an enormous 

amount of outreach to our stakeholders. 

While we have taken great strides in the right direction, significant work remains, and we at FirstNet are committed to completing the mission that Congress has given us. One area that I believe we have improved on is engaging with our Public Safety Advisory Committee, known as the PSAC. A lot of the credit for this 

improvement must go to Chairwoman Swinson and the PSAC 

Chairman, Chief Harlin McEwan. The PSAC is actively engaged in 

task teams that are working on critical topics, such as priority and 

preemption, public safety grade, and end user devices. The 40 

members of the PSAC are public safety’s voice with FirstNet, and 

by leveraging it, we will ensure that we integrate public safety into 

the fabric of the network at every stage of planning and deployment. 

Our consultation and outreach efforts have been impressive, but 

more work remains to be done. We have held consultations with 35 

States to date, with a further 15 scheduled. In fact, Mr. Chairman, 

your home State of Oregon was one of our early consultations, and 

we have seen an impressive outreach in organizational structure in 

Oregon, and many other States. FirstNet is collaborating with 

9 

States in public safety to conduct outreach and consultation, and 

are leveraging the State and local implementation grant program 

that has helped fund these important efforts throughout the country. 

As we work towards the end of the year, and the planned release 

of the comprehensive network RFP, the consultation process continues to inform the composition of the RFP, and so it is very important that States are involved at every stage in development of 

the network. States have many avenues for consultation beyond 

our in person meetings and regular conference calls. States can 

have significant consultation feedback through the responses to our 

public notices and our draft statement of objectives. I have directed 

the organization to focus on these very two topics in 2015, consultation, and our acquisition of the network. These are our top priorities to meet the requirements of the act. 

FirstNet currently has a number of draft RFP documents open 

for public comment, and we have been very encouraged by the feedback that we received up to this point from both industry, from 

public safety, and from States. Mr. Chairman, it is the mission, 

that of deploying a much needed nationwide public safety 

broadband system that our first responders deserve, that has me 

excited to come to work every morning. This is not an easy task, 

but it is extremely rewarding to the hard working team members 

of FirstNet, and we all understand the critical importance to our 

country of getting this right for public safety. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Kennedy, thank you for your leadership, and 

that of your team’s, and the progress that you are making, and 

your forthright commitment to do what you told us you would do. 

That is novel. We were just suggesting bringing you back more 

often. 

Now we go to Mr. Stu Davis—we have got a few other agencies 

we can assign you to—State Chief Information Officer, Assistant 

Director, Ohio Department of Administrative Services. Mr. Davis, 

we are delighted to have you back before the subcommittee. Please 

go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF STU DAVIS 

Mr. DAVIS. It is good to be here. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on FirstNet and the National Public Safety Broadband Network. As State CIO, I also chair 

the Multi-Agency Radio Communication System, or MARCS, and 

the Steering Committee, Ohio’s land mobile radio system that supports voice and data communications for statewide public safety 

and emergency response. And I also chair Ohio’s Next Generation 

911 steering committee as well. 

I first testified before you in November 2013 and expressed concerns that the Ohio General Assembly had about FirstNet. It called 

for this subcommittee to continue these meetings, and we commend 

you for doing so. I also expressed concerns relative to some key 

components that are necessary for success. FirstNet has been—has 

made significant progress in further defining and communicating 

the mitigation of these concerns. Regarding the State’s relationship 

with FirstNet, it is important that FirstNet views this as a partnership. FirstNet has come a long way in this regard, and, over the 

past year and a half, many States have had the opportunity to 

meet with representatives from FirstNet and discuss issues and 

concerns. FirstNet’s message has been clear. They are listening, reacting to our concerns. Ohio’s FirstNet consultation was held last 

week, and by all accounts was a positive interaction. 

From a planning and development perspective, States, including 

Ohio, have received planning grants to support stakeholder outreach, governance, and data collection activities in support of 

FirstNet. Ohio has been pursuing a regional, or a multi-State approach. The FEMA region, five States of Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio, have long been partners in the 

pursuit of obtaining the best possible public safety communication 

networks for the region. Region 5 States met often on FirstNet, and 

we have found the same issues emerge for all of us, local control 

issues, leveraging existing systems, next generation 911 integration, and, of course, business models. 

At our request, FirstNet participated in these meetings, and provided additional communication, and a consistency in their message regarding interactions with the State. Their outreach efforts 

are appreciated. Region 5 has taken steps to identify assets that 

support emergency responder communication to tower to other 

technical infrastructure. Of course, there are necessary legal, financial, and jurisdictional considerations when leveraging public infrastructure. Due to the complexity of these considerations, recent 

20 

FirstNet discussions have been around foregoing leveraging State 

assets, which is understandable. These considerations, multiplied 

by 50 States, will take an enormous amount of time and effort. 

However, leveraging MARCS towers in Ohio could greatly assist in 

achieving NPSBN coverage necessary. 

There are some continued concerns. The FirstNet business model 

is still somewhat undefined, and, based on recent discussions at 

our State consultation, it will be defined by the successful bidder 

through the RFP process. A sustainable business model is critical 

to know and understand, and building the cost recovery and usage 

rates will be instrumental in the adoption of this effort. The 

FirstNet Chief Financial Officer recently discussed a potential user 

fee of $30 a month, based on four to 13 million users. This sets an 

expected bar for fees, and is close to what some current service providers are charging, but FirstNet should provide as good or better 

service at an equal or lower cost. As Vice Chairman Latta knows, 

we have MARCS users today that indicate that they cannot afford 

the $20 a month fee we charge. 

Additionally, further clarity around user community access and 

secondary use is required. Utilities are asking questions and making a strong case regarding priority access and spectrum for the 

critical data systems they support. Their inclusion as partners on 

the NPSBN could also provide sustainability for that future business model. 

There continue to be concerns regarding coverage. Recent discussions have focused on the urban areas, with a phased approach to 

address rural and remote areas. Currently Ohio’s marked service 

coverage is 97.5 percent of the State. We would expect at least the 

same from FirstNet in Ohio. I understand the reason for this current focus, but I am concerned in the long run the rural remote 

areas of the State will be underrepresented. I will continue to press 

for a FirstNet coverage plan and schedule that clearly extends to 

these areas in Ohio. 

It is important to note that we are supportive of FirstNet and the 

Nationwide Public Safety broadband network. Ohio is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the significant opportunity to coordinate and converge multiple efforts. These efforts include the upgrade to our LMRS, MARCS, and Ohio’s next generation 911 system. I look forward to our continued partnership with FirstNet, 

and ensure impacts to current initiatives are in alignment with 

Ohio’s direction. Thank you for your time, and I will respond to any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Davis, thank you for your testimony, and that 

of Mr. Kennedy’s as well. 

So, Mr. Kennedy, it appears there may be some conflicting information regarding the release of the final RFP, and I just would 

love to get some clarification. I understand FirstNet Chair Swinson 

estimated early 2016 when she testified before the Senate. Is that 

a pretty good estimate, early 2016? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is. I mean, we are shooting for the end of this 

year, but early 2016 is a very accurate estimate. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. You state in your testimony that FirstNet 

has received more than 670 questions to the draft RFP you just released, and the comment period doesn’t close until July 27. Sounds 

like a lot of stakeholders have a lot of questions. Given that level 

of inquiry, do you think you will be able to hold on to the early 

2016 release of the RFP? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Currently we are still holding on to that date, and 

we have been responding to the questions that have been coming 

in. We actually released the first responses last week, and we are 

going to continue to respond to the questions on an ongoing basis 

so that those questions can be acted upon by the teams, and the 

States, and the public safety stakeholders, who have been submitting questions. 

One of the things that we have done with the draft RFP is we 

have asked for feedback, and so both the questions and the responses that we hope to get by July 27, we are expecting a lot of 

interaction not just from vendors in industry, but also from States, 

and so we are excited to see the feedback that we are getting. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I assume that has been a pretty helpful process? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It has. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. What do you see as—I was just reading 

through this document that we entered in the record for the Rural 

Broadband Association, and some of their concerns about special 

issues, the rural areas, and being able to be a partner, and maybe 

partnering, or, conversely, if you end up commercializing some of 

the surplus spectrum, the effect that might have on the marketplace. Are those the sort of issues you are going to be addressing? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We are, and we have asked for, in the draft RFP 

documents, ways to address not just the urban and suburban 

areas, but rural areas, as we look at rollout. One of the things with 

the capacity on the network, certainly there will be more excess capacity in the more rural areas. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have also been working with groups like the 

Rural Broadband Association, and many others, to go out and 

reach out to the rural carriers and rural telecom providers and 

make sure that they are getting involved. We have been encouraging them to respond—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Good. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. To the draft RFP—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Good. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. And respond with solutions. And 

whether that is individually, or that is as teams, or working toVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Jan 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X57SAFETYNETWORKNDEDITSETC\114X57SAFETYNETWORK
27 

gether in regions or different parts of the country, we are absolutely encouraging them to participate. 

Mr. WALDEN. Because it just seems to me the more you can minimize overbuild, or prevent it altogether, the better, because you 

have got to leverage the money that you have in the most effective 

way. So what are the next steps once the final RFP is released? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Once the RFP is released, there will be certainly 

questions to come in on the final RFP. We will respond to those. 

We expect proposals to be returned after that. There is an evaluation period of those different proposals, and the ranking and rating 

that would normally happen with an—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Evaluation, and then any kind of 

orals, or other parts that could take part of the evaluation process. 

These do take some time. As you know, with large Federal procurements, we expect that this will take a significant amount of 2016 

to occur, but we want to move with as much urgency for public 

safety as we can because we know they need this network, and we 

want to move into deployment. 

Mr. WALDEN. Our antennae always go up when we hear the IG 

is looking at an organization. I understand, while they are done 

with their first audit, they are back looking at some of the Federal 

issues. Can you elaborate a little bit about what they are looking 

at? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. The most recent request was to take a look 

at Federal outreach. Nothing out of the ordinary. We have been 

working closely with any requests that come from either the IG, or 

the Government Accountability Office, and we have been definitely 

following up with them. And we expected this to be a normal, routine cause of business as we go through deploying this network. 

Mr. WALDEN. And how soon before we would see some form of 

deployment of the network after you get through the RFP and all? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We would expect that, once the RFP is awarded, 

that we will move into that first phase of deployment. We currently 

have about 5 years of deployment that is in the plan, the way the 

draft RFP is scripted today, so we are expecting about a 5-year 

buildout, post award of the contract for the initial buildout. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, see if I have anything else. Yes, in your 

testimony you speak of a vision of developing a recapitalization 

model that will lead to the deployment of a fully self-sustained network. Could you describe this model, and what it means from the 

perspective public safety user States, and States that opt out of the 

network? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. The recapitalize model, from an opt-in and 

an opt-out perspective, is trying to make sure that the nationwide 

network, the core network itself, and the overall network will not 

be like a lot of past public safety projects, where we invest a large 

amount of Government grants and other funding into a system that 

cannot be maintained or upgraded—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Into the future. As all of you know, 

you are currently using phones that are leveraging 3G technology, 

leveraging 4G and LTE, and we are going to be leveraging advanced LTE, 5G, 6G, into the future. And so as we build this netVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Jan 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X57SAFETYNETWORKNDEDITSETC\114X57SAFETYNETWORK
28 

work, the goal is to make sure that we plan those costs, and that 

recapitalization, into the network cost, whether that is core fees related to an opt-out State, or whether that is actual user fees, and 

the covered leasing agreements related to opt-in States, and making sure that we have the ability to maintain and upgrade the network. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. My time has expired. Thank you again 

for your testimony, and the answers to my questions. Turn now to 

the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questions, I would just like to acknowledge the uniformed first responders that are in the audience with us here today. We salute you, we 

thank you for your service, and I will never forget how you were 

really the backbone of the effort moving the legislation through, so 

thank you for being here, and for everything that you do for our 

whole country. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy, circling back to the GAO, what prompted the review? Is this something that is—— 

Mr. WALDEN. You mean the IG’s—— 

Ms. ESHOO. The IG review, yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We are not aware of anything in particular that 

prompted the review itself. We believe it is a routine course of business—— 

Ms. ESHOO. It is a routine—um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. And this was the next area that they 

wanted to audit, which was Federal outreach. 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. OK. Well, we will have to make—avail ourselves to the report, and become familiar with it. We have had 

enormous struggles with interoperability in the radio space, and I 

want to make sure that the same thing doesn’t happen again between FirstNet and NG–911. So can you tell us what FirstNet is 

doing to ensure that we don’t have a standards mismatch between 

the LTE network built by FirstNet and our NG–911 systems built 

by States and localities? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Our statute clearly calls out and requires us to 

promote integration of the network—— 

Ms. ESHOO. It does. Uh-huh, yes, the law does. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. And we have absolutely built that 

into our draft RFP documents. We have leveraged it in our outreach, and we have worked very closely with the 911 community. 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Today in the audience some of the team from 

APCO was here. APCO has been very much a supporter of FirstNet 

in making sure that we maintain this integration focus that needs 

to occur between next gen 911—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. And existing 911 and public safety 

answering point services. We are also bringing on a 911 subject 

matter expert onto the FirstNet team to make sure that we are 

very focused in reaching out to all of the dispatch centers, and all 

of the communicators across the country, so that their needs are 

included. And they are often at our consultations and our different 

discussions as we go across the country. So we believe that we are 

29 

working very closely with the 911 community, and that that integration will occur. 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. That is excellent. Mr. Davis, thank you for the 

work that you are doing. You gave quite an extensive report in 

your testimony. Thank you very much. I mean, it represents a ton 

of work, as my kids would say. How, in your view, do you think 

the whole issue of interoperability between FirstNet, the States, 

the NG–911 systems, is working? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think it is too early to tell, from a State perspective. 

Right now we are working through the technical requirements on 

how we would do that from a State perspective. Historically, that 

has come from local government, and we are trying to put guidance 

out to local government to make sure that they are following the 

standards and the—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Approach that we would take. I am excited to hear you have a 911 expert on your team, because I am 

sure we will be reaching out and trying to leverage the technology 

and the standards that you guys will be implementing. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. Beyond what you just shared, do you think 

that the atmospherics have become—I don’t know what other word 

to use. I mean, there were tensions in the beginning, and the—on 

the part of some, a reluctance to be a part of this effort. Can you 

tell us anything about how that has improved, in your view? Do 

you think that it has? 

Mr. DAVIS. Significantly improved. 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. 

Mr. DAVIS. I think—— 

Ms. ESHOO. That is wonderful. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. In the last year—— 

Ms. ESHOO. That is so important. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. And a half, in terms of the outreach, the 

collaboration, the communication, these 35 States—I mean, that 

says a lot, when you are going out and talking to the States. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. DAVIS. And we do get together from—regional perspective. 

We get together from—even a national perspective, and we talk. 

And so that—and you know that, right? So the consistency of the 

message is very concerning for us to hear that, you know, somebody said something in a different State. And that message is 

clear. It—the collaboration, I think, is there. The integration and 

the communication has been consistent, and I think things are 

moving in the appropriate direction. 

Ms. ESHOO. And is there a comfort level to advise the Board as 

to how—if there are ways to improve that, do you feel comfortable 

saying so, or others? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think there is always room for more communication—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. And transparency. I think it will be interesting to see the responses that come back from the RFI—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hm. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. And the sharing of the information, and 

the—— 

30 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Comments that come back from that. I 

think that will be a significant assistance and help. 

Ms. ESHOO. Great. Thank you very much. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair recognizes 

the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Davis, thanks for being here today with us. We really appreciate it, for the update. And, Mr. Davis, if I could ask you, I 

noted in your testimony that you advocate a regional approach to 

planning and development, capitalizing in part on the partnership 

between the States in FEMA regions, and the history of that kind 

of collective work with regard to the land mobile radio communications. Would you be able to expand on that for us, please? 

Mr. DAVIS. Sure. There is a long history of communication between the States in the FEMA 5 Region. They all have land mobile 

radio systems that we share and share alike, and lessons that were 

learned in Minnesota are things that we, you know, don’t have to 

break our teeth on, if you will, in another State, in Ohio, for example. 

So that communication came out, and it was really more about 

making sure that we could be heard through the process. In the 

early days, in 2013, there were concerns that, as a State, our voice 

might be minimized, and we felt it as—moving into a regional approach like that, we could not be dismissed, when you start to talk 

about the population that is served, the towers and the infrastructure that is there, and the way that those land mobile radio systems are working today. So there have been very, very strong communication between all of those coordinators in those States. 

Mr. LATTA. Just not between the States, do you think FirstNet’s 

doing enough to take advantage of that regional approach, then, 

that you have already been working on? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think it is starting to take some root, if you will. 

I think originally there were some—— 

Mr. LATTA. Yes. Would you want to elaborate on that? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think originally—I think FirstNet was a little concerned, and this is my own perspective, I probably shouldn’t say 

that, but I will. And then I think, as they began to see the opportunity, that that really brought it to the table, and we had FirstNet 

come to one of those region five meetings. And it is a great opportunity for us to hear the same things, and to get everything out on 

the table, and have that constructive debate on how this thing is 

going to come together. And so I think that regional approach has 

been helpful, and I think—I would hope that T.J. would say the 

same thing. 

Mr. LATTA. Would you like to comment, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. As somebody who did go out to that Region 

5 meeting, and I brought with me my Director of Consultation, as 

well as Director of State Plans, the interaction was terrific. It was 

a nice snowy day in Chicago. We got together with all the States 

in Region 5. And I think what was very beneficial was the pros and 

cons from different States, with different geographies, and different 

31 

issues, and common problems and issues as well. And I think it 

made for a great dialogue and discussion. 

We have also been staffing up our consultation and outreach 

teams by region now, and we actually are leveraging the FirstNet 

regions, which are the same as the FEMA region. So we are 

leveraging that kind of regional cooperation, much like Region 5 set 

as a good example. So we are taking that example and leveraging 

it in other parts of the country. 

We also did something this year that I think is even taking that 

to the next step, in that we held a nationwide single point of contact meeting. So—both Stu Davis, and all of the other single points 

of contacts from all the 50 States, and the territories, and the District of Columbia we invited to a nationwide—meeting where we all 

came together. Over—I think 52 of the States actually brought different team members to that meeting, and we were able to share 

the differences in the issues, and talk very openly in 2 full days of 

discussion. 

I think you could kind of rate the discussion by—at 5 o’clock on 

the second day, everyone was still in the room, having a very fruitful discussion. We had breakout sessions where we could dive deep 

into elements around the RFP, or the public notices. And that kind 

of dialogue has been extremely helpful, I think, both for FirstNet, 

but also for the States, and I think that we both gained from it. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask Mr. Davis, if I could, just on a follow up, 

if you are going to look into the crystal ball and look into the future, where do we need to be with the States and FirstNet right 

now? You know, where do we want to be in the next year? What 

do we need to be doing? What else? 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I think right now, I think, with all the planning 

that is going on from each individual State, and that coalescing of 

all that information across the—at least the FEMA five regions, I 

think that is really on us to sort of get some of that together and 

make sure that we are getting it to FirstNet. 

I think that the next steps are really the schedule, and how this 

thing comes out, and how it gets rolled out at some point in time. 

Because, again, like I said, I am concerned about the rural and remote areas of the State, to make sure that we have the appropriate 

coverages. I certainly understand the logic behind the approach 

that they are taking, but some of this can be done on parallel. We 

just need to make sure we are doing it. 

Mr. LATTA. If I could just touch real briefly—and my time is 

about up—because, especially when you are talking about the rural 

parts of the State—because, you know, when I look at my district, 

in northwest/west-central Ohio, I go from urban, suburban, to very, 

very, very rural areas—and especially when I am out talking to my 

first responders out in the rural areas, there is always that question about coverage. And when you have talked to folks in the rural 

parts of Ohio, I don’t care if it is in the northwest, or the southwest, or northeast, or southeast, what are they telling you right 

now? 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, they are all interested to know what kind of 

coverage they are going to have to—— 

Mr. LATTA. Right, and—but do they think that they will get that 

coverage? 

32 

Mr. DAVIS. I think that they do assume that that is—I think the 

original message that was coming out of FirstNet in the very early 

days was consistent coverage across the entire country. And, you 

know, my—obviously our fervent hope is that that actually happens. But the question is the timing for those rural and remote 

areas is going to be critical, because—and that goes back to the 

business model as well, because how much are you willing to spend 

for what you are going to get form that out of the gate. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time 

has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 

the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr. 

Kennedy first about Jersey Net, and then I wanted to ask a question about tribal lands, so I am trying to get this all in. 

Nearly 3 years ago Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey. The 

natural disaster was compounded by communication failures across 

the State, and that is why I have been such a supporter of making 

New Jersey’s one of FirstNet’s early builder projects. I know that 

early on, however, critics pointed to the struggles Governor 

Christie had getting this project off the ground as an example of 

why FirstNet couldn’t work, and I believe that we have been able 

to turn this project around since then. 

I had hoped to ask one of the architects of the success in New 

Jersey about how he did it, because I thought his experience would 

help make other jurisdictions successful, but, unfortunately, the 

Governor prevented him from being here today, so I have to ask 

you, Mr. Kennedy, what do you think of the progress Jersey Net 

has made, and can you elaborate on the lessons that FirstNet 

hopes to learn from New Jersey’s early deployment of its public 

safety broadband network? 

Mr. KENNEDY. New Jersey and Jersey Net are currently deploying and testing their first sites this week, so the program is making terrific progress, and Fred Scalera, and the team in New Jersey, are very eager to get this project completed by September of 

this year. They are on track to do that. They have been working 

very closely with the FirstNet team as well, and sharing lessons 

learned as they move forward. 

The project is helping drive a strong ecosystem to lessons learned 

across devices, looking at early devices, and ways to leverage the 

network, and also looking at ways to use deployables so that in 

events like Hurricane Sandy in the future, those deployables could 

be moved into an area that has been affected by a natural disaster 

or other event, and actually really leverage both capacity and coverage needs that may change due to those kinds of planned and unplanned events that occur. 

So I do believe that the Jersey Net system is a great platform 

for FirstNet to learn from. I do think the team is on track to complete the project by September of this year, and that we will be getting lessons of an operational flavor as early as fall of this year, 

and we look forward today. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. FirstNet was created to be part of NTIA, 

which is part of the Department of Commerce. It seems to me, 

33 

though, that you might be able to deploy the network faster if 

FirstNet was spun out of the agency. So do you think FirstNet has 

reached the point where it can stand on its own as an independent 

corporation, and if we are not there yet, what needs to happen 

first? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think FirstNet has grown a lot from the early 

days. I believe that, when we started, we relied very heavily on 

NTIA and the Department of Commerce for a lot of key functions. 

As we have been able to build up our staff, we have been able to 

take on some of those key corporate and governance functions of 

the organization. We have moved things like finance entirely into 

the FirstNet organization, and now we are looking at key elements, 

like human resources, and procurement, and how that can be taken 

on by FirstNet in the future. 

So I do believe that we are maturing, and I do think that that 

kind of responsibility and accountability for FirstNet is something 

that we are growing into, very much so. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. I want to ask you about tribal lands. I try to 

bring up American Indian issues when I can. Nowhere is our Nation’s digital divide more apparent than on tribal lands. The lack 

of communications on tribal lands has not just had an economic impact, it is also led to real difficulties with public safety communications. And I think one of the overlooked virtues is this potential importance to improve deployment of broadband infrastructure to 

tribal lands. 

So how is FirstNet coordinating with tribal public safety entities, 

and how will FirstNet address areas like tribal lands, which may 

have very little existing communications infrastructure? 

Mr. KENNEDY. FirstNet understands the special importance of 

reaching out to the tribal communities, many of which have an 

acute need for broadband deployment. We have a tribal outreach 

lead that is full time on FirstNet, and does nothing but interact on 

a regular basis with the public safety community on different tribal 

lands, as well as the telecommunications, and different elements of 

communications on the tribal lands, and what they can do to help 

as FirstNet deploys. We have actually created a tribal working 

group on the Public Safety Advisory Committee. I personally have 

spent time meeting with them all day, talking about the issues that 

are different in tribal communities that need to be supported by 

FirstNet as we develop the network and deploy the network. 

I see a lot of desire for FirstNet to succeed on—with supporting 

tribal public safety. They have been very eager to work with us and 

help us understand their needs and desires. And I do think that 

our recent consultations in States like New Mexico, just recently 

last week, and we are looking at specific tribal needs as we go 

through State-by-State consultations, really is a great opportunity 

for us to make sure that we get it right. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 

the other gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to the 

panel. New Jersey’s project is notable for its use of deployable long 

term evolution communications technology for its first responder 

network, called Jersey Net. This mobile network system can be inVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:36 Jan 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X57SAFETYNETWORKNDEDITSETC\114X57SAFETYNETWORK
34 

corporated on towable trailers, SUVs, vans, and other platforms to 

be deployed quickly in emergency situations or natural disasters, 

like Hurricane Sandy, or to places where communications are limited or non-existent. It is my understanding that rural areas, which 

comprise about 90 percent of the country, in geography, are particularly vulnerable, since there is no built-out fixed infrastructure. 

In this regard, and I go to you, Mr. Kennedy, could you provide 

guidance on how you plan to incorporate deployables into your 

buildout plans? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have been looking at deployables not just for 

rural deployments, where it may not be cost-effective to have terrestrial elements, we want to have as much terrestrial in rural 

areas as well, but also from the capacity and the reconstitution of 

a network. There are special events that occur, large gatherings, 

you, you know, Super Bowls, large sporting events, other things 

that would require an additional capacity in certain areas where 

deployables can be effectively—— 

Mr. LANCE. All Super Bowls should be in New Jersey, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely. The—— 

Mr. LANCE. It is on the record. 

Mr. KENNEDY. The temperature of Super Bowls in New Jersey in 

that time of year can be a little cold at some times—— 

Mr. LANCE. No. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Just wanted to throw that out. The 

need for reconstituting a network after a natural disaster, though, 

is an excellent opportunity for deployables, where we can have 

deployables that are moved out of the way of a particular disaster, 

if we have warning, and can move them back in to make sure that 

public safety can communicate immediately after a major event. It 

also is supportive of terrorist events, or other events that may take 

out existing infrastructure, critical infrastructure. 

Lastly, there are many parts, as you mentioned, of the United 

States that are very rural, and it may make more sense to have 

deployable assets leveraging satellite backhaul, and other elements, to get to parts of the United States that are very difficult 

to get to. When I was a first responder, I was a police officer and 

a firefighter in very rural parts of Utah. I went to places that were 

not covered by cellular networks or land mobile radio networks, in 

many cases. So, having that ability to get communications much 

deeper into our rural communities for public safety is absolutely 

critical. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. And, on another topic, FirstNet has 

sought comments on the definition of public safety entity on two occasions, and, as I understand it, based on press reports, there 

seems to be some debate among stakeholders. Mr. Kennedy, could 

you describe this debate, and the implications of the definition of 

that term for FirstNet’s deployment? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have actually had a terrific, I think, conversation with both public safety, the States, and industry on the definition of public safety entity. It was in both our first public notice, 

and our follow-up third public notice. We saw overwhelming support from the States. Many States, including Ohio, mentioned the 

elements related to leveraging a broad user base to support the 

35 

network that public safety needs to have access to. But, most importantly, that user base is somebody that needs to be contacted 

by the incident commander during big incidents. 

And if we look at emergencies that occur, everyone understands 

that police, fire, and emergency medical services are part of our everyday public safety response. But also there are others, whether 

it is a utility worker, or whether it is to access some key transportation support on a major accident scene on an interstate highway. 

You may have other users that are in contact with public safety 

every day, supporting public safety operations, and, most importantly, needing to be prioritized by an incident commander to be 

spoken to during those large emergencies, when networks get congested. 

And so we have tried to be very clear on making sure that we 

get input from States on who should be on the network, and we 

have received a lot of input on that issue. We have not issued our 

final recommendation for the outer guardrails of that public safety 

entity definition, but I think with the tremendous amount of input 

that we have received, it has helped us build a broad definition 

that will cover what needs to occur, and also be prudent in acting 

with the act. 

Mr. LANCE. In the press there has been some discussion as to the 

difference between six million to 13 million users, estimates. Could 

you give your best advice to the committee on that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. In general, our market research has shown 

that there are about four million public safety traditional users 

that would want to engage on the network, if they were given that 

opportunity, and so we look at that as an addressable market. It 

is about four million police, fire, and emergency medical services 

personnel. The nine million, or up to 13 million, number comes 

from those other types of users we just described, so Department 

of Transportation officials that may be supporting that. They may 

be buses or transportation that moves folks during an evacuation. 

That is commonly needed when you have a hurricane coming into 

an area, or you are evacuating a hospital, or a nursing home, or 

other large facilities that you might need to evacuate during an actual emergency. Having that kind of broader public safety first responder community that can support that is important, and so that 

is where that other nine million comes from. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. My time is done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Lance. We turn now to the 

gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke. Do you have any questions? 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Davis, thank you for testifying 

here today. Coming out of the New York experience in 9/11, and 

understanding that there have been a host of iterations of I guess 

ways of becoming interoperable, I want to know whether we are 

looking at how we maximize on the infrastructures that have already—that are already in existence, whether FirstNet will be an 

underlay of those systems, or are we talking about essentially putting those systems aside, and deploying FirstNet as the main vein, 

if you will, of communications not only in the New York region, but 

I guess across the Nation. 

36 

And I say that because I look at the major investments that have 

been made in a city like New York. A whole new 911 infrastructure 

has been put in place. There are a lot of taxpayer dollars there. Is 

there a way that you have looked at the assets of various regions 

around the Nation and looked at what could be amenable to the 

new deployment from a broadband perspective, or whether you see 

those being phased out, basically, over time so that this becomes 

sort of the primary tool for communication and coordination? 

Mr. KENNEDY. So to your 911 public safety answering point— 

question specifically, I absolutely believe that the integration both 

with the existing public safety answering points, and those that are 

upgrading to next gen 911, is a key part of what we are doing, and 

that integration will leverage those investments that have already 

been made. 

When it comes to using voice capability with land mobile radio, 

and using voice, video, and data related to LTE and broadband 

technology, I believe they are complimentary, and I believe that the 

land mobile radio systems that agencies have today should be— 

continue to be maintained, and those systems are very valuable to 

public safety. It is what I have used in my career. It is a very valuable tool to public safety. I do think that broadband will bring a 

richness of applications, and the ability to have not just interoperable voice communications, but interoperable data communications. 

I am able to share more information across police, fire, and emergency medical services. 

So I believe that they are complimentary to each other, and that 

the richness that you can get in a broadband environment will add 

to saving lives in different ways than we do today by being able 

to share video, and sharing data much quicker, and in ways that, 

in some cases, we haven’t even thought of the amazing applications 

that will be supporting our police officers, our firefighters, and our 

paramedics. 

Ms. CLARKE. That was a good answer. My next question to you 

is, for those parts of the country where you have sort of a voluntary 

first responder infrastructure, have you thought about how the 

usage of FirstNet will be communicated, and are they already integrated into I guess networks of conversation around the deployment of FirstNet, and how they will interact with it? Because, of 

course, their—primarily stand up their operations on a volunteer 

basis, and—but they play a very crucial role in responding in remote areas, where there isn’t necessarily a municipality that does 

so. Could you give us some insights into that as well? And any 

feedback you may have gotten from those communities. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Volunteers are absolutely critical in public safety. 

You can go to almost any State in this country, and volunteers are 

a backbone of what occurs in public safety. There are volunteer 

firefighters and EMTs across this country who serve big communities and small communities. There are communities in New York 

that are quite large that are served by volunteers every single day, 

and so they are a part of this network. They are a key component 

that are going to leverage this network. When we go out and do 

consultations, we are consulting with paid professional services, we 

are consulting with volunteer professional services, and we are 

37 

making sure that they are at the table, and invited, and part of 

those conversations. 

One of the biggest things we hear is they want to make sure that 

they are able to buy service, and we have made sure in our definitions that volunteers are clearly called out as being able to buy 

service, and be a part of that. And so we think they are a critical 

component, and will greatly benefit from having costed—affordable 

devices that they can get their hands on, not just for voice communications, but also for applications and other uses as well. 

Ms. CLARKE. And in the protocols that are I guess being established, is there a component of that that looks at the security of 

the system, and how is that being baked in, and also how are you 

containing sort of access to that? Everyone in the Nation is just 

concerned about cyber, and I just wanted to get your feedback. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Cyber is an absolutely critical element for us in— 

at FirstNet, and—with public safety. And we are trying to, and we 

have the unique opportunity, as we develop a network that is going 

to be deployed, that we can start from the beginning and bake in 

security from day one. We brought on a security architect, who is 

now part of our team, who is focused on this. He has been 

leveraging the Department of Homeland Security and other key 

agencies that have a number of cyber efforts that are already underway. 

We are not reinventing the wheel. We are leveraging a lot of the 

best practices that are in place, both in the private sector and in 

Government today. But we want to make sure that the unique environment of a number of networks that have typically been stovepiped are separate, that when you bring them together it is going 

to be absolutely critical that, when we have all these different 

agencies that are leveraging this network, that—not just cyber security, but also identity and access management will be a critical 

component of what we do. And it is going to be unique, because we 

have folks at the local level, we have folks at the State level, and 

folks at the Federal level who will be leveraging the network. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you very much for your response. I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, as you know, the law governing FirstNet included a provision 

that would allow the States to opt out of the FirstNet network and 

deploy their own network, then connect to FirstNet. So I have got 

a few questions about how this opt out process will work, particularly given that the region of the Nation, the region of the State 

that I represent is very rural. So I have some questions. 

Given the projected release of the FirstNet request for proposal 

at the end of 2015, or the beginning of 2016, what is the likely 

timeline for Governors to make their decisions as to whether their 

States will opt out, or in, to FirstNet? 

Mr. KENNEDY. The anticipated timeline would be late in 2016 to 

early in 2017 timeframe, when they would be presented with a 

State plan. It is at the presentation of a State plan when a State 

Governor then would have the opportunity to opt in to the network, 

38 

or to take on that responsibility for themselves to deploy the radio 

access network in their State. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, all right. Will the Governors have all of the 

data points, such as specific cost per user, available to them in 

time for them to make an informed decision to opt in or opt out, 

and what are your plans to communicate the kind of information 

that the Governors will need to make that decision? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Our plan is to do a very a detailed RFP process 

that will produce the kinds of information that outlay the costs and 

the expected offsetting revenues that can support the network, and 

to drive all that information, in addition to things such as coverage 

objectives, into a State plan. It is that State plan that is that document that provides the information that will give them the ability 

to make that as an informed decision. 

And, as part of the consultation efforts that are now started and 

ongoing, we expect ongoing conversations over the next 18 months 

on exactly these topics—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. And to discuss them, and to share information in a two-way dialogue, so that when that State planning 

gets to the desk of a Governor, it should not be the first time that 

they are hearing about it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Many folks, just like Mr. Davis here, as a CIO, 

have been very actively involved for exactly this reason, in addition 

to wanting to see the importance of this network, but they have a 

job to inform their Governors. They have a job to make sure that 

they are watching this closely, and they are participating. 

One of the things that I have seen is the more that folks are participating, the more informed they are, and the more that we can 

share and have that kind of informed dialogue, and I think that is 

absolutely critical. Having CIOs, State public safety commissioners, 

and also local police, fire, and EMS leadership, in addition to the 

Governors themselves, you know, learning and getting involved 

with FirstNet is one of the best ways to understand that key decision to opt into the FirstNet deployment of the network, or to take 

on that responsibility to deploy it themselves in the State for the 

radio access network. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let us say a State opts out. Are there revenues, and if so, what type of revenues might be available to them 

to help support their end of the network? 

Mr. KENNEDY. This is a complex topic, in that there are revenues 

that could come from spectrum management lease agreements, 

both to FirstNet, but also for supporting that kind of deployment. 

But one of the things that we have explored in our second notice 

is exactly how this mechanism will work, and we are still digesting 

the comments that we have recently received on that, so there is 

more to come on that in the future. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, great. Mr. Davis, you state that FirstNet has 

made significant progress in communicating with you on concerns 

that are being raised. So, as we get closer and closer to the 

endgame here, to the expected final RFP, do you have any specific 

recommendations on how we can improve this communicating process? 

39 

Mr. DAVIS. Actually, you know, the—Executive Director Kennedy 

has been pretty transparent. I think the more transparent they 

are, the more that we have—that conversation is going on, so that 

there isn’t surprises in the end. And even if we know it may not 

be perfect, it is still better to know—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Um-hum. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Early so that maybe we can assist in 

that process. But I think—right now I think everything seems to 

be rolling along fairly well. The proof will be in the pudding, as we 

get all of our planning documents together. There has been a lot 

of communication in Ohio with the—all different levels of first responders, the volunteer firemen, I mean, everybody. We have those 

meetings on a regional basis just within Ohio to communicate what 

is coming, and what they should be expecting, and what information we need from them so that we can be able to articulate 

that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. In 10 seconds let me ask you one final question. 

So who are the current users of the Ohio land mobile radio system, 

and once deployed, do you envision the public safety broadband 

network in Ohio to have a similar user base? And if so, why or why 

not? 

Mr. DAVIS. There are quite a few folks. I think there—right now, 

today, I think there is about 50,000 users on our system. The majority of those are coming out of public safety and State agencies, 

as well as the sheriff’s office, and others, and local law enforcement 

and emergency response. 

I think that right now our network doesn’t handle the data requirements that you will see from FirstNet. I mean, that is the 

key, is getting access to the applications in a quick fashion. That 

push-to-talk component is a pretty critical thing. It is a closed system. We have other entities on there besides State and local government folks. I think the Federal Government has some process 

in there. But I think we have three towable towers that we pull 

in too when there are emergency situations. 

But, for the most part, that is focused on really that push-to-talk 

communication piece, and nothing is more important than somebody outside, by himself, being able to press a button and get a response. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Missouri for 5 minutes. I am sorry. I am sorry, 

Mr. Doyle. Sorry, I got ahead of myself. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today. 

Mr. Davis and Mr. Kennedy, I have heard some concerns from 

some of the public safety community in Pennsylvania about who 

will qualify to use FirstNet, who will make the final decisions 

about eligibility. Beyond police, firefighters, and other first responders, there are other individuals and organizations that play 

an important role in emergency response. Shouldn’t States ultimately decide who has both permanent and temporary access to 

the first responder broadband network? For instance, if a building 

is on fire, and police or firefighters, they might find it very valuable 

to be able to communicate with the building security, or those in 

40 

charge with managing the evacuation. Shouldn’t the incident commander in these cases be able to make the final decision about who 

has access to the network? 

Mr. KENNEDY. From our perspective, we have overwhelmingly 

heard that from States as well, and our current definition would 

allow them to do that. Our current definition would allow the incident commander to have access to all those type of entities that 

would allow them to communicate and handle that scene, no matter how large or small that it is. Our third notice was very much 

focused on that, and our third notice just closed last week. As we 

digest those comments that came in from States and from others, 

we will come out with a final determination, but our goal was to 

be very responsive to those requests that have come in from the 

States. 

Mr. DOYLE. Great, thank you. Mr. Kennedy, first responders in 

Pittsburgh, and many other cities across the country, use the T 

band for communications, and, as part of the Spectrum Act, the 

FCC will reclaim that spectrum. Do you see the deadlines that are 

set for that process as being problematic for first responders that 

depend on that spectrum to communicate, or do you believe 

FirstNet will be online in the effective localities in time to mitigate 

this shift? 

Mr. KENNEDY. There are a couple elements to this. We are aware 

of the concerns of those public safety jurisdictions using T band 

spectrum today, and the T band relocations provisions that are 

part of the act. It is the FCC, however, that is in charge of that 

T band relocation, and it would be better for them to answer specific questions about timing and so forth related to that effort. 

FirstNet, we have been very focused on working with the international standards community, the 3GPP community, Third Generation Partnership Project, that is focused on making sure that we 

have a standards-based approach that goes to putting mission critical voice in the future on our network. At deployment of the network, we are looking at having non-mission critical voice, or what 

you would look at as cellular-type communications, or over the top 

communications, on broadband, and plan to offer that as part of 

the initial deployment. 

But when it comes to mission critical voice communications, we 

are really looking at leveraging those international standards to 

make sure that we only go to those key seven functions that are 

part of the mission critical voice standards that are being done 

right now, and that they are implemented not just in the standards 

bodies, but that they are being utilized, and that public safety 

builds a trust up that those standards are ready for them. And 

public safety will decide when they are comfortable with mission 

critical voice on broadband in the future. 

So that is happening. The standards bodies are working to have 

that initial standard done by mid-2016. It will take some time for 

that technology to get into the actual technology ecosystem. And 

there are some other countries around the world that are actually 

looking at moving to mission critical voice sooner than the United 

States that will be doing some testing. But, for us, we want to 

make sure that public safety is confident in both the technology, 

41 

and in the standards, and that they have been rolled out, and that 

they are using the network for other purposes first. 

Mr. DOYLE. Great. Gentlemen, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will 

yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

Now the gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, it appears 

that, in many rural areas, first responders will have to rely on 

roaming with existing rural wireless providers for network coverage, instead of using the national public safety broadband network. How and when are you planning to address roaming coverage? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Roaming is certainly something that was envisioned in the act, and we are allowed to enter into roaming agreements, but we are also looking at leveraging rural buildout milestones, and making sure that we have rural buildout at every 

phase of deployment of the network. So we are looking at both the 

deployment that needs to occur, but also looking at, when we get 

to a final RFP, what kind of efforts can be leveraged for roaming 

that is cost-effective that can be added to the network as part of 

that solution as we go forward. 

Mr. LONG. Any speculation on how long that building would take, 

the—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. As far as building the network right now, we proposed in the draft RFP that 20 percent of the rural buildout milestones would be covered in each phase, which would be a year. So 

20 percent in year 1, 40 percent in year 2, 60 percent in year 3, 

and so on. And so we believe that that will allow for ongoing rural 

buildout at each phase, rather than saying it is all just waiting to 

the end, which is one of the concerns that we have heard. 

So we have tried to be very clear to proposers who are looking 

at bidding on the network that rural buildout is very important to 

us. We are also trying to encourage rural telecommunication to— 

telecommunication firms to be a part of those solutions, and to bid 

on the network, and be a part of bringing solutions to the table 

that will allow that rural deployment to occur. 

Mr. LONG. OK. FirstNet’s partners are allowed to use the excess 

capacity on the FirstNet network to offer wireless services to commercial subscribers. How will FirstNet ensure its partners do not 

compete against existing commercial networks, particularly in the 

high cost rural areas where there population density often will not 

sustain more than one network to begin with? 

Mr. KENNEDY. One of the things in the act is that it requires us 

to look at the economic desirability of anyone proposing to bid on 

the network, and look at the different approaches to both, you 

know, leveraging different types of infrastructure, rural telecommunications infrastructure, existing Government infrastructure, commercial infrastructure. And so we are going to look at 

what is most cost effective to deploy the network, and also to have 

sustainability on the network. 

As part of those offers, they actually have to bring to the table 

what kinds of revenues would they bring to the table to offset the 

costs of public safety in both deploying, maintaining, and operating 

the network. And so it is important for us to look at the greater 

42 

good of public safety, and how they would be served by those covered leasing agreements, or those agreements by potential partners 

or offers to leverage the network, whether that is in rural areas or 

in urban areas. 

Mr. LONG. That is my next question. In terms of location, where 

will the service first and most likely be available, urban areas, or 

urban and rural, or what can we expect? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is urban and rural. And—so just like I mentioned earlier, we want to have those rural buildout milestones at 

each phase, so certainly urban areas will get built out. Your largest 

number of population and public safety providers, public safety entities, are actually in the more populated areas. But we also see 

that going to the rural area, so we want to make sure that those 

rural buildout milestones help drive that as an incentive to make 

sure that rural was built out at each phase. 

Mr. LONG. And 3 years behind us, when do you thank that 

FirstNet will actually start providing service? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe that FirstNet will start providing service 

as soon as we start to deploy the network, and States and areas 

are actually built out, and up and tested, and on the network. Currently we see the network starting to be awarded, as far as deployment, in 2017, and so you will see it probably—in the year after 

that that you will start seeing deployment of the network, and actually being up and operating in different areas. 

Mr. LONG. So you think the—it will be up in 2018? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think parts of the network will be up in 2018, 

and it will continue to deploy on a regular basis. One thing with 

wireless networks is they are ongoing deployments, and so we have 

the initial deployment, which we are talking about a 5-year buildout of that deployment, from 2017 through 2022, but we also believe that the overall network will continue to grow after that, but 

there will be additional coverage that is added. There is additional 

capacity that is added. It is not a static network. So every part of 

the country that even has initial deployment will continue add to 

that deployment as time goes on. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask— 

Mr. Kennedy, I wanted to ask you about some of the efforts in Colorado. As part of the successful AWS–3 auction, NIST, which as— 

has labs in Colorado, received $300 million for research on standards, technologies, and applications to advance wireless public safety communications. Now, my understanding is that this research is 

in consultation with FirstNet, so even though NIST only recently 

received the funding, I am wondering if you can give us the status 

of those consultations? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I can. We actually met with NIST last week. One 

of the things that we have right now—every June is a public safety 

communications research conference, and that conference is done 

with NIST and the public safety communications research lab at 

NIST. And it was held just last week, and literally over 500 key 

stakeholders came together to talk about the technical aspects, and 

43 

the different research and development aspects of not just the public safety network, but public safety communications in general. 

We actually sat down with the NIST team and started to consult 

and discuss on that grant program regular ongoing communications 

with both the NIST director and Dereck Orr, who was the Program 

Director of the PSCR labs. I believe we worked hand in glove with 

them, and that the team at NIST is very focused on bringing solutions to—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Public safety on the LTE—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Great. OK, good. Now, you told some of the other 

members that FirstNet has worked hard to improve its outreach efforts to all stakeholders, including States, and—as well as NIST, 

I understand you have had an official consultation with the State 

of Colorado. Can you tell me what is next for FirstNet in Colorado? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Right now in Colorado we are asking them to 

start performing data collection, and I know that they are doing 

that. Brian Shepherd, who is the single point of contact on the Colorado team, has been sending out communication to the public 

safety community in Colorado, and currently their data collection 

is due September 30, and so they are working to gather that data 

on different public safety users, where are they located throughout 

the State, what kinds of 911 calls do they have, where do they need 

to respond to? And so that is the current activity that they are 

working on. 

Once that data is received, we plan to go back out and meet with 

States to validate that data and discuss what that data is telling 

us to become part of the State plan. And so that is what is going 

to—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. So that will be sometime in the fall, you think, 

maybe? Didn’t you say September—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. In the fall would probably be the follow-up to that, 

after September—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. 30. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. OK. And, lastly, Adams County, Colorado, 

has one of the five early builder public safety projects. What lessons do you think you could learn from that project in Adams 

County? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the good news is we have already been 

learning lessons from that project, and we look forward to the ongoing lessons now that the network is operations. They are one of two 

networks that are already operational. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Mr. KENNEDY. There are users who are on the network today, 

and they are looking to add a lot more users to the network. As 

those users come on board, we are going to be looking at network 

management of that particular network, how those users interact, 

and really look for key use cases for the benefits of broadband for 

public safety, and how we can leverage that across the country 

with a nationwide public safety network. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thanks. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you. 

44 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlelady from North Carolina. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

panel. Mr. Kennedy, I have a couple question—or, actually, I have 

one question. Mr. Long asked my other question. My colleague 

from Missouri was hitting on some of the rural issues, and I would 

like to follow up on a couple of those as well. Since FirstNet is proposing a nationwide and State and regional approach as potential 

paths for network acquisition, I am concerned with how this affects 

the rural carriers in limiting their abilities to grow as well. They 

have smaller service territories, and I am afraid that they are 

going to get cut out of the process. 

In addition, there is no clear incentive for large carriers to partner with the small providers to serve the rural communities. Large 

carriers lack presence in the—and experience in these rural areas, 

and the smaller carriers are there. How can—how is this process 

going to move forward, and, you know, how is FirstNet going to ensure that the effective and efficient creation of the network in rural 

areas is provided? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have been really trying to outreach to the 

rural carriers themselves. We have been working with the different 

associations, whether it is the rural broadband association, whether it s NRTC, many of the other different groups that support rural 

telecommunications across the country. We have been engaging 

them early on. We have been encouraging them to participate in 

our draft RFP that is out right now, as well as our public notices, 

so that they can share with FirstNet what their needs and desires 

are. 

Part of releasing a draft RFP, which is not required—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Was to get that kind of feedback, 

both from States, but also from industry, and industry includes the 

rural telecommunications—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Providers. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And we want them to come forward with solutions 

that will help make it cost-effective to build out further into rural 

areas that will make the operation to sustainability of FirstNet a 

success, because that is a requirement of the act, and to make sure 

that, as we look at things like rural buildout milestones. That is 

one of the things that we are looking for comments on, and we expect to receive comments on that. We think it is really important. 

We have asked for a definition of rural, set of—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Comments in a public notice. Lots of 

communication from the rural community on that as well. So I 

think that we have heavily engaged both public safety entities that 

are in rural—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Areas, as well as the rural telecommunication entities, to be a part of making this network a success. We think that, whether it is teaming, whether it is bringing 

folks together, whether it is coming up with unique and innovative 

45 

business models that will support that, that we have looked at different ways that we can, and are—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Continuing to get input on that. We 

actually have, as part of our RFP, have laid out ways that people 

can put themselves forward to team with others so that different 

parts can get together and make sure that they can be a viable entity to bid on different parts of the network, and be a part of the 

solution. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Great. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I yield back the 

remainder of my time, or if anybody wants it, you know, I have got 

about 2 minutes left. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and to Mr. 

Davis and Mr. Kennedy, thank you both for being here. 

Mr. Kennedy, as you know, before the establishment of FirstNet, 

my home State of New Mexico was the recipient of a BTOP grant 

to support the development of a public safety wireless system, and 

it is my understanding the FirstNet and New Mexico have reached 

a spectrum licensing agreement in this space. Can you give us an 

idea if this is indeed going to be completed by September 30? 

Mr. KENNEDY. To my knowledge right now, from CIO Darryl 

Ackley, who is leading the New Mexico team, and his staff, Jackie 

Miller and others, who are working on that BTOP project, they are 

on track to meeting their September 30 deadline. I know there is 

a lot of work to be done, and they are working hard to make that 

happen. 

We know that they have been collaborating to get those sites on 

board, and they have also had a significant part of that project that 

was already deployed for microwave backhaul, and other elements 

that are the backbone of that system. So we are really looking forward to additional lessons learned coming out of the State of New 

Mexico. You have some unique issues with the border that we are 

also learning to get some key learnings out of, and so really excited, and looking forward to that project coming online. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Well, since you went there, Mr. Kennedy, I will jump 

right to that question that I had for you is—New Mexico is one of 

the many States that has a complexity of jurisdictions with local, 

State, Federal Government, as you named, and—namely being a 

border State, with Border and Customs as well. Has the dynamic 

presented any unique challenges that you have seen, or that you 

anticipated? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think there are two things. One, certainly challenges related to spectrum on the border. Mexico is looking at different ways to deploy broadband for their Government needs, including public safety, than the United States, as far as their band 

plan. There have been some very positive announcements on the 

northern border that Canada is actually matched up with our same 

exact spectrum that we are utilizing for the FirstNet network for 

their public safety first responders, so we are in much better shape 

there, as far as dealing with those issues. So that is an issue that 

is ongoing when you get on the border. 

46 

I will say that there has been collaboration and cooperation on 

sites near the border with the Federal Government, and Federal 

law enforcement agencies that work on the border with the State 

of New Mexico. And I think, working through some of that, that 

key early engagement and discussions has been very positive both 

for those Federal law enforcement agencies, and for the State of 

New Mexico, and the lessons learned from that engagement hopefully can be applied to other parts of the border in New Mexico, as 

well as other parts of the southern border in the country. So that 

kind of relationship building, and discussions, and working through 

the details to get sites online I think will be very beneficial to this 

project. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. And you have heard a lot of questions from those of 

us that represent rural States as well. What lessons learned in a 

State with geography like we have in New Mexico, where it is large 

and land based, as well—we have amazing mountains ski areas as 

well, so sometimes that gets in the way of transmission of some of 

the communications services, where you can drop service here and 

there, because it is so—such a big State. So what have we learned 

that we will be able to deploy in other States? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. I mean, as somebody who has been a State 

trooper in Utah, and understands some of the rural geography that 

you have in New Mexico, and has traveled to New Mexico, I think 

it is really important that we understand that there are many 

areas that are very difficult to communicate with today, and the 

needs are critical for public safety to have additional communication avenues, both in land mobile radio, and in cellular and LTE 

communications. 

I think that the kinds of things we are looking at in different 

communities in New Mexico today with the initial buildout will be 

helpful, but because your geography and terrain is so varied, I 

think that, you know, all the different things that we need to bring 

forward for options and solutions to serve very rural areas are 

going to be critical for New Mexico, and all the rural States. 

And I think as we move forward, finding unique solutions that 

can leverage very long ways of dealing in rural areas, we are looking at boomer sites as one of the unique elements that we have 

that can cover large areas with a stronger cell site that can do that. 

We are looking at high powered mobile devices. We are looking at 

satellite backhaul in some areas, and deployable units. So many 

different ways to try to serve rural communities, all of which I 

think will be important for New Mexico, and many States that 

have the same kind of terrain. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. And in your testimony, Mr. Kennedy, you also outlined the establishment of a tribal working group, and hiring a 

tribal liaison as well. Can you provide more detail on FirstNet’s efforts to ensure robust tribal consultation? And, in addition to that, 

I understand that you recently had a session in Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. If you could let us know what the next steps are? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. I think the establishment of that tribal 

working group has been very successful. Early in in FirstNet’s existence, Chairman Ginn appointed Kevin McGuinness, one of our 

Board members, to be the tribal liaison from the Board. Kevin has 

been actively involved in making sure that tribal communities are 

47 

involved every step of the way with FirstNet. We have gone so far 

as even making sure that we reach out—we recently had some public notices, and actually sent notices to all of the recognized tribes 

to make sure that they give us input, and we have received input 

from tribal communities as part of that. And so we are looking forward to continuing to try to have that involvement. 

When I talked earlier about the 56 State SPOC meeting, where 

we got all the single points of contact together, we actually invited 

the tribal working group to that meeting as well, and we had sessions where the tribal working group met with States. These breakout sessions had 15 or 20 States in there, and talked about issues 

that affect tribal communities related to public safety broadband, 

and shared their concerns, and how to get each side to be more involved with each other. So I think we have done a great job of trying to bring them together, but there is a lot more to do as we continue to develop and deploy the network. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman and welcome Mr. Kennedy and 

Mr. Davis. One of the early buildout projects is in the eastern end 

of my district, Harris County, Texas, population four million people, the third most populous county in America, number one in 

Texas. The last 2 weeks back home have been pretty rough. We 

had a 100-year flood on Memorial Day, with homes being lost, businesses being lost. Tragically, a few lives were lost, including one 

woman in my district. And now Tropical Storm Bill has rolled 

ashore, a little bit south of Harris County. Made landfall about 150 

miles south, meaning the worst side of the hurricane, the northeast 

quadrant, is hitting my hometown directly. We are managing, but 

we can always use more weapons in this battle. Bill came ashore 

between Palacios, Texas, a population of 4,661, and Port O’Connor, 

Texas, booming with 1,253. Those two towns can’t respond like 

Harris County, Houston can to a crisis, and that is why I am so 

excited about what FirstNet promises. But FirstNet starts with 

these early builder programs, like in Harris County. 

So my question is, Mr. Kennedy, the recently released GAO report recommended that FirstNet develop a plan to better evaluate 

their early builder projects and capitalize on the experience 

gleaned from them. What is the status of those recommendations, 

sir? 

Mr. KENNEDY. So, first of all, we put together that—an evaluation plan to incorporate those lessons learned. We have received 

many lessons learned from each of these projects, including Harris 

County. We most recently even had the Harris County team up to 

our Reston headquarters here in Northern Virginia, meeting with 

both our technical team and our RFP team, and sharing those lessons that they have learned so far to make sure that they are incorporated both into our acquisition, and into our overall plans and 

procedures, and development of the network. 

Mayor Parker, who is the Mayor of Houston, is on our Board. 

Our Board is made up of an amazing group of talented individuals 

both from the wireless and telecommunications industry, also from 

State and local government, and from public safety, police, fire, 

emergency medical services, and sheriff’s departments. That Board, 

48 

including Mayor Parker, are giving us advice on the deployment of 

this network, and how critical this is. And we know she has been 

quite busy, as well as all the officials in Texas that have been dealing with your recent flooding, and the ongoing issues that are affecting you there. 

We think that is an absolutely perfect reason why we need to deploy this network and move very quickly, and with focus, to have 

consultation so that we can take in these lessons learned to work 

through the acquisition as the act requires us to so that we can deploy this network as quickly as possible for public safety. 

Mr. OLSON. Have there been real surprises, something that came 

out of nowhere, whoa, what happened here? I mean, any big surprises, or are things marching along? Challenges, gotten through 

them, over them? Anything we should be concerned about? Some 

challenges that came out of nowhere, like—I mean, real world example, right now back home, we have real big problems. FirstNet 

could be a big part to solving those problems, and so—any idea, if 

we had some big problems, that—might want to help out us here 

in Congress, or are you guys doing all right right now? 

Mr. KENNEDY. As far as big problems, I don’t think there has 

necessarily been unforeseen major issues, but there have been 

things that we were worried about that have come true. So, as a 

good example, the intricacies in working through memorandums of 

agreement, and understanding to get sites, and access to sites that 

are Government sites to help build the network, very time consuming, can be political at times, and take a lot of time and effort 

to put some of those in place. And so that is just one example of 

more than 60 lessons learned that we have from these early builder 

projects so far. We continue to incorporate those in our development. I think the time that it takes to consult and work through 

acquisition takes time, but we are working through that as quickly 

as we can. 

Mr. OLSON. As you build FirstNet through early builders, are 

there any insights to use actual real world situations, like what we 

had in Harris County, Texas the past month as a real world example of how this thing can save some lives, get this thing up and 

running? Any effort to try to include real world examples in your— 

going forward with the early builder’s program, and then FirstNet? 

Mr. KENNEDY. There are. We have asked for actual use cases and 

lessons learned that are real world use cases that are coming out 

of these projects. Many of them are not live and on the air yet 

today. Harris County and AdCom are two that are, but they have 

a small number of users, in some cases, that are on the network 

today. And as they continue to add users, I suspect we will have 

more lifesaving examples that we can bring forward. 

These projects were funded through the Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program pre-FirstNet, but because they are 

leveraging the FirstNet spectrum, it is something that we are going 

to be able to get those kind of use cases, and be able to share them 

with public safety across the country. 

Mr. OLSON. And that is important, because most of these homes 

that were lost and lives lost were lost in small towns. Even—I 

mean, suburban towns, but small police force, not capable like the 

big Houston police force, or my police force in Sugarland, Texas, 

49 

where I live. And so please, please, please, get going, get going, get 

going, we need this. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a—excuse me. In a 

prior life I was the County Executive of Erie County, the largest 

upstate county in New York, 44 cities, towns, and villages, and 100 

separate volunteer fire companies. I went through, 7, 8 years ago, 

the whole issue of low band, 400 megahertz, 800 megahertz. I was 

the one that killed the 800 megahertz plan in New York State 

when they came to our county, where it had to work, as the largest 

upstate county. In my talking to the volunteer fire folks, first of all, 

we knew it probably wouldn’t work, and secondly, we had no 

money to implement it anyway. So I pulled the county out, it 

cratered the whole thing across New York State. 

So talk to me as though I am this local volunteer fire guy. I just 

went from low band to 400 megahertz, and it works. It works really, really well. I knew 800 megahertz was a disaster. Now, tell me 

what my life is going to look like 5 years from now. Do I have to 

throw all my radios away? Am I going to go to 700 megahertz? Am 

I going to go to a 4G LTE? Who is going to buy me my equipment? 

Our emergency services, central police, you know, I was county 

exec when Flight 3407 went down. I have had floods, I had blizzards. It was critical that we all talked to each other. Rural areas, 

some of our areas, believe it or not, do not today have cell coverage. 

So tell me what my life is going to look like. Make it really simple. 

I am a volunteer fire chief. What is my life going to look like 5 

years from now? Tell me what it is going to be. 

Mr. KENNEDY. When we have been out talking to a lot of volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel, most of them carry a personal 

smartphone today, or cell phone today, if they have coverage. To 

your point, there are still some areas without coverage, but let us 

assume they are in an area that has coverage. 

Mr. COLLINS. No, I don’t know, I—mine in particular doesn’t. 

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. So, as part of the—— 

Mr. COLLINS. That is my excuse when someone reaches me. I tell 

them I am out in Wyoming County, and—sorry, I just lost coverage. And they go, I understand. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And the really—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Talk to me as—both ways. Sorry. 

Mr. KENNEDY. If you are in a rural county, we want you to participate in the New York State consultation process. We want you 

to be a part of that consultation process, get your needs on the 

table for the New York State plan. As we talked about a little bit 

earlier in the hearing today, our goal is to work with New York 

State to bring forward a plan for New York State that has coverage 

objectives, that has data coming back from our request for proposal 

process on cost, and deployment, and coverage, and those kind of 

key elements that will come to the table. 

And every State has a different set of issues. We heard from New 

Mexico and border issues. You have border issues in New York 

State as well, but different issues on the northern border and the 

southern border. So we want all those to be captured as part of 

that plan. And then coming forward to them is they will have the 

50 

opportunity to buy service, if it meets their needs. So, for the average volunteer fire chief in your communities, if we provide the coverage at the cost that they are willing to pay for, they can do that. 

And if we don’t—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, but I think—— 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Then we have—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Here is—— 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Not met their needs. 

Mr. COLLINS. You know, excuse me, here is the big issue. There 

are separate budgets, in some cases no budgets. As I said, we have 

100 separate volunteer fire companies. We have 44 separate cities, 

towns, and villages. This is one county. You know, this all sounds 

good, but, you know, the tail wags the dog. I have got this small 

community, who is going to buy me my new stuff? I have no budget 

for anything, and yet, I can tell you, as County Executive, I needed 

every one of them to be listening to the same channel. I needed 

every one of them to be able to respond, which is why we went 400 

megahertz across the board, no ifs, ands, or buts. The county paid 

for the equipment. We put every—took them off of low band, killed 

the 800. It works perfectly. 

So now it is like, are we turning this all upside down? And if I 

have got to start over, one thing I can assure you, New York State 

doesn’t exactly talk to the localities. They may talk to New York 

City. They don’t talk to the other localities. That is what happened 

on the 800 megahertz, which was a debacle. I just—I mean, should 

I be worried? If I am a County Executive, if I am Commissioner, 

Central Police Services, if I am the Commissioner of Emergency 

Services, I just kind of see, in a perfect world, this is great, but, 

boy, we don’t live in a perfect world. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think you should look at it as an opportunity 

that FirstNet will have to provide the kinds of services at a cost 

that can be afforded in those rural counties, and that we can expand coverage that will give them coverage that they don’t have 

today, and try to meet those needs that they would want to partake 

in the service. We will be judged on whether or not we provide that 

kind of service and meet their needs. 

One of the things I think that is very important, and you mentioned this, is we will be building an operable system that will be 

interoperable between all those different agencies from the very beginning. Doesn’t matter at what level they are, doesn’t matter if it 

is police, fire, emergency medical services, emergency management, 

transportation, and that will be—the opportunity will be to partake 

in a system that has those abilities. 

Mr. COLLINS. I have got 4 seconds, but what do you envision? I— 

now, I am not talking about just the beginning. Are we going to 

be there in 5 years, is it 10 years, is it 20 years? What—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think right now we are planning a 5-year deployment that will start when the RFP is awarded in early—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, deployment is different than—it is working— 

it is just like 400 megahertz. Don’t even think about it, take out 

my radio, everyone is listening. 

Mr. KENNEDY. You have two different types of systems, land mobile radio and LTE. They are not exactly the same, and so it would 

not necessarily a replace. It is maintain the existing radio networks 

51 

that you have now, and leverage broadband as it comes forward. 

As public safety builds trust in that network, they will leverage 

and—— 

Mr. COLLINS. That is—— 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Utilize—— 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. Part of the key, so—my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman 

from Illinois. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, and thanks for staying. Usually I get 

done earlier, but it is kind of good that I was kind of last, because—going to follow up on a little bit of what my colleague from 

New York mentioned, and some other concerns. Thanks for being 

here. Testimony has been great. Mr. Davis, thank you, because you 

give me a little more comfort, having someone more local to the 

State. Because, you know, the basic debate the last couple years 

was to make sure our first line responders had a dedicated system 

by which we could communicate, and then bring on hopefully new 

technologies and devices, with how the world changes so quick. 

Mr. Kennedy, you have been very articulate, and I think that has 

been helpful, but I get—always get concerned when we have—we 

use the terms Government business model, independent corporation. I am not sure I have seen the Federal Government be able 

to operate that without challenges. So, I don’t want to be a fly in 

the ointment, but the—it really follows up on some of Mr. Collins’ 

comments too, because it is not just—he is trying to get a picture 

of where we are going to be, but he also said, you know, for the 

local devices, we have got the—obviously the radio communications, but, of course, we are talking about broadband, and the issue 

of how do you get—eventually get to hardened commercial devices, 

which I don’t know we talked much about. He did mention who is 

going to pay for this? 

And so when we have a network with seven billion in capital to 

deploy, and be able to match the coverage, capacity, apps and 

functionality of the commercial network—commercial networks 

spend about $20 billion or more a year in upgrades. How are we 

going to do this? If we—if you only have seven, and the commercial 

side spends 20 yearly to keep up to date, aren’t you a little concerned? 

Mr. KENNEDY. This is a complex funding mechanism to make 

this work, but I do believe Congress has come up with a very 

unique model that is doable. We have three major funding sources, 

the $7 billion in construction funding that you discussed, 

leveraging the excess capacity on the 700 megahertz spectrum that 

is part of the network, which is absolutely critical. One of the elements in the act was called covered leasing agreements, which allows us to lease that excess capacity to be able to leverage that 

funding both in deployment and maintenance and operations of the 

network. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that will be leased to other users? 

Mr. KENNEDY. As part of the RFP process, that is allowed to be 

leased to commercial users, who can go ahead and then resale that 

network to consumers, which we are not allowed to do as part of 

52 

the network. That resale, or that covered leasing agreement, the 

way it works in there is a much larger portion of the funding than 

the $7 billion portion. Those two elements, along with fees, user 

fees, for the most part, core network fees, those are the three elements that will come together to make this a successful network. 

Also, we are going to have to provide a network to public safety 

that meets their needs. We are going to have to meet the key objectives of public safety for reliability, for resilience, and providing devices, both commercial devices and hardened devices, that will 

meet their needs. One of the things we have seen in the commercial networks today is that they have a larger variety of devices 

that can met the needs for both voice, video, and data, and we believe that that rich ecosystem, on a nationwide scale, with millions 

of users that can come forward and create devices that are cost effective, will be able to bring down those prices that the Ranking 

Member mentioned earlier to very affordable prices for devices both 

for vehicles and for individuals. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can you give me some comfort that in 10 years we 

don’t have a—well, we will have a—maybe a somewhat vibrant 

LTE system, and the rest of the world has moved on? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think very similar to my earlier comments, that 

we are planning on building a recapitalized network that can be 

upgraded and maintained into the future. Part of the reason we 

have been so focused on the 3GPP standards, and sticking with 

international commercial standards for building this network is 

that we will continue to upgrade and maintain the network for 

those new standards as we move to 5G and 6G in the future. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, we want you to be successful. We wish you 

good luck, and we look forward to following this. Mr. Chairman— 

and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA [presiding]. Thank you very much. The gentleman 

yields back, and I believe we have exhausted all of our members 

here to ask you all questions, but I know on—I want to thank you 

for your time today. I want to also, from Chairman Walden and 

also the ranking member, the gentlelady from California, for your 

time, your answers today. It was very, very informative. And, judging from the folks that were in the audience today, that they had 

to fight for a seat. But really want to thank you for your time and 

your effort for being here. Mr. Davis, thanks very much for coming 

in from Ohio on pretty short notice. Mr. Kennedy, again, thank you 

for your testimony today. And if there is no further business to 

come before the committee, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today’s hearing will examine the progress FirstNet has made in delivering on its 

mandate to establish a truly nationwide public safety broadband network for our 

Nation’s first responders, with an eye toward what’s next. 

I am pleased that FirstNet appears to have put the distractions of early controversies and missteps behind it and has started making the decisions necessary to 

achieve the goal of a nationwide network. With the FCC’s recent spectrum auctions 

successfully producing the funding for FirstNet, a significant component of this effort is in place. The Board’s plan to release a Request For Proposal in early 2016 

53 

demonstrates that FirstNet is on the cusp of taking a major step forward in the realization of the network. 

Today’s discussion provides an opportunity for FirstNet to highlight the process 

employed to get this far, and what lies ahead. Mr. Davis, Chief Information Officer 

of the State of Ohio with a long history in emergency communications, offers an especially important perspective on the process as we work to determine what more, 

if anything, FirstNet can do to ensure that State, local, and tribal input is fully reflected in its plans. 

Local participation is essential to the successful deployment and sustainability of 

the network. We all share the goal of seeing FirstNet implemented and operated in 

a timely and effective way. Today’s hearing, another in our ongoing oversight of 

FirstNet, reflects the committee’s commitment to that success. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you, Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo, for holding this hearing today. And thanks to our witnesses for being here. 

Many of us have been talking about the importance of public safety communications for a while, so we tend to forget that FirstNet is barely 3 years old. It was 

just a few years ago when a broad bipartisan coalition came together in this committee with a vision for a nationwide wireless broadband network for first responders. 

But we lose track of just how young FirstNet is because it has already accomplished so much. It started with literally nothing but a bold mission-no board, no 

employees, no money. Very few technology startups make it past this stage. That 

is not the case for FirstNet. 

And now, FirstNet’s board is comprised of seasoned communications veterans and 

public safety officials. It’s a group that would make any company proud. And while 

the ranks of its employees are still growing, the staff more closely resembles a group 

from a technology power house rather than one from a Government office. This 

hard-charging staff has been crisscrossing the country making sure everyone with 

an opinion has their voice heard. 

Most encouraging, we are actually about to see the first deployments. FirstNet’s 

five Early Builder Projects—including one in New Jersey—are already providing important lessons. They are the proofs of concept necessary to show first responders 

that this will indeed work. I’m disappointed that Governor Christie refused to permit JerseyNet to testify today. The project is a one of the Governor’s few successes 

and this committee would have benefitted from hearing firsthand about their deployment. 

Of course, as with any new venture, FirstNet has faced some hard times. But it 

has not shied away from these challenges .For example, GAO recently issued a report concluding that FirstNet could use more extensive internal controls and clearer 

metrics of success for early deployments. FirstNet’s Chair, Sue Swenson, agreed and 

quickly acted to implement these recommendations. 

Similarly, the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector found that in its very 

early days, FirstNet should have been more open. But now most observers describe 

FirstNet as a model of transparency. 

I am confident that FirstNet’s board will continue in this tradition, maintain 

these improvements and continue its good work moving forward. The importance of 

this task requires no less. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and hearing more about the 

progress they are making. 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

Æ