U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

71–255 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–1110 

KEEPING US SAFE: THE NEED FOR 

A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY NETWORK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 23, 2010 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 5 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 38 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 40 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 42 

Statement of Senator Warner ................................................................................. 44 

WITNESSES

Steve McClure, Director, Jackson County, West Virginia Emergency Medical 

Services ................................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Annise D. Parker, Mayor, City of Houston and Chair, Committee on 

Criminal and Social Justice, The United States Conference of Mayors .......... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Chief Robert L. Davis, San Jose Police Department and President, Major 

Cities Chiefs Association ..................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, EFO, CFO, MIFireE, Former President, International Association of Fire Chiefs ..................................................................... 19 

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

Dr. Kenneth J. Zdunek, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, 

Roberson and Associates, LLC ............................................................................ 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

James Arden Barnett, Jr., Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission ..................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

APPENDIX

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine, prepared statement ........... 49 

Letter, dated July 21, 2010 to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, Hon. Kay Bailey 

Hutchison, Hon. John F. Kerry and Hon. John Ensign from Governor 

David A. Paterson of New York, Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski of Oregon, Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois, Governor Jim Gibbons of Nevada, 

Governor Chester J. Culver of Iowa and Governor Martin O’Malley of 

Maryland ............................................................................................................... 50 

Philip C. Stittleburg, Chairman, National Volunteer Fire Council, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 51 

The Utilities Telecom Council, prepared statement ............................................. 52 

Letter, dated September 23, 2010 from Donald J. Borut, Executive Director, 

National League of Cities to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV and Hon. Kay 

Bailey Hutchison .................................................................................................. 58 

Letter, dated September 21, 2010 from National EMS Organizations re: 

S. 3756 to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV .............................................................. 59 

(1) 

KEEPING US SAFE: THE NEED FOR A 

NATIONWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY NETWORK 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller 

IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. 

There are, actually, quite a few members who will be coming. 

Promptness is unusual in the Senate. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. September, as they say, is when we remember. 

We remember that, nine years ago, we witnessed the horror of September 11. We remember that, five years ago, we watched the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. We remember because, even with 

the passage of time, these wounds don’t heal, and the fears and lingers remain. 

At home, in West Virginia, we know tragedy very, very well. 

Every state does; it’s not just us, alone. But, it always seems more 

painful in a smaller and more vulnerable state. 

Just this April, the nation actually joined us in the mourning of 

29 brave souls killed in the explosion of an underground mine at 

Upper Big Branch in southern West Virginia. The grim reality is 

that in every state represented in this Congress, there are emergencies exactly like that, but maybe according to the particular industry in that state. In every state, the people who respond to 

those emergencies are the people that this legislation is about and 

the spectrum needs to be for. 

Nobody else can do it. You can’t just sort of be a volunteer and 

run in and help, you have to know what you’re doing. And it’s 

hard, it’s arduous, it’s dangerous, people lose their lives. That’s the 

deal. That’s the way it happens. 

Whether they are committed by the hand of nature, these emergencies, or the unnatural hand of terrorism, one thing rings universally true: we are eternally grateful for the bravery of our public 

safety officials, and we honor those whose job it is to keep us from 

further harm. That is why I believe that our public safety officials 

are owed the resources they need to do their job. And, nine years 

after September 11, we should be ashamed—I am—that they lack 

2 

a nationwide interoperable wireless broadband communications 

system, how does one actually explain that? That is yet a year 

away, but it’s closing in on us, in terms of legislative possibilities, 

closing in on us very, very fast. 

That is what led me to introduce the Public Safety Spectrum and 

Wireless Innovation Act as one of the key pieces of legislation for 

me, the new Chairman of this committee. 

The legislation does two things: first, it allocates 10 megahertz 

of spectrum, known as the D Block, to public safety to support a 

nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network that will 

help keep us safe. 

Second, it gives the Federal Communications Commission the authority to hold incentive auctions. This actually helps pay for the 

infrastructure involved in all of this. It gives the FCC the authority 

to hold this set of auctions, based on the voluntary return of spectrum; and these auctions, in turn, will provide funding to support 

the construction and maintenance of public safety’s networks. 

There are three ways of funding this; we can get into that later. 

But, the point is, we can pay for all of it. We can pay for the whole 

thing. 

I believe that this approach is fair. I believe it’s the right course. 

I think it’s the right thing to do. I know it’s the right thing to do. 

I am very passionate about it. I’m going to say, just before the end 

of this hearing, that we’re going to have hearings on this. We’re 

going to have hearings until we pass the bill. Maybe that’s going 

to be this year; maybe that’s going to be next year, but it’s going 

to happen. I will not rest until it does happen. 

I know that some people believe there are other approaches to 

solving these problems. I will work with anyone who seeks to make 

sure that our public safety officials have the resources they need 

to communicate, to do their jobs, to keep us safe. It’s essential to 

have two bands of spectrum, side by side, not fractured throughout 

the world of spectrum. They have to be side by side. 

I’m very grateful to each and every one of you for coming here, 

some of you from very long distances. I look forward to hearing 

your testimony. And, I thank you. 

And I always thank our Ranking Member, Senator Kay Bailey 

Hutchison of Texas, who I refer to as the Vice Chair. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s very kind 

of you. 

I do want to welcome all of you, because this is such an important issue, and particularly the Mayor of ‘‘the’’ largest city in my 

State: Houston. 

Mayor Parker, glad that you could come. 

It has been more than nine years since the tragedy of 9/11, and 

five years since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused such devastation on the Gulf Coast. More recently, Hurricane Ike and its huge 

storm surge reminded us that, in emergency situations, first responders and other public safety professionals need the best equipment available to ensure the preservation of life. Interoperable 

communications is one of those tools. And I notice my colleague 

3 

from Minnesota. The bridge collapse there was such a tragedy. I 

know for you that this issue is also so relevant. 

We have all heard stories from first responders that have resorted to handwritten notes passed across rubble piles because they 

are using devices incapable of communicating with other responders or because communications networks are overwhelmed with 

traffic. We experienced this personally during 9/11 when the Capitol shut down because the Pentagon was hit, and we couldn’t communicate unless you had a computer. And we all left our computers 

in our offices, so it was very difficult. So, we know that there are 

issues that have to be addressed. 

Public safety should have the resources it needs, and I’m prepared to support a direct allocation of this particular spectrum to 

public safety, rather than auctioning it for commercial use, Mr. 

Chairman. But, I do believe there are several important questions 

that have to be answered in conjunction with this legislation. 

From a technical standpoint, I’d like to know if the spectrum 

were auctioned off to a commercial user, rather than allocated to 

public safety directly, what would the challenges be in allowing 

public safety assured priority access to use the commercial network 

in an emergency. And would there be pluses because you do actually have the systems in place? The FCC has indicated that it believes a priority access arrangement can meet public safety needs 

while allowing the spectrum to be used for further innovation in 

the commercial wireless market that may not be possible without 

the private-sector investment. 

I do think it would be useful for our members to know the advances in capability that the additional spectrum allocation would 

provide for our first responders. My understanding is that there 

are some critical applications a true broadband capability would 

provide, such as high-resolution image transmission, that will allow 

field personnel to communicate directly with offsite medical personnel to enhance field treatment of injuries, sort of like our battleground capabilities that we now have for treating injuries and saving lives on the battlefield. 

So, there are technical questions that I hope our witnesses will 

be able to help us sort through as we go forward on something that 

is this important and which has big consequences. 

The other thing that I would like to talk about is the funding and 

the funding sources. We need to make sure that we have the capability, if we’re going to allocate this spectrum, to be able to have 

the funding to use it and to really deploy it. So, I think looking at 

alternatives for funding are going to be necessary for us to do our 

due diligence. 

So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. And I 

am prepared to work with you to have the right bill that enhances 

the public safety communications capabilities for these emergencies 

that we face. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:] 

4 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. I want to welcome all of 

our witnesses, and extend a special welcome to Annise Parker, the Mayor of Houston. 

It has been more than nine years since the tragic events of 9/11 and five years 

since Hurricane Rita caused such devastation to the Gulf Coast. More recently, Hurricane Ike and its huge storm surge reminded us that in emergency situations, first 

responders and other public safety professionals need the best equipment available 

to ensure the preservation of life. Robust and interoperable communications is one 

of these tools. 

Stories about responders during these, and other, emergencies resorting to hand 

written notes passed across rubble piles because they are using devices incapable 

of communicating with other responders, or because the communications networks 

are overwhelmed with traffic, are simply not acceptable given our technical capabilities. 

We are here today to talk about this issue in a broad sense, but we are also here 

to discuss the future of a particular block of wireless spectrum. In particular, whether this spectrum, known as ‘‘the D Block,’’ should be auctioned as the law currently 

requires. Or, whether it should be directly allocated to the public safety community 

to be paired with other public safety spectrum holdings to create a nationwide interoperable broadband network for public safety. 

There is no question that public safety should have all of the resources it needs, 

including use of vital spectrum. And, I am prepared to support a direct allocation 

of this particular spectrum to public safety rather than auctioning it for commercial 

use, Mr. Chairman. But, I believe several important questions must be answered 

before we can enact legislation to do that. 

From a technical standpoint, I would like to know if this spectrum were auctioned 

off to a commercial user, rather than allocated to public safety directly, what the 

challenges are in allowing public safety assured priority access to use the commercial network in an emergency. 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has indicated that it believes a 

priority access arrangement can meet public safety’s needs while allowing this spectrum to be used to further innovation in the commercial wireless market. The FCC 

is represented here today, and I would like the FCC witness to address how such 

a framework would operate, and for our public safety witnesses to identify for us 

what the concerns and possible shortcomings of that approach might be. 

I think it would also be useful for members to know and understand the advances 

in capability that this additional spectrum allocation will provide to our first responders. My understanding is that there are some critical new applications a true 

broadband capability will provide, such as high resolution image transmission that 

will allow field personnel to communicate directly with offsite medical personnel to 

enhance field treatment of injuries. 

So, Mr. Chairman, there are several technical questions that I hope our witnesses 

can address to assist us as we consider legislation. But, I think we also have to consider whether particular proposals provide adequate and predictable funding to assist localities and the public safety community with the deployment and operation 

of the infrastructure needed to fully utilize this asset. 

I have some concerns about the focus on using proceeds from future spectrum auctions to fund the deployment of the public safety network. Congress and the relevant federal agencies have struggled to develop a plan for spectrum inventory and 

redeployment. As a result, it is uncertain when we will have additional spectrum 

available for auction, or how much revenue we can expect to generate through the 

auctions. 

Tying the availability of funds for the construction and operation of a nationwide 

broadband public safety network therefore carries risks. One of those risks could be 

that with uneven and sporadic funding, the public safety network is built first in 

larger communities while more rural and expensive areas to construct the network 

wait for additional funding. I do not believe that would be an acceptable result. 

It may be that that the reliance upon future auction proceeds proves to be the 

most practicable approach, but I believe some of the proposals I have seen close the 

door too quickly on alternative means of providing support to localities and public 

safety agencies. 

For example, we have not considered ideas like revolving loans with low interest 

rates that would allow local governments to borrow money at low interest rates to 

be paid back over a number of years. That type of program has been used successfully in other contexts to generate substantial investment with more limited up 

front appropriations from Congress. 

5 

There are also numerous existing grant programs that support public safety communications programs, some of them authorized by this committee, and several billion dollars available through the Department of Commerce’s broadband programs. 

I would like to know whether there is an opportunity to modify eligibility and use 

criteria to allow public safety to draw upon these programs. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I believe it is time for 

Congress to meaningfully address the need for a nationwide public safety network 

for the broadband age. 

Again, I am prepared to support a direct allocation of the remaining 700 MHz 

spectrum directly to public safety. But, I also believe that the committee has more 

work to do on this issue. I pledge to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to ensure we 

consider an appropriate piece of legislation and that the public safety community 

gets the resources it needs to execute its critical mission. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

This vast horde of Senators that I promised you has actually 

shown up—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN.—in the form of Senator Amy Klobuchar. The 

Ranking Member of the relevant subcommittee and the head of the 

Subcommittee are not here. 

But, Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota, is here, and if she 

wants to say some words before—— 

And then we’ll start with you, Mr. McClure. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our witnesses. 

I come here today as Chair of the 9–1–1 Caucus, along with Senator Burr, in the U.S. Senate, and also as a former prosecutor. 

Having seen, as Senator Hutchison mentioned, not only the bridge 

collapse, where, in fact, because of some changes we’d made in the 

metropolitan area, the communications there were actually precedent-setting, in terms of how well people were able to talk. And to 

think about the 57 some cars that were in that water, and that 

only 13 people died, tragically, many others injured, but it could 

have been so much worse if the emergency people hadn’t been 

called in. I actually think it’s worth looking at as a case study. 

A part of why we’d improved our communications, our interoperability, in Minnesota, was stemming from an incident where a police officer was killed in St. Paul. And, literally, some of the people 

trying to apprehend the suspect had ten to thirteen different walkie-talkies and phones on them, and it was embarrassing for our 

community. And, since then, with the help of our sheriffs, on both 

sides of the river, particularly Pat McGowan in Hennepin County, 

then sheriff there, we were able to upgrade a lot of our equipment. 

But what we need to do is to do this on a national level, as both 

Senator Hutchison and Senator Rockefeller were talking about. 

I have introduced a bill with Senator Burr and others to reauthorize the Federal 9–1–1 Coordination Office to manage the 

change from a voice-centric system to the Next Generation 9–1–1 

emergency response system that’s based on high-speed digital wireless networks using Internet protocol. Next Generation 9–1–1 is 

necessary, as you think of the changes to technology and communications, but there is also clearly more to be done with spectrum 

6 

and other things, and I look forward to hearing from all of you 

today. 

Thank you for being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Begich, can I indulge you for a moment? 

Every fiber in my body wants to call on you to speak. 

Senator BEGICH. Don’t do it. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That was the remaining fiber, which I was about 

to get to. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. It is not a problem with me. I see many witnesses, and I would prefer to hear from them right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re a good man. 

Senator HUTCHISON. You’re a statesman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’d like to introduce Steve McClure from Jackson 

County, which is a non-urban, small, and beautiful county in West 

Virginia, toward the Ohio River. He’s head of the EMS there. Steve 

McClure and I had a terrific meeting about a week ago, I guess. 

Maybe a little bit more than that. And we talked about some of the 

issues we’ll be talking about here, and the question of what happens to him. And there’s sort of a five-minute story, which I want 

you to tell, because one of the questions in all of this is, what’s the 

difference between a commercial system and a dedicated-spectrum 

system? 

And, without otherwise getting into your testimony, Steve 

McClure, I’m glad you’re here. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE MCCLURE, DIRECTOR, JACKSON 

COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 

Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, 

Ranking Member Hutchison, and distinguished members of this 

committee. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the extremely important subject of public safety communications, especially in the rural areas. 

As the Senator said, my name is Steve McClure, and I’m the Director of Jackson County EMS. We are a small county. I’ve got over 

35 years of experience in fire and EMS, with dual-service providers 

in the large cities, and single-service providers in smaller cities. 

I’ve submitted my written testimony and request that it be entered into the record. I also have a letter of support. 

The CHAIRMAN. All testimonies are part of the record. 

Mr. MCCLURE. I also have a letter of support from various members of the EMS community. And, with the Chairman and Committee’s approval, I’d like to request that it be added also. 

The CHAIRMAN. So ordered. 

Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you. 

I’d like to touch on and reiterate a couple of main points in my 

testimony and provide some real-life scenarios that emphasize the 

day-to-day need for public safety broadband in rural America, including Jackson County. 

As you know, Jackson County is in the mid-Ohio Valley. It has 

a very diverse topography, covers about 472 square miles. Employment in our area ranges from manufacturing to farming. And with 

a major river on our western border and a major highway, InterVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Nov 21, 2011 Jkt 071255 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71255.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
7 

state 77, that transects our county from north to south, our public 

safety responders have a lot of unique situations that we have to 

deal with every day. 

I’m here to specifically address effective communications. This is 

paramount in the delivery of quality services. Inherent problems in 

the way that we deal with our communications today have to be 

addressed so that we can take care of future issues in communication. 

Jackson County lies just north of Kanawha County. That houses 

our capital city, Charleston; Charleston also has a level-1 trauma 

center located within its city boundaries. My paramedics can be 

within twenty miles of that trauma center and cannot communicate 

with anyone. Our land mobile radios can’t communicate because of 

the topography, our cell phones have no service, and there are very 

few landlines in the area. So we can’t even communicate. As I mentioned to the Senator when we talked, I have to carry two cell 

phones, with two different providers, to be able to communicate 

with my dispatch center and my crews. And this isn’t even possible 

in all areas of my county. Lack of infrastructure with cell towers 

is the problem there. 

These problems aren’t unique to Jackson County, or to West Virginia, for that matter. From Hawaii to Florida, from Texas to 

Maine, every remote and rural area has these same problems. So, 

they’re not unique to just us. The problem is, a broken bone or a 

heart attack doesn’t differentiate between an urban area, a rural 

area, or a suburban area. It’s still a problem, and we have to deal 

with it. 

How are we going to solve these problems? It’s important to understand that you have the ability to give rural and urban America 

a solution that will help public safety do a more efficient job. Funding to build the needed infrastructure and securing enough spectrum are two major steps that will provide all Americans with the 

services they expect and deserve. 

All facets of public safety have joined together and issued a call 

for action to take care of this. And I’m proud to say that my Senator, and your Chairman, has stepped forward and answered this 

call with S. 3756, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act of 2010. Not only will S. 3756 provide for the major first 

steps, building the infrastructure and securing the spectrum, it will 

allow an unprecedented move to develop a real nationwide public 

safety communication network. It will allow greater technological 

advances in patient care. We will be able to do things that we 

aren’t able to do in today’s system. There’s technology out there, 

right now, that we can use to triage patients, determine whether 

or not they need aeromedical evacuation or if they can go to a lesser level of care. This helps speed our treatment of our patients, this 

helps keep us within what we call our ‘‘golden hour of trauma,’’ and 

it helps increase the survival rate of all of our patients. Not only 

will EMS benefit from this, but fire, police, and all public safety 

will benefit from this. It will start to bring us back together. 

In conclusion, I’d like to ask you to recall a day, in July 1969. 

I vividly recall watching Neil Armstrong step from the lunar module and step on the Moon. And he issued those famous words, 

‘‘That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.’’ And 

8 

my point is, why, in 1969, could someone communicate with us 

from 290,000 miles away, and today, in 2010, we can’t communicate twenty miles away? I’d like to ask you to take that small 

step so that public safety can take a giant leap forward. 

I want to thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, 

and all of the members of this committee. I appreciate the work 

you do. And I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClure follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE MCCLURE, DIRECTOR, JACKSON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

Good morning Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison and distinguished members of this Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to speak about 

an extremely important subject: communications for public safety. 

My name is Steve McClure. I am the Director of Emergency Medical Services for 

Jackson County, West Virginia and I have over 40 years of experience in the public 

safety sector. Jackson County Emergency Service (JCEMS) provides emergency ambulance service for the county, and also provides non-emergency transports. 

As you may know, Jackson County is located in the Mid-Ohio Valley and has a 

very diverse topography, with an area of approximately 472 square miles and a population of nearly 30,000. Jackson County lies just north of Kanawha County and 

the capitol city, Charleston, and includes a Level I Trauma Center. Employment in 

the area ranges from manufacturing to farming, and a major river borders the western part of the county. A major highway transects the Jackson County from north 

to south. All of these factors present a wide range of difficulties for public safety 

providers. 

I am here today to specifically address an item that is at the very core of public 

safety communications in rural America. Effective communication between the requester of service and the dispatch center, between the dispatch center and public 

safety response agencies, and among the responders themselves is paramount to delivery of services. However, inherent problems in the way we communicate today 

must be addressed for the future of public safety communications over the next several decades. 

My paramedics can be within twenty minutes of the trauma center and unable to 

communicate with anyone; radios won’t work, cell phones have no signal and land 

lines in the area can be scarce. 

Communications problems are not unique to my county or to West Virginia. From 

Hawaii to Florida, from Texas to Maine and all parts in between, we have the same 

problems. While many of these problems occur in rural and remote areas, a broken 

bone still hurts the same and a heart attack can still do the same damage in rural 

America as well as any urban or suburban setting. 

How do we solve these problems and permit public safety officials to do a more 

effective job? Funding to build infrastructure and sufficient spectrum to communicate are two major steps forward that will provide all Americans with the quality 

of emergency services they expect. 

The long-term vision for public safety should be to migrate land mobile radio 

(LMR) systems to a robust nationwide interoperable broadband network that can 

meet the mission critical and day-to-day operational needs of our nation’s first responders. This will not happen overnight, and indeed, may be measured by decades. 

But the sooner we start building and testing, the faster we will realize our goals. 

A converged data and voice network must be at least as reliable as existing land 

mobile mission critical voice networks before public safety agencies would even consider migrating their voice communications to a broadband network. The broadband 

network must be hardened to survive most natural and manmade disasters, and 

flexible enough to support a variety of government and commercial applications that 

will enhance broadband services to all parts of this great nation, as well as America’s position as a leader in broadband deployment. 

With advances in technology, public safety practitioners have an increasing need 

to access data and video networks during all emergency incidents. These needs include: 

• Law enforcement access to streaming video, surveillance networks, criminal 

records, automated license plate recognition, and biometric technologies including mobile fingerprint and iris identification to prevent and respond to criminal 

activities. 

9 

1Department of Commerce, Federal Strategic Spectrum Plan (Mar. 2008), at 4, B137–139, B– 

143, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2008/FederalStrategicSpectrumPlan2008.pdf 

(increasing federal broadband requirements) and Department of Commerce, A Public Safety 

Sharing Demonstration, (June 2007), at xiv, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/ 

2007/NTIAWARNReport.htm. 2See Service Rules for the 698–746, 747–762 and 777–792 Bands; Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 

06–150, PS Docket No. 06–229, 23 FCC Rcd 8047 (2008) (700 MHz Second Further Notice); see 

also, generally, Service Rules for the 698–746, 747–762 and 777–792 Bands; Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, WT Docket 

No. 06–150, PS Docket No. 06–229, 23 FCC Rcd 14301 (2008) (700 MHz Third Further Notice). 3 New York City 700 MHz Broadband Public Safety Applications And Spectrum Requirements 

(http://d-block.net/assets/pdf/NYClSpectrumlRequirements.pdf) and Spectrum Coalition, 

How Much Do We Need For Data (http://d-block.net/assets/pdf/HowlMuchlDolWe lNeedlForlData.pdf). 

• Fire service access to building blueprints, health-monitoring sensors for fire & 

rescue personnel, and GPS tracking systems to enable more efficient response 

to fires in order to save lives. 

• Emergency medical service access to telemedicine, high resolution video, and 

patient records to reduce the time it takes to deliver medical services at the 

scene of a incident such as a car crash on a highway. 

• Critical infrastructure service provider access to information to coordinate responses and to restore power and telecommunications services during largescale incidents. 

• Federal Government patrol, investigative and other public safety operations, including the U.S. Marshal Service, Federal Bureau of Investigations, U.S. Customs Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division, Department of Interior and U.S. Park Police, and various other federal agencies access to data networks during everyday and large-scale incidents to coordinate federal assistance 

with State and local response and recovery operations.1

The list above represents just a few of the applications and services that need to 

ride on a public safety broadband network. Unfortunately, the hard reality is that 

the types of applications and services that will ride on the network depends greatly 

on the amount of spectrum that is available for public safety broadband services. 

Many of the applications listed above require considerable bandwidth and speed, 

and the 10 megahertz (MHz) of spectrum that is already allocated to public safety 

will not be enough. 

In 2007, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Report & Order 2 approving the issuance of a single nationwide license for 10 MHz of 700 MHz public 

safety spectrum re-designated for broadband use to deploy a nationwide public 

safety-grade broadband network. This allocation only meets the basic data needs for 

public safety. Most, if not all, of this spectrum will be consumed by local law enforcement and fire services. The 10 MHz of spectrum is insufficient to allow for high 

quality voice and video applications or the ability to provide access to other government and critical infrastructure services.3

One of the most important goals for public safety is to begin using voice applications on the broadband network, but this requires a firm commitment from the commercial wireless industry to research, develop, and establish standards for the next 

generation of public safety communications equipment. Indeed, as Congresswoman 

Harman and others suggest in support of public safety, we need the Federal Government to help create incentives and support for device R&D as a next priority once 

the D Block is secured for public safety and adequate funding is established for 

buildout and sustainment of the nationwide public safety broadband network. 

I am proud to say that my Senator and your Chairman has answered public safety’s call, and the public’s expectation, to provide the funding and spectrum necessary 

with S. 3756: The Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act of 2010. 

The Obama Administration, Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, 

the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and others should work with public safety 

to develop the appropriate spectrum and funding policy that will enable local, state, 

and tribal governments to build their next generation of interoperable public safety 

wireless broadband networks. I understand that a series of meetings have taken 

place over the past month, culminating with a two-day session in Northern Virginia 

earlier this week. I am glad to know that the conversation includes an equal focus 

on rural America, and again to know that Senator Rockefeller and others will continue to emphasize that public safety networks are built based on geography, as well 

10 

4 700 MHz Band Channel Propagation Model by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) http://www.nist.gov/itl/antd/emntg/700mhz.cfm. 5 If public safety owns and operates its own network, or at a minimum holds the spectrum 

license in a public private joint venture network, they can exert greater control over future technical decisions that effect network performance. Additionally, ownership of the network allows 

public safety to exert influence over the network design and deployment to satisfy the immediate and future needs of public safety users. (New York City’s 700 MHz Broadband Public Safety Applications And Spectrum Requirements White Paper) 6 At least 25 megahertz of contiguous spectrum at frequencies located between 1675 megahertz and 1710 megahertz, inclusive, can be made available for immediate reallocation and auction. 

as population—to cover the entire jurisdiction—and so must the nationwide public 

safety network. Indeed, federal users will rely on those networks whether at a plane 

crash site, fighting a wildfire or dealing with myriad other everyday to large-scale 

incidents in remote areas. 

The Congress should consider the following six principles in developing national 

policy for improving our nation’s public safety communications systems: 

1. Adequate spectrum must be allocated to public safety to provide the highest 

speed and quality for transmitting mission critical voice, video and data services 

throughout their jurisdiction. The propagation characteristics of the spectrum 

that is allocated should allow for in-building coverage and be able to transmit 

a signal over large geographic areas.4

2. Local public safety agencies must be able to control the amount of spectrum 

resources they need to ensure broadband networks are able to provide voice, 

video, and data services to law enforcement, fire and emergency services.5

3. State and local public safety agencies must have full control over who can 

access the network and what applications are authorized to operate on it. 

4. Auction proceeds from the sale of reclaimed radio spectrum for commercial 

wireless services should be allocated to help expedite the build out and continued maintenance and operation of a nationwide wireless broadband network.6

5. State and local government should be able to use current federal grant programs such as the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), the Urban Area 

Security Initiative Grant Program (UASI), the Metropolitan Medical Response 

System (MMRS), Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG), Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP), Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP), and Preparedness Grants, the 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Technology, Department of Justice’s State, Local, and Tribal Terrorism Prevention Training and Technical Assistance National Initiative Program, and the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 

Program to assist them in building their public safety broadband networks. 

6. Public-private partnership should be encouraged when possible. However, 

public safety agencies must have the ability to deploy dedicated wireless 

broadband networks in their jurisdiction if commercial providers are unable to, 

or unwilling to, support their mission critical needs. 

In order for public safety to be successful in deploying the next generation of 

broadband networks, Congress must act quickly to pass S. 3756: the Public Safety 

Spectrum and Wireless Innovations Act of 2010. This legislation will allocate sufficient dedicated spectrum and funding resources to public safety to build out the network. Without sufficient spectrum and funding, public safety will be relegated to 

using commercial networks that do not meet the mission critical needs of our nation’s first responders. Should Congress not enact legislation to allocate additional 

spectrum to public safety, the public’s safety and the safety our first responders are 

at risk. 

The goal for improving our nation’s public safety communications systems should 

be to create a ubiquitous public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band 

that meets all of public safety’s needs in all geographic locations and across all jurisdictions and services. 

A unique opportunity exists to change the paradigm of public safety communications where multiple frequency bands and incompatible technologies create obstacles 

to interoperability and perpetuate inefficiency. The ultimate goal and vision of the 

public safety broadband network is to learn from the mistakes of the past and plan 

for a future in which wireless broadband networks deployed on a common frequency 

band—using a common technology platform—provide public safety with the tools 

they need for the twenty-first century. 

11 

7 Example of government operations include water, electric and gas meters read remotely taking advantage of the broadband wireless network and/or its backhaul infrastructure to improve 

accuracy and reduce labor costs. (New York City’s 700 MHz Broadband Public Safety Applications And Spectrum Requirements White Paper) 

I can vividly recall that day in July 1969, when as a young child I watched the 

first moon landing and heard Neil Armstrong issue those famous words, ‘‘that’s one 

small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.’’ If someone could communicate 

those words from almost 290,000 miles away, why can’t we communicate with services that are 20 miles way? Radio towers and cell towers (infrastructure) in the 

southern part of my county are nearly non-existent. This same problem manifests 

all across the country and we need to fix it. Quickly passing S. 3756 is the key to 

fixing this problem. 

Thank you again Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison and members of this 

committee and I look forward to any questions you might have. I leave you with 

some basic questions and answers to re-emphasize the main points from perspective. 

Why Does Public Safety Need 20 Megahertz of Spectrum? 

The allocation of 20 megahertz of spectrum will double the transmission speed 

and reduce the degradation of data especially in voice and video applications. The 

additional spectrum will also reduce the cost of build out of the network because 

less base stations will be needed to accommodate all the users and applications on 

the network. 

The 20 MHz of spectrum will be sufficient to build equipment that will provide 

voice, video and data applications to first responders. Without sufficient spectrum, 

equipment manufacturers may not invest the money that is needed to develop new 

mission critical broadband communications equipment and applications. The 

amount of spectrum public safety can use will determine what equipment and applications will be available. 

The 20 MHz of spectrum will also provide enough excess capacity on the network 

to allow for government and critical infrastructure 7 applications and also allow for 

commercial services to consumers, businesses, and schools and other key institutions in the most rural and underserved areas of the country. 

To truly understand the broadband need of public safety we need to emphasize 

the key word mobile. So, what do we mean by mobile? 

Mobile means that while traveling at 55 mph on the highway you are able to continuously access a broadband network to upload and download data. It means that 

if you are pursuing a suspect at 80 mph and have an in-car video camera you can 

upload the live video to the emergency communications center. It means that while 

you are responding to a fire you can download the blueprints to the burning building before you get to the scene. It means transmitting medical data to emergency 

medical personnel that are transporting a trauma patient and receiving a patient’s 

vital statistics at the hospital before the ambulance ever arrives. 

How Do You Solve the Technological Divide Between Public Safety and 

Commercial Systems? 

Public safety has endorsed Long Term Evolution (LTE) as the standard technology for the 700 MHz broadband networks. By adopting the LTE standard prior 

to any deployments, public safety is working to ensure systems are interoperable. 

Also by adopting the LTE standard, which has been adopted by the largest commercial carriers, public safety believes that there will be considerable cost savings in 

purchasing equipment that will operate on the network. 

The LTE technology will also allow public safety agencies to partner with commercial carriers in their regions to build out their networks. This is critical for geographic areas of the country that are serviced by the rural cellular carriers. By 

partnering with public safety, the rural carriers will be able to extend their coverage 

area and provide greater services to the customers. 

It is important that one of the goals for improving our nation’s public safety communications systems is to provide funding to encourage investment in research and 

development (R&D) of new communications equipment and applications that can be 

integrated into the public safety broadband network. 

One of the most immediate R&D efforts should be to develop LTE equipment and 

applications that can meet the mission critical voice communications needs of public 

safety. To ensure competition and reduce the cost of the equipment, the Federal 

Government should provide funding for the R&D program. 

LTE technologies must be capable of providing two-way, peer-to-peer, and one-tomany transmission of mission critical voice communications services for first responders. Delay in developing the standards for these types of applications will proVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Nov 21, 2011 Jkt 071255 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71255.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
12 

8GSM Association adopts carriers’ framework for LTE voice: VoLTE made its debut late last 

year, when AT&T, Verizon and several other telecom companies and device manufacturers 

joined forces to help develop voice and SMS standards for LTE. The coalition of telecom and 

tech companies originally banded together to create joint voice and SMS standards that would 

avoid potential fragmentation of LTE services and thus ensure that voice-capable LTE devices 

could operate on different networks. (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/021510-gsmaone-voice.html) 

long the migration of LMR systems to next generation of public safety communications technologies. 

Commercial carriers are moving rapidly to develop a single standard for voice over 

LTE technology (VoLTE).8 This standard however is being primarily developed for 

voice communications that are similar to existing cellular services. As these standards are developed, public safety needs to work closely with commercial partners to 

ensure VoLTE is going to be compatible with the voice communications applications 

that will be used by public safety. By building commercial equipment that can support public safety’s voice communications needs the cost of purchasing equipment 

could be greatly reduced. 

Before public safety agencies are able to migrate their LMR systems to broadband 

networks, they must be assured the network will be capable of providing the same 

level of services as their existing LMR networks. A key component of this is the 

availability of sufficient spectrum to provide the highest quality of voice communications to first responders. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Director McClure, and we 

will have questions. 

Our next witness is The Honorable Annise Parker, who is the 

Mayor of the largest city in—did you say in Texas or in America? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. The fourth largest in America, and the largest—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The fourth largest in America. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—in Texas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANNISE D. PARKER, MAYOR, 

CITY OF HOUSTON; AND CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL 

AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 

Ms. PARKER. Thank you. It’s my honor to be here. I—while I am 

representing the City of Houston and my 2.2 million constituents, 

I’m actually here on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I’m 

the chair of the Criminal and Social Justice Committee. And the 

mayors involved in that association have a strong interest in this 

legislation and strongly support this legislation. 

To my Senator, Senator Hutchison, thank you for briefly meeting 

with me this morning and, as always, for your great advocacy on 

behalf of the State of Texas. 

Senator, we do thank you for your leadership on this. We do officially support Senate Bill 3756. And I’m not going to go into the 

weeds on the technical side. Let me talk to you a little bit about 

what happens in a big city, as opposed to the rural areas. 

Our city has eighteen different large wireless projects in 

progress. And a multitude of smaller cities, interspersed with rural 

areas, in a metropolitan area of, oh, five and a half million people, 

we are unable, currently, in the city of Houston, to communicate 

with the larger area represented by three counties, in which we lop 

over, because we do not have an interoperable radio system. We, 

years ago, went in two different directions, and the smaller communities in this—in our area are forced to choose between, ‘‘Do we get 

13 

on the city of Houston’s radio system, or do we get on the largest 

county—Harris County’s radio system?’’ 

We are now spending approximately $125 million to move toward 

a singular system, where we can communicate with each other, 

most of that being spent by the citizens of Houston, because we 

have realized that, rather than trying to force the larger area to 

come with us, we’re going to have to go and link with the larger 

area. We are utilizing all of the remaining 700 megahertz 

narrowband channels in the Houston area, and that will have a 

useful life of perhaps 15 to 20 years. We absolutely need to secure 

our future and our ability to communicate with each other in this 

huge metropolitan area, with millions of people, in the event of an 

emergency. We cannot do that today without patching our systems 

together. 

We do support your legislation. There is one area in which the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors would support some changes. And we 

believe that it’s important for the Federal Government to deal with 

50 states, rather than the thousands of local governments. And so, 

if we can make it possible to put some language in for funding to 

go to those local agencies that cover the broadest areas—sometimes 

that’s at the state level and, as I indicated, sometimes it is at a 

regional level, where we’re already grappling with this issue on a 

daily basis. 

It is unconscionable that, nine years after September 11, and five 

years after Hurricane Katrina, and representing a city that is in 

the hurricane belt, that we cannot communicate with each other on 

a nationwide level, that I can’t communicate first-responder-tofirst-responder to my local partners in county government. And we 

ask you to move this legislation and support all of us. 

Again, thank you for the time to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Parker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANNISE D. PARKER, MAYOR, CITY OF HOUSTON AND

CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, members of the Committee, 

I am Annise D. Parker, Mayor of Houston and Chair of the United States Conference of Mayors Committee on Criminal and Social Justice. I appreciate having 

the opportunity to discuss why it is important to reallocate the D Block to public 

safety and also provide assistance to states and localities in the build-out, maintenance, and operation of a nationwide public safety communications system. 

Senator Rockefeller, I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. You 

listened to the strong concerns which public safety and local and state government 

officials had with the plan to auction off the D Block to the highest bidder for commercial applications. Your legislation, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovations Act of 2010 (S. 3756), would ensure that our nation’s first responders are 

able to access a broadband network capable of providing reliable high speed data 

and voice applications so that they can meet current and future public safety needs. 

Be assured that the Conference of Mayors enthusiastically supports S. 3756 and 

looks forward to working with you to see it enacted into law. 

Senator Hutchison, I greatly appreciate your strong support for the City of Houston in Washington and for public safety agencies around the state and I look forward to working with you in support of this legislation. 

The Conference strongly supports reallocating the D Block of the 700 megahertz 

spectrum to public safety. While we have had policy to that effect for several years, 

last June we expanded that policy by adopting a resolution which: 

• opposes the FCC proposal in the National Broadband Plan to auction the D 

Block spectrum to a commercial provider; 

14 

• calls upon Congress to immediately pass legislation that prevents the FCC from 

undertaking an auction in 2011, and conditions further FCC action on formal 

Congressional approval of plans for the D Block and meeting public safety spectrum needs; 

• calls upon Congress to reallocate the D Block to public safety; and 

• endorses identification of alternative federal funding sources to ensure that all 

states and localities can afford the costs associated with transition to a nationwide network. 

The D Block’s Importance to Public Safety 

Mayors and city council members know that the location of the D Block offers a 

one-time opportunity to improve first responder communications and emergency response capabilities. We also know that allocating the D Block to public safety would 

double the amount of spectrum available for first responder communications, yet remove less than 2 percent of the spectrum that the FCC and the Administration propose to make available for commercial use. And we know that without the D Block, 

first responder communications will continue to lack access to the technologies commercial customers take for granted. 

Commercial networks cannot guarantee first responders have priority access over 

other users. When lives are at stake, firefighters and police officers cannot have 

their calls dropped or wait to get a signal. 

Most of us take for granted text messaging, sharing pictures and distributing videos via commercial wireless devices. First responders can only do this through commercial networks, which do not meet mission critical needs. First responders should 

be able to distribute and receive pictures, video and data in real-time from other 

officers, citizens and emergency dispatch systems. 

Existing research and the variety of broadband applications for public safety use 

indicate that public safety needs at least 20 MHz of contiguous spectrum. This can 

only be achieved by combining the D Block with the 10 MHz already allocated to 

public safety. Failure to reallocate the D Block will force public safety to continue 

to rely on separate data and voice networks, limiting the kinds of applications first 

responders can utilize. 

In disaster situations, customers clog commercial systems as they attempt to communicate with friends and loved ones, access information, and try to document the 

event online. This usage blocks first responders from accessing the network. To protect life and property, first responders require what is referred to as ruthless preemption, or the ability to kick commercial customers off the network. From a commercial provider standpoint, this is not an acceptable business practice. Therefore, 

efforts to provide priority to public safety on commercial networks will not meet 

public safety needs for assured access. 

Reallocating the D Block would give public safety officials sufficient spectrum to 

utilize a variety of applications while also controlling access to the network during 

times of emergency. Providing public safety officials with priority access to commercial networks is insufficient and jeopardizes the public’s safety. 

To date, public safety has been granted only small sections of spectrum over time, 

but never enough to consolidate communications into a single frequency band. This 

means that when multiple agencies respond to an event, they cannot communicate 

with each other because they each use radios that operate on different portions of 

the spectrum. Many police carry multiple radios just to ensure they can communicate with other responding agencies during emergencies. Giving public safety the 

D Block would help end the need to utilize multiple communications systems which 

adds significantly to the cost and complexity of emergency communications. 

The Situation in Houston 

The city of Houston is the fourth largest city in the country. We have the two 

largest public safety agencies in the state of Texas. The Houston Police Department 

has over 5,300 sworn officers and the Houston Fire Department has over 4,000 

sworn firefighters. There are a similar number of police, fire and EMS first responders in the other cities and counties that make up our region. 

The city of Houston has 18 different large wireless projects in progress at this 

time. Many of these projects are hampered by a lack of available, licensed spectrum. 

This lack of available spectrum to license leaves the city in a position to be forced 

to use unlicensed and/or shared spectrum. Unlicensed spectrum leaves the city vulnerable to security issues that would be greatly minimized if a broadband public 

safety grade network were available. Some examples of these projects are: 

• Office in the patrol car, which is intended to allow police officers to conduct all 

aspects of their business from the patrol car. This will require access to large 

15 

reports, images, and files making broadband a critical element for successful deployment. 

• Public safety video, which provides video for many locations deemed critical infrastructure or high crime hot spots. 

• New records management system, which will replace a 20+ year-old system and 

provide wireless access to most police records and crime data bases. 

Further, the city is in the process of building a $125+ million land mobile radio 

system on 700 MHz narrowband channels. This system utilizes all remaining 700 

MHz narrowband channels in the Houston area. The useful life of this new system 

will be at least 15–20 years. Therefore, the city is absolutely committed to preserving the 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for land mobile radio voice systems. 

Any use of these channels for dissimilar technology would put the integrity of our 

system in jeopardy. We believe that opening up this spectrum for broadband, even 

on a secondary basis, could result in devastating interference to our voice radio systems. It is critical that these systems be available for our first responders to use 

at all times. We have a motto for our system, ‘‘first time-every time.’’ This means 

that our first responders must be able to push their transmit button and get 

through the first time and every time ALWAYS. Anything less is a safety hazard 

and is not acceptable. 

All major metropolitan areas will need at least 10 x 10 MHz of broadband. Our 

needs are just beginning to come to light. We already have unmet needs for 

broadband, and the technology is still very new. I believe that the demand for these 

services is just beginning to be identified. Shouldn’t our first responders have access 

to technology at least as good as that available to our teenagers? It is imperative 

that we ensure our major investment into broadband technology will meet our everyday needs and our large-scale emergency needs. This can only be accomplished 

by pairing the D Block with the adjacent broadband spectrum already licensed to 

public safety. 

The Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovations Act of 2010 

Senator Rockefeller, I have already mentioned our strong support for the Public 

Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovations Act of 2010. Your bill would ensure the 

deployment of a nationwide public safety interoperable broadband network in the 

700 MHz band in both rural and urban areas, and it would ensure that the nationwide public safety broadband network is fully interoperable on a nationwide basis. 

It would reallocate and integrate the 700 MHz D Block spectrum for use by public 

safety entities. It would authorize the FCC to auction at least 25 MHz of other portions of the spectrum and deposit the proceeds into a Public Safety Interoperable 

Broadband Network Construction Fund and a Public Safety Interoperable 

Broadband Maintenance and Operation Fund, with the first $5.5 billion to go to the 

construction fund and any additional proceeds up to $5.5 billion to go to the maintenance and operation fund. 

It would also direct the FCC to establish standards for secondary use of the public 

safety network, allowing licensees to lease capacity on a secondary, but preemptible 

basis to non-public safety governmental users, commercial users, utilities, and federal agencies. And it would require that any proceeds from those leases be deposited 

in the maintenance and operation fund and be used for ‘‘constructing, maintaining, 

improving, or purchasing equipment to be used in conjunction with the network.’’ 

There is one area in which we would suggest some changes. While we understand 

the important role that states must play in the development of a nationwide interoperable broadband network, and that it’s easier for the Federal Government to deal 

with 50 states than thousands of local governments, we do hope that you will include some language that will make it possible for funding to also go directly to local 

agencies which are responsible for the build out, operation, and maintenance of 

broadband networks. You will note that seated with me at this table are local public 

safety officials, and that they are the ones charged with protecting our people, and 

who every day put their lives on the line. 

Specifically, we ask that you include in the bill a provision which allows grant 

funds to go directly to local governments or local public agencies, such as regional 

entities. Allowing localities to apply for grants directly will ultimately benefit the 

entire state and region. While it is vital that these local governments work collaboratively with their state and federal partners, allowing municipalities to become 

early adopters has already proven to accelerate the roll out of the nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. 

For instance, both Seattle and New York City were granted waivers allowing their 

public safety agencies to build interoperable broadband networks in the 700 MHz 

spectrum. Based on New York City’s success, New York State has applied for and 

16 

received conditional approval to move forward with the construction of statewide 

interoperable wireless broadband networks in the public safety broadband spectrum. 

Washington State similarly hopes to use grants from your bill to rapidly expand the 

Seattle network throughout the Puget Sound region and across the state of Washington. Since the state of Oregon also applied for and received a grant request to 

build a 700 MHz broadband network, those in Seattle are already working with 

their partners in Oregon to make sure the networks work with each other 

seamlessly. By starting in these city centers, large rural areas of the Pacific Northwest and Mid-Atlantic may soon have access to a nationwide interoperable public 

safety broadband network much sooner than otherwise imaginable. 

These waiver projects provide a ray of hope. It is unconscionable that nine years 

after September 11 and five years after Hurricane Katrina, we still do not have a 

nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. Your bill would move us 

significantly closer to the nationwide network that our first responders need to meet 

the challenges of the next decade. All Americans deserve to be able to live in communities that are safe and secure, and effective communications among police, fire, 

and other first responders are essential to this. We look forward to working with 

you to see the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovations Act of 2010 enacted 

into law this year. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mayor Parker. 

Ms. PARKER. I—sir, I do ask that—as you said, I would ask that 

my testimony to be entered into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. They’re all in the record. 

Ms. PARKER. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Believe me. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Robert Davis, who is the Chief of Police of 

the San Jose’s Police Department and President of the Major Cities 

Chiefs’ Association. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF ROBERT L. DAVIS, 

SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND PRESIDENT, 

MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller and 

Senator Hutchison, as well as the other members of the Committee. 

My name is Rob Davis, and I currently serve as the Chief of the 

Police Department in America’s 10th largest city, San Jose. I would 

like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss one of the most critical issues facing public safety that 

I have witnessed in my thirty-years’ career, the creation of a nationwide interoperable wireless broadband communications network for public safety. 

I’m here today, speaking as President of the Major Cities Chiefs’ 

Association, MCC. The 56 U.S. cities represented at MCC are 

America’s centers of industry, transportation, education, and commerce. Our police departments provide public safety services to 

roughly 40 percent of America’s population. However, I speak today 

not only for the Major Cities Chiefs, but also on behalf of virtually 

all of my colleagues in public safety across America. 

For the first time in my memory, law enforcement, fire, EMS, 

and other emergency service organizations have come together to 

speak with one voice on an issue that profoundly affects the security of our homeland. The organizations leading this effort include 

the Major Cities Chiefs, the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, represented by 

17 

my colleague on this panel, Chief Jeff Johnson, the National Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs, the Major County 

Sheriffs Association, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, and the National Emergency Management Association. We are also joined in this effort by the National Governors 

Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 

Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

and the International City/County Management Association, and 

too many others to list here today. 

For those familiar with government, as I know you are, it is indeed a rare event that you will see all of these organizations come 

together and unite around a single issue. Indeed, we have come 

here with a straightforward, yet urgent, request. Almost a decade 

has been passed since the tragic events of 9/11, as has been mentioned. And our nation needs a mission-critical grade—I’d underscore, a ‘‘mission-critical grade’’—interoperable public safety wireless broadband network controlled by public safety—and I would 

underscore, ‘‘controlled by public safety.’’ 

After much discussion during this past two years, the leadership 

of public safety across this country has studied this issue thoroughly and concluded that the two most important things necessary to achieve this outcome are: one, the reallocation of the 700 

megahertz D Block to public safety; and, two, adequate funding to 

build and maintain a national infrastructure. 

Mr. Chairman, your bill, S. 3756, provides us with exactly what 

we need to make this network a reality. We thank you for your 

leadership, and we urge all of your colleagues in Congress to support your bill. 

Why is the D Block so important? The answer is that this slice 

of spectrum is both uniquely suitable and desirable for public safety use. First, 700 megahertz is the ideal spectrum for nationwide 

emergency operations. Signals in this band can penetrate walls and 

windows much better than the higher band frequencies that some 

have suggested should be an alternative for public safety. Second, 

the D Block is immediately adjacent to the existing public safety 

broadband allocation, thus it can provide needed additional capacity, simply and elegantly, without complicating network or radio 

handset design. Any alternative spectrum would be less desirable, 

since additional components would be required, which would dramatically increase costs while reducing performance. Nonadjacent 

spectrum blocks will not provide as much throughput capacity as 

the D Block, since greater efficiency is achieved through spectrum 

aggregation; indeed, this is the essence of broadband. 

Moreover the D Block is critical for the accessibility of information by our nation’s first responders. New technology, such as automated license-plate readers, infield biometrics, medical telemetry, 

automated vehicle location, and streaming video, only scratch the 

surface of the applications that will be carried by the National Public Safety Broadband Network. 

I would like to take a moment to address a notion that has been 

advanced by some wireless carriers, that they should control the 

networks and allow public safety to lease it. Indeed, this goes to 

one of your questions, Senator Hutchison. At a forum held just this 

18 

week, some of our telecom industry partners acknowledged that 

their business models would not allow us access to those—to that 

network when we need it. It would not allow us the ability to get 

in there, because their business models simply wouldn’t allow it. 

And they actually went on the record as saying that. This simply 

will not work for public safety. A dropped call on a cell phone is 

an annoyance. In an emergency it literally can mean the difference 

between life and death. Public safety personnel must have coverage 

whenever and wherever we respond in an emergency, and we must 

control that network. 

In closing, the public safety organizations mentioned at the beginning of my testimony are unified in the goal of establishing, for 

the first time, a nationwide public safety broadband network. We 

are not motivated by politics, nor profits. Our only motivation is 

the ability to serve the public we are sworn to protect. Indeed, I 

should mention that, as board member of the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, which leads and supports our innovative technology community, I get the importance of industry to our communities. But, as the father of my 11-year-old daughter, Mackenzie, 

and the father of my 5-year-old son, Zachary, I also get the need 

for a long-term public safety system. Indeed, our motivation is simply to do the right thing for the right reasons. 

This is a historical moment for us. On behalf of my daughter, 

Mackenzie, and my son, Zachary, and the rest of America’s children, I have to say, we can’t afford to make mistakes. We have to 

get it right. 

And so, on behalf of these organizations, I thank you for your attention to this important issue. And I also will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF ROBERT L. DAVIS, SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT

AND PRESIDENT, MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION

Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller and members of the Committee. 

My name is Robert Davis and I currently serve as Chief of the San Jose Police 

Department. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss one of the most critical issues facing public safety that I have witnessed in my 30-year career—the creation of a nationwide, interoperable, wireless 

broadband communications network for public safety. 

I am here today speaking as President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association 

(MCC). The fifty-six U.S. cities represented in MCC are America’s centers of industry, transportation, education, and commerce. Our police departments provide public 

safety services to roughly forty percent of America’s population. 

I speak today not only for the Major Cities Chiefs, but also on behalf of virtually 

all of my colleagues in public safety across America. For the first time in my memory, law enforcement, fire, EMS, and other emergency service organizations have 

come together to speak with one voice on an issue that profoundly affects the security of our homeland. The organizations leading this effort include the Major Cities 

Chiefs; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the International Association of Fire Chiefs, represented by my colleague on this panel, Chief Jeff Johnson; 

the National Sheriffs Association; the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs; the Major County 

Sheriffs Association; the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials; and 

the National Emergency Management Association. We are also joined in this effort 

by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the 

National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International 

City/County Management Association, and too many others to list here today. For 

those familiar with government, it is indeed a rare event that you will see all of 

these organizations come together and unite around a single issue. 

19 

We have come here with a straight-forward, yet urgent request. Almost a decade 

has past since the tragic events of 9/11, and our nation needs a mission-critical 

grade, interoperable, public safety, wireless broadband network controlled by public 

safety. After much discussion during the past 2 years, the leadership of public safety 

in this country has studied this issue thoroughly and concluded that the two most 

important things necessary to achieve this outcome are: (1) reallocation of the 700 

MHz D Block to public safety and (2) adequate funding to build and maintain a national infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, your bill, S. 3756 provides us exactly what we 

need to make this network a reality. We thank you for your leadership, and we urge 

all of your colleagues in Congress to support your bill. 

Why is the D Block so important? The answer is that this slice of spectrum is 

both uniquely suitable and desirable for public safety use. First, 700 MHz is the 

ideal spectrum for nationwide emergency operations. Signals in this band can penetrate walls and windows much better than the higher-band frequencies that some 

have suggested should be an alternative for public safety. Second, the D Block is 

immediately adjacent to the existing public safety broadband allocation, thus it can 

provide needed additional capacity simply and elegantly without complicating network or radio handset design. Any alternative spectrum would be less desirable, 

since additional components would be required which would dramatically increase 

costs while reducing performance. Non-adjacent spectrum blocks will not provide as 

much throughput capacity as the D Block, since greater efficiency is achieved 

through spectrum aggregation. Indeed, this is the essence of broadband. 

Moreover, the D Block is critical for the accessibility of information by our nation’s first responders. New technologies such as automated license plate readers, 

in-field biometrics, medical telemetry, automated vehicle location, and streaming 

video only scratch the surface of the applications that will be carried by the national 

public safety broadband network. 

I would like to take a moment to address the notion that has been advanced by 

some wireless carriers that they should control the network and allow public safety 

to lease it. This simply will not work for public safety. A dropped call on a cell 

phone is an annoyance; in an emergency it literally can mean the difference between 

life and death. Public safety personnel must have coverage whenever and wherever 

we respond in an emergency. 

In closing, the public safety organizations mentioned at the beginning of my testimony are unified in the goal of establishing for the first time a nationwide, interoperable, mission-critical, public safety broadband network. We are not motivated 

by profit or politics. Our only motivation is the ability to serve the public we are 

sworn to protect. On behalf of these organizations, I thank you for your attention 

to this important issue, and I will be pleased to answer any questions from the 

Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chief Davis. 

And now, as you indicated, Mr. Jeffrey Johnson, who is Chief Executive of the Western Fire Chiefs Association and former President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JEFFREY D. JOHNSON, EFO, CFO, MIFIREE, FORMER PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and esteemed Senators of this committee. 

I am Jeff Johnson, and I am the past President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and I’m also currently the 

Chair of Oregon’s Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee. 

A top priority for all of public safety—police, fire, and EMS—is 

to build nationwide public safety wireless broadband network. 

Mr. Chairman, S. 3756, the legislation that you introduced, will 

allow public safety to realize its nationwide communications goal 

by providing both the spectrum and the funding which is required. 

Over the past 50 years, the Federal Communications Commission has allotted thin slices of spectrum to public safety as the need 

for communications capability arose. Currently, 55,000 public safety agencies operate mission-critical radio system, each with their 

20 

own FCC license, over six or more different bands. Now, this is no 

criticism of the FCC, Senator. This is actually just the way business has been done for many years. And after numerous major 

events and other significant disasters, it is clear to us that a new 

model is necessary: a single national architecture for public safety 

wireless communications. 

To achieve a nationwide public safety wireless broadband network, key elements need to be in place: 

First, the network must have sufficient capacity. To achieve a 

nationwide public safety broadband network, 10 megahertz of Dblock spectrum, currently slated for FCC auction, must be added 

to the current 10 megahertz of spectrum licensed to the public safety broadband licensee. You can see, on the spectrum chart I’ve attached in my testimony, that this is the ideal spectrum. The public 

safety block abuts the D Block. Only with this particular spectrum 

configuration, and none other, can public safety be assured that we 

will have the ability to build the network we need, now and into 

the future. S. 3756 will accomplish this one-time opportunity to get 

this right. 

Second, public safety must control the network. A single public 

safety licensee, using a single technology, operating on a network 

with sufficient capacity, is required to handle the day-to-day operations, as well as the capability to manage major incidents. We 

cannot have commercial providers deciding what is and what is not 

an emergency. 

Third, the network must be mission-critical at the outset. In the 

beginning, this system will handle only data and video. At some future time, years away, we believe there will be a transition to mission-critical voice. This will happen when the technology is developed, public safety has confidence in that technology, and the cost 

is affordable. 

There are some key elements I think worthy of discussion, in 

terms of what is mission-critical: 

First, the network must be hardened to public safety requirements. This means that the towers must be able to withstand the 

elements that might disable them. It must have reliable backup 

power, 24 by 7. And redundancy in the system itself is necessary. 

Second, the public safety mission-critical voice network must 

have the ability to broadcast and receive what we call ‘‘one-to-one’’ 

communications and ‘‘one-to-many.’’ And this system must operate 

in the event of a network failure, because if the network, for any 

reason, cannot provide connectivity, then we need the capability to 

communicate from device to device without the network. 

And, last, the network must have backup capabilities in the 

event of a complete network loss. We envision a satellite-capable 

component for the network, to be available when the system is disabled or some other crippling malfunction. Further, in rural parts 

of America, it’s often inefficient or ineffective to deploy radio communications via a tower-based network. 

Mr. Chairman, a federal investment is important for the buildout 

of a public safety broadband network. The broadband network 

needed by public safety cannot be built without federal support. 

S. 3756 recognizes this reality. 

21 

While S. 3756 is very good, as written, there are two areas I’d 

like to see addressed as the bill moves forward: 

First, there is a reference, throughout the bill, for the FCC to 

issue state licenses. This, we believe, will hamper operability. Currently, seven states and the District of Columbia have been granted 

early deployment waivers. These states and D.C. have been granted FCC-approved leases by the Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Licensee. Only in this manner, a single licensee, can 

nationwide operability be assured. 

And, second, we have serious concerns about the flexible use of 

narrowband spectrum envisioned in section 103 of the bill. This 

could lead to interference problems, as well as reduce the needed 

narrowband capacity. 

Mr. Chairman, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and 

our public safety partners support S. 3756. This bill provides public 

safety with what it needs to begin the task of building out a nationwide broadband network. We thank you, sir, for your personal attention to this issue. And we’ll work with you and the Committee 

the assure prompt passage. And I look forward to answering the 

questions of Ranking Member Hutchison and the other members of 

the Committee. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF JEFFREY D. JOHNSON, EFO, CFO, MIFIREE, 

FORMER PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS

I am Jeffrey Johnson, immediate past president of the International Association 

of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and a chief fire officer of the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 

Department in Beaverton, Oregon where I served as chief of the department for 15 

years. I also am currently the Chairman of Oregon’s Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee. 

A top priority for all public safety—police, fire and EMS—is to build a nationwide, 

public safety, wireless, interoperable, broadband network. This urgent need is recognized in many studies such as the 9–11 Commission and Hurricane Katrina reports. 

Mr. Chairman, S. 3756, the legislation that you introduced, will allow public safety 

to realize its nationwide communications goal by providing both the spectrum and 

funding which is required. I am joined in my support for S. 3756 by members of 

the Public Safety Alliance (listed at end of testimony) which is committed to the 

build-out of this nationwide public safety broadband network. Our goal is supported 

by the seven national organizations representing state and local government as well 

as many of the leading telecommunications carriers and equipment manufacturers. 

Over the past fifty years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has allocated thin slices of spectrum to public safety as the need for more communications 

capability arose. Currently, 55,000 public safety agencies operate mission critical 

radio systems—each with their own FCC license—over six or more different bands. 

Our goal of interoperability is difficult; it is expensive. This is no criticism of the 

FCC; this is just the way it has always been done. After numerous major events 

and other significant disasters, it is clear that a new model is necessary: a national 

architecture for public safety wireless communications. 

To achieve a nationwide, public safety, wireless, interoperable, broadband network, key elements need to be in place: 

The network must have sufficient capacity. To achieve a nationwide public safety 

broadband network—connectivity coast to coast, border to border—10 MHz of D 

Block spectrum, currently slated for FCC auction, must be added to the current 10 

MHz of spectrum licensed to the Public Safety Broadband Licensee in order to build 

out a 20 MHz network. You can see on the spectrum chart, below, that this is the 

ideal spectrum. The public safety block abuts the D Block. This is perfect for public 

safety. 

22 

Only with this particular spectrum configuration, and none other, can public safety be assured that it will have the ability to build the network it needs now and 

into the future. S. 3756 will accomplish this one-time opportunity to get it right. 

Public safety must control the network. A single public safety licensee using a single technology operating on a network with sufficient capacity is required to handle 

day to day operations as well as the capability to manage major incidents. We cannot have commercial providers deciding what is or is not an emergency and what 

is the priority. Public safety transmissions have to go through without delay. A ‘‘no 

service’’ signal is not an acceptable element of incident command. The lives of firefighters, the lives of medics, the lives of law enforcement officers depend on this. 

This is our responsibility. 

Public safety expects to work with others and enter into public-private partnerships. We will work with other state and local governmental agencies, federal partners, and utilities. But, public safety must have control over the operation of the 

network in real time. It cannot rely on commercial operators or a government agency to provide its critical governance needs. Network control will give public safety 

assurance that it will have full, pre-emptive priority over all of the spectrum on a 

when-needed basis. 

The network must be mission critical at the outset. In the beginning, this system 

will handle only data and video. At some future time—years away—we believe there 

will be a transition to mission critical voice. We all need to take a long term view— 

to start out with sufficient spectrum so that we will have the ability to migrate to 

mission critical voice. This will happen when the technology is developed, public 

safety has confidence in it, and its cost is affordable. Here are the key elements of 

‘‘mission-critical:’’ 

• The network must be hardened to public safety requirements. This means towers 

must be able to withstand the elements that might disable them. Towers in 

hurricane-prone areas and tornado alleys must be designed accordingly. Back 

up electrical power must be available 24/7. Redundancy is necessary. 

• The public safety mission critical voice network must have the ability to broadcast and receive ‘‘one-to-one’’ and ‘‘one-to-many’’ and the ability to broadcast and 

receive without the network infrastructure being operative. This is called ‘‘talk 

around’’ mode—also known as simplex. This is a command and control imperative. You know well that we operate under extremely hazardous conditions. If the 

network, for any reason, cannot provide connectivity, then we need the capability 

to communicate without the network. This means communicating in the simplex 

mode. This is the heart of public safety communications. 

• The network must have back-up capabilities in the event of network loss. We envision satellite capability for the network to be available when a tower is disabled or other crippling malfunction. Satellite can also cover remote areas that 

don’t have towers. Our mission is geography-oriented whereas commercial carriers are concerned with population. 

Funding is important for the build-out of a public safety broadband network. State 

and local government budgets are challenged. The broadband network needed by 


923JOHNS1.eps
23 

public safety cannot be built without federal funding support. S. 3756 recognizes 

this fact. Both a Construction Fund and a Maintenance and Operation Fund will 

be created by this bill and authorized to a maximum of $11 billion for both funds. 

These funds will provide matching grant programs at the U.S. Department of Commerce to build the network and at the FCC to operate and maintain the network. 

The bill will fund the Construction Fund by auctioning, at a minimum, 25 megahertz of contiguous spectrum at frequencies located between 1675 megahertz and 

1710 megahertz. These funding mechanisms are innovative and greatly appreciated. 

While S. 3756 is very good as written, there are two areas which I would like to 

see addressed as the bill moves forward: 

• First, there is reference throughout the bill for the FCC to issue state licenses. 

This, we believe, will hamper interoperability. Currently, seven states and the 

District of Columbia have been granted early deployment waivers. These states 

and D.C. have been granted FCC-approved leases by the nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband Licensee. Only in this manner—a single licensee—can nationwide interoperability be assured. 

• Second, we have serious concerns about the flexible use of narrowband spectrum envisioned in Section 103 of the bill. This could lead to interference problems as well as reduce the needed narrowband capacity. 

Mr. Chairman, the IAFC and Public Safety support S. 3756. This bill provides 

public safety with what it needs to begin the task of building out a nationwide public safety broadband network. We thank you for your personal attention to this issue 

and will work with you and the committee to assure prompt passage. We are more 

than nine years since the dreadful events of 9–11, thus we urgently need to move 

forward on a plan to develop the envisioned public safety broadband communications network. I am available to respond to any questions you may have. 

The Public Safety Alliance 

The Public Safety Alliance is a partnership with the nation’s leading public safety 

organizations, which includes the International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Association of Fire Chiefs, National Sheriffs’ Association, Major Cities 

Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs’ Association, Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, Association of Public-Safety Communications Officals-International, National Emergency Management Association and the National Association of State 

EMS Officials. The partnership is operated as a program of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International. 

The purpose of the Public Safety Alliance is to ensure law enforcement, fire and 

EMS agencies are able to use the most technologically advanced communications capability that meets the difficult, life-threatening challenges they face every day as 

they protect America. 

The goal of the Public Safety Alliance is to raise awareness in Congress and the 

White House about what our nation’s law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical 

services need to build out a nationwide, interoperable, 4G, wireless communications 

network to protect America. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. That was a very positive statement. 

Dr. Ken Zdunek? Just say I said it OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. ZDUNEK. Perfect. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve struggled with it. I lost sleep over it last 

night. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And you are the Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Roberson & Associates, out of Chicago, Illinois. We 

welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. KENNETH J. ZDUNEK, 

VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, 

ROBERSON AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Dr. ZDUNEK. Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking 

Member Hutchison, members of the Committee. And thank you for 

24 

the opportunity to testify regarding Senate Bill 3756, the Public 

Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. 

I am currently CTO at Roberson & Associates, a consulting company that specializes in wireless. I also conduct National Science 

Foundation-sponsored research to improve mission-critical wireless 

communications at the Illinois Institute of Technology. 

Prior to joining Roberson, my career for 33 years was at Motorola, where I architected that company’s APCO–16-compliant public 

safety systems, developed patents on cellular roaming and cellular 

packet data, and led the network’s research group in Motorola 

Labs. I share everyone’s passion for providing public safety the resources that it needs for effective communications. 

My testimony is based on a study our company performed for TMobile USA, analyzing the potential use of a shared 700-megahertz 

D-block commercial and public safety system as a supplement to a 

10-megahertz dedicated public safety system, as recommended in 

the National Broadband Plan. Our study concludes that licensing 

the 700-megahertz D-block spectrum for commercial use is the best 

way to achieve the goal of having a nationwide interoperable 

broadband public safety network. 

Our analysis considered three important factors in determining 

that the National Broadband Plan represented the best path: 

First, we considered whether first responders would have sufficient dedicated spectrum if the D Block was used for commercial 

purposes. We concluded that, not only would public safety entities 

have sufficient spectrum, but that additional access to a densely 

built-out commercial network would provide significantly more coverage than a public safety system alone could provide. Commercial 

systems simply use many more base stations than do public safety 

networks. Each of those base stations provides frequency re-use, 

which multiplies capacity. So, a public safety network, with access 

to a commercial network, both using the long-term evolution, or 

LTE technology, which is expected to be the standard for 700 

megahertz, can take advantage of frequency re-use and more capacity. This is especially important in rural areas. 

In addition, first responders can obtain more broadband capacity 

in other ways; for example, by using the 4.9-gigahertz band dedicated for public safety use for onsite communications. This is in a 

similar way that we all use Wi-Fi hotspots. 

Further, if integrating voice on the nationwide network is desired 

in the future, some of the 700-megahertz spectrum now designated 

for narrowband voice can be converted to voice over broadband. 

Any narrowband voice capacity still needed can be satisfied by 

spectrum allocated to public safety and other bands where there is 

substantial capacity, and where there’ll be even more when the 

mandated narrowbanding, below 512 megahertz, and rebanding, at 

800 megahertz, is complete. 

The second factor we considered in evaluating the National 

Broadband Plan’s proposal was the access that first responders 

would have to a commercial network at 700 megahertz. The LTE 

technology to be used provides priority access in a completely different way than today’s circuit-mode systems. In a circuit-mode 

system, when a channel is busy, other users are blocked. LTE’s 

Internet protocol-based packet mode is completely different. When 

25 

priority packets are imposed on a busy packet datastream, existing 

traffic is automatically slowed down so that the priority packets 

can be delivered faster. The concept of channel unavailability is not 

relevant. LTE can also inhibit lower-priority users from initiating 

transmissions at all during periods of congestion. This assures that 

access for public safety users is always available. 

As I said earlier, since commercial systems contain many more 

base stations than public safety systems, first responders will have 

priority access to much more infrastructure and, therefore, more 

capacity than in a single public safety network. 

The final factor we considered was the potential for radio interference to public safety networks from a commercial D-block network. Because both systems use the identical LTE technology, 

there is little concern about the two using adjacent 700 megahertz 

bands. This is exactly the situation for commercial systems. Previous analyses combined worst-case scenarios—examined worstcase scenarios that would not be used in practice. 

In summary, our analysis confirms the viability of the National 

Broadband Plan and shows that 10 megahertz of dedicated public 

safety spectrum, coupled with the ability of public safety users to 

roam with priority and automatically on a commercial D-block network, will meet first-responder requirements for an interoperable 

broadband wireless network. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

And I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Zdunek follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. KENNETH J. ZDUNEK, VICE PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, ROBERSON AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members 

of the Committee. My name is Kenneth Zdunek, and I am Vice President and Chief 

Technology Officer of Roberson and Associates, LLC, a technology and management 

consulting firm with government and commercial customers. We provide services in 

the areas of RF spectrum management, RF measurements, and technology management. I also served as Vice President of Network Research at Motorola, Inc. for nine 

years. I am an IEEE Fellow and research faculty member in Electrical Engineering 

at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Thank you for inviting me today to testify 

regarding S. 3756, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. 

Summary 

Our company was asked by T-Mobile, USA to perform a technical analysis of a 

shared 700 MHz D Block commercial/public safety system, as recommended in the 

National Broadband Plan. While there is understandable frustration about the 

delay in creating an interoperable public safety broadband network, any decision 

about how to proceed may still be premature until the FCC, with guidance from the 

public safety community and industry, is able to fully evaluate the complex issues 

that implementation of such a network raises. It is important to note that the types 

of public safety networks proposed in the National Broadband Plan and in S. 3756 

have much in common—both seek to ensure the creation of a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network introducing new levels of priority access to, 

and roaming on, commercial networks. The implementation and deployment of such 

a first responder network integrated with commercial systems presents a unique, 

once-in-a-generation opportunity. In order to proceed, careful analysis of many complex technical matters implementing the long term evolution (‘‘LTE’’) platform that 

700 MHz systems are expected to share is required. These analyses are critical to 

the creation of an effective public safety broadband network regardless of whether 

S. 3756 is enacted. 

While we would welcome a more complete analysis of these technical issues before 

the FCC, our study confirms the conclusions of the FCC’s June 2010 White Paper 

26 

that assessed public safety spectrum needs. Like the FCC, our study concluded that 

allocation of 10 megahertz of 700 MHz spectrum for broadband applications, in combination with the spectrum that public safety already holds both in the 700 MHz 

band and elsewhere, is sufficient to meet current and future requirements and that 

those needs can best be satisfied under the National Broadband Plan. The allocation of the D Block for commercial purposes, combined with the convergence of commercial and public safety networks on a common LTE standard, presents a unique 

opportunity in the 700 MHz band to satisfy public safety needs on a combined public/private network better, and more quickly, than they could be satisfied on a standalone public safety network. While the goals of the National Broadband Plan and 

S. 3756 are the same, the results of our study leads me to recommend the Committee to support the National Broadband Plan and FCC’s thoughtful and expert 

proposals as the best way forward for our public safety and wireless systems to meet 

the growing first responder interoperability and spectrum needs of the 21st century. 

The remainder of my testimony summarizes our study. 

Public Safety Broadband Needs and Spectrum Capacity 

Our analysis strongly confirms the FCC’s June 2010 White Paper assessing public 

safety’s spectrum needs, which is the only recent realistic, systematic assessment 

of first responders’ needs conducted to date. The capacity and throughput provided 

by a 10 megahertz network using the 700 MHz public safety broadband spectrum 

with LTE technology is sufficient on a system and sector-cell basis to meet immediate public safety broadband non-voice spectrum needs for day-to-day purposes and 

incident scene scenarios. Multiple high-quality video streams can be provided by 

this 700 MHz LTE network over a wide geographic area and commercially available 

technologies exist to provide increased throughput at cell-edges where signal 

strength may be lower. Indeed, the ability to re-use frequencies in a cellular format 

will make more video stream capacity available if an incident occurs over a broad 

geographic area. The broader the geographic area, the more potential base station 

sites a public safety user can access. In a geographically large disaster situation, 

public safety entities will have more capacity because of frequency re-use, an advantage further amplified through access to commercial networks. 

Operation of a first responder network which takes advantage of a more densely 

deployed commercial system may feature even more frequency re-use. While a public safety system featuring frequency re-use may employ hundreds of antenna sites 

in an urban area, a commercial system in that same urban area will employ many 

more transmitter sites, each sectorized to allow frequency re-use and enhanced capacity. For example, in its proposal for a 700 MHz public safety broadband system, 

the San Francisco Bay Area proposes the use of 203 sites. Over about the same 

area, T-Mobile uses more than fifteen times the number of sites—3,649. Therefore, 

by partnering with a commercial system, public safety entities can take the greatest 

advantage of frequency re-use to dramatically expand capacity. 

In instances where all of the 700 MHz spectrum is being used in a small geographic area with no opportunity for frequency re-use, additional broadband capacity is available through the 50 megahertz of 4.9 GHz public safety broadband spectrum. In particular, the 4.9 GHz band can be a complement to the 700 MHz network, in much the same way as WiFi networks complement commercial wireless cellular networks today. Indeed, this use of the 4.9 GHz band is precisely what public 

safety had in mind when they urged the FCC to dedicate this spectrum for public 

safety operations. Sometimes, where there is a WiFi hotspot, wireless traffic connects to the WiFi network and not a cellular base station. Similarly, 4.9 GHz networks can take traffic off of the 700 MHz broadband network to provide additional 

wireless capacity. 

In addition to using the 700 MHz spectrum currently dedicated for broadband use, 

other public safety 700 MHz spectrum can be rationally converted for broadband operations in the future to create an integrated voice and data network. At present, 

public safety has a total of 24 megahertz in the 700 MHz band. Twelve megahertz 

is dedicated to narrowband voice and 10 megahertz is dedicated to broadband, with 

a 2 megahertz guard band inbetween the narrowband and broadband operations to 

avoid public safety interfering with itself. Sound spectrum stewardship suggests 

that portions of this 12 megahertz of narrowband voice spectrum can be 

transitioned, over time, to accommodate voice on the broadband network. Our study 

indicates that if an additional 10 megahertz of today’s 12 megahertz of narrowband 

spectrum is rationally transitioned to broadband in the future, leaving 2 megahertz 

for narrowband voice operations, there would still be sufficient capacity at 700 MHz 

to create 160 traditional narrowband voice communications channels. Therefore, a 

combination of the 10 megahertz of 700 MHz broadband spectrum with a portion 

of the currently allocated 700 MHz narrowband spectrum, as already requested by 

27 

some public safety agencies, would allow a seamlessly integrated voice, data, and 

video public safety broadband network to be deployed, and would increase the maximum per user throughput and overall capacity achievable within the dedicated 

public safety network. Integrating narrowband voice capabilities on the broadband 

network using the 10 megahertz we recommend would also avoid the construction 

and deployment of two networks at 700 MHz—one for LTE broadband operations 

and one for narrowband voice. Even assuming funding availability, the implementation of two networks is wasteful, expensive and inefficient and undermines the goal 

of interoperability. 

Finally with respect to public safety capacity, it is critical to recall that 700 MHz 

is far from the only source of spectrum for public safety narrowband voice capacity. 

The nearby 800 MHz band can provide 280 narrowband voice channels and the public safety spectrum in the band 450–470 MHz offers over 70 voice channels. Over 

time, the spectrum in the band 450–470 MHz will be required to be converted to 

6.25 kHz bandwidth (narrowbanding), providing a total of almost 600 traditional 

narrowband voice channels. Therefore, if public safety leverages the full complement 

of spectrum they are allocated in multiple bands, it is evident that there is sufficient 

broadband and narrowband capacity for public safety operations well into the future 

without reallocated D Block spectrum. Multiple bands are already being used by 

nearly everyone in this room and some public safety equipment manufacturers are 

already offering multi-band radios. Commercial wireless devices in your pocket already employ spectrum from the 800 MHz cellular bands, the 1.8/1.9 GHz personal 

communications service bands and the 1.7/2.1 GHz advanced wireless service bands, 

and will soon use commercial 700 MHz spectrum. There is no reason why public 

safety systems cannot leverage its spectrum holdings in the same efficient manner 

to create a nationwide interoperable public safety network. 

Use of Commercial 700 MHz D Block Networks by Public Safety 

The National Broadband Plan’s proposal for a public/private partnership will provide first responders substantial technical benefits that a stand-alone public safety 

system cannot. Primary among these benefits is the priority access to, and roaming 

on, what will be higher capacity commercial networks. As I noted, commercial networks are typically constructed with significantly more base station sites than public safety networks—even a public safety network with a cellularized buildout. In 

a public/private partnership, first responders will have priority access and roaming 

rights on these more fully developed private networks—not using only D Block spectrum but potentially spectrum throughout the 700 MHz band. 

The public safety network and the commercial networks at 700 MHz are all expected to use LTE technology. Critically, the packet nature of LTE allows public 

safety information to be prioritized over commercial traffic in a manner not possible 

on today’s circuit-mode communications systems. LTE technology allows public safety information to be added to already-busy channels, so the concept of channel unavailability is not relevant. When priority packets are added to a data stream, they 

can effectively slow down other traffic and be delivered faster than lower priority 

users’ data. The LTE architecture can also inhibit lower-priority users from transmitting during periods of high-priority congestion. This assures that access for public safety users is always available. In addition, the 15 priority classes and 9 bit rate 

levels of LTE allow provisioning of commercial D Block networks so that public safety users can achieve any desired priority level. 

A good way to think about this LTE feature is its similarity to highway traffic 

management. Using old technology, when the highway was bumper-to-bumper, no 

additional cars could easily use it. LTE technology has the ability to monitor access 

to the on-ramps to the highway and regulate the traffic in each lane. It can create 

lanes with no traffic—for public safety—while leaving more congested lanes for commercial use. Therefore, even on a fully utilized commercial network, capacity can 

always be created for priority public safety communications. Importantly, if public 

safety has access to a densely deployed commercial D Block and other 700 MHz 

commercial systems, it will get priority access and roaming on more highways, with 

more lanes, than it could with a 20 megahertz less densely deployed public safety 

network. 

The fact that first responders could have priority access to, and roaming rights 

on, densely deployed networks is particularly critical in natural or man-made disasters. One of the reasons that public safety entities relied on commercial systems 

during the September 11 terrorist attacks is because the significantly greater number of commercial base stations available on commercial systems that remained 

operational. As I mentioned before, even if public safety systems adopt a cellularized 

infrastructure, they will not have the same number of sites as commercial systems. 

Priority access to, and roaming on, more densely developed commercial networks 

28 

will help ensure that public safety always has a communications system on which 

it can rely—even when its own more limited infrastructure is not available. The 

public interest is therefore not well served by simply making sure that public safety 

has ownership of a limited highway but by giving it access to more roads than it 

could own by itself. A public/private partnership will give first responders significantly more access to more densely deployed networks than they would have if they 

relied solely a public safety network. 

Limited Interference Risks 

In the past, public safety systems have experienced interference from adjacent 

commercial systems. First responders are still engaged in relocation of their 800 

MHz band spectrum because of interference from nearby commercial operations. 

However, because of the projected use of LTE technology by both the commercial 

and public safety networks, there should be little concern about interference between the two using adjacent 700 MHz spectrum bands. 

Previous interference analyses of D Block and public safety networks in adjacent 

spectrum have employed the worst of the worst case scenarios whereby D Block 

sites are systematically placed where signals from public safety sites are weakest 

and most vulnerable to interference. While examining a worse-case scenario is useful from a theoretical perspective, it does not reflect realistic system configuration. 

The LTE air interface has been designed for adjacent networks in adjacent bands 

without causing harmful interference. The best situation, as described in the National Broadband Plan and other sources, is for the dedicated public safety network 

base sites to share infrastructure and co-locate when possible with the commercial 

D Block sites. Such co-location of public safety and commercial base site equipment 

is not uncommon today and would expedite public safety network deployment. Still, 

co-location is not a prerequisite to avoiding harmful interference between D Block 

and public safety networks. Any issues can be addressed during system design. 

Finally, analysis of the potential interference generated by user device 

transceivers with integral GPS receivers in the same device shows that any potentially harmful interference can be avoided with a number of well-known methods, 

including transmit filtering. Moreover, from an interference standpoint, there is little difference between a separate D Block and a combined D- and public safety 

block. Both band edges are in the same place relative to GPS signals. 

Conclusion 

Taking all of the above factors into consideration, our study shows that the National Broadband Plan recommendation to auction the 700 MHz D Block and share 

facilities between commercial and public safety users is the best way that America 

can achieve a nationwide interoperable broadband public safety network. The Commission’s plan for allowing first responders to roam on, and have priority access to, 

commercial networks in the 700 MHz band is highly desirable because of the uniform adoption of LTE technology that will enable them to benefit from cutting-edge 

technology. Roaming with priority access on commercial networks would best serve 

our country during emergencies and disasters when a less densely built stand-alone 

public safety network might otherwise become overloaded or unavailable. A commercial auction of the D Block would unlock the value of the spectrum for the delivery 

of commercial mobile broadband services while supporting the concurrent development of public safety broadband capability through many of the same equipment developments, roaming, and priority access requirements identified in the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share my views with you today. I look 

forward to continuing to work with you going forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And next is Retired Admiral James Barnett, who is the Chief of 

Public Safety and Homeland Security at the Federal Communications Commission. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES ARDEN BARNETT, JR., CHIEF, PUBLIC 

SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Admiral BARNETT. Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Who I don’t think likes this bill. 

[Laughter.] 

29 

Admiral BARNETT. Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the Committee. And thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. 

The need for a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband 

network is indisputable. We can measure, in lost American lives 

and property, the cost of not having such a network. This committee showed great foresight, last year, when it charged the FCC 

with preparing a National Broadband Plan, including a specific direction to address broadband infrastructure and services in advancing public safety and homeland security. 

We approached this responsibility very seriously and with rigor. 

The foundation of the network must be facts and data. We researched each potential option—and that was over twenty options 

at one point—with an open mind and with due diligence. We had 

hundreds of meetings and communications with public safety leaders, and performed months of indepth research with experts across 

the nation, including engineers, scientists, economists, industry 

leaders, and federal partners. 

The three essential elements of network are: First, the network 

must be truly interoperable. Second, it must be nationwide, because if it’s not, then really is not interoperable. And, third, the 

network must be technically and economically feasible. The nation 

must be able to afford to build the network. Companies must have 

the economic incentive to provide cost-effective equipment, devices, 

and services to support it. And public safety must be able to afford 

to operate the network. 

Interoperability does not occur naturally or inevitably, but it 

must be central to every decision about the network. The Commission has taken a major step in forming the Emergency Response 

Interoperability Center to establish a technical framework to ensure interoperability. 

Providing network coverage in rural portions of the country is 

also imperative for true interoperability. Accordingly, it’s important 

that adequate public funding be considered to ensure that no area 

of the United States is left behind. 

Interoperability costs money, and we believe that the single 

greatest challenge to ever having a nationwide interoperable public 

safety broadband network is funding to both cover network deployment and operating costs. And this is why we prepared a detailed 

cost model. 

Based on our research, we determined that public safety should 

have a dedicated network, owned and controlled by public safety, 

and that the core of this network should be the 700-megahertz 

broadband spectrum that the Congress has already dedicated to 

public safety. We have determined that this spectrum, with the latest engineering and with good cellular architecture, will perform as 

160 megahertz would if you use the outdated technology that public safety is currently forced to use. 

This core will meet the needs of public safety for day-to-day operations and for most emergencies. Unfortunately, America will also 

have other major disasters, and this network must be able to expand its capacity to overcome these disasters. For that reason, the 

FCC recommended that public safety be able to roam over onto 

commercial networks, with priority access, to provide as much as 

30 

60 additional megahertz of spectrum. This concept has the additional advantage of providing two or more backup networks, and, 

therefore, much more resiliency and redundancy than we currently 

have. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, let me assure you 

that our top priority in this matter is the same as yours, a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. And we will 

work with you, our federal partners, the states, the public safety 

community, and other interested parties, to achieve this goal, no 

matter what Congress decides to do. 

Time is a critical factor, because delay will cost the Federal Government far more money to build a network if we do delay. The 

commercial 4G network—4G broadband networks are being 

planned and built. Leveraging the commercial construction can 

keep our costs reasonable, but not if we delay. 

In closing, I appreciate the Committee’s leadership on this important issue. The cost of not being prepared is too great. The cost of 

not seizing this technological opportunity cannot be recovered. 

There are vast areas of agreement on the plan for a public safety 

broadband network, and I know that we can build from that agreement to develop, together, a plan, going forward—smart plan, going 

forward, that meets the needs of our nation’s first responders. And 

I look forward to working with public safety, our federal partners, 

and with you on this important endeavor. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Barnett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES ARDEN BARNETT, JR., CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND

HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Good morning, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison and members 

of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the need for a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. 

The need for such a network is indisputable. We can measure in lost American 

lives and property the cost of not having a nationwide, interoperable public safety 

network, and unfortunately, each disaster in America reminds us again. This Committee showed great foresight last year when it charged the FCC with the responsibility of preparing a National Broadband Plan, including a specific direction to address ‘‘a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing . . . 

public safety and homeland security.’’ 

We approached this responsibility very seriously, and we pursued it with rigor. 

Our aim was to approach each potential option—somewhere in the neighborhood of 

20 different network concepts—with an open mind and in consultation with all 

stakeholders. Our quest required literally hundreds of meetings and communications with public safety leaders and months of in-depth research with experts across 

the Nation, including engineers, scientists, economists, industry leaders, and federal 

partners. The foundation of the network must be facts and data. The three elements 

that, in my view, are essential are: (1) the network must be truly interoperable; (2) 

it must be nationwide, because if it is not, then it is not truly interoperable; and 

(3) the network must be feasible, not only from an engineering standpoint, but also 

from an economic standpoint. The nation must be able to afford to build and operate 

the network, companies must have the economic incentive to provide cost effective 

equipment, devices and services to support it, and public safety must be able to afford to operate the network. 

The standard for interoperability should be that when a first responder picks up 

a broadband device he or she should be able to communicate with the right people 

and have the right information instantaneously, no matter where they are located. 

However, as past experience has demonstrated, this is a very hard goal to achieve. 

The Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission recently stated that ‘‘the 9/11 

Commission on which we served concluded that the absence of interoperable communications capabilities among public safety organizations at the local, state and 

31 

federal levels was a problem of the highest order.’’ To address interoperability, a 

number of actions are being taken. First, the Commission has formed the Emergency Response Interoperability Center to establish a technical framework to ensure 

interoperability. Second, the FCC, along with public safety, its federal partners and 

industry stakeholders are working to ensure that as the network is deployed and 

continues to evolve interoperability will always be job one. 

Providing network coverage in rural and less densely populated portions of the 

country is also an imperative for true interoperability. Network deployment in rural 

areas needs to keep pace with the rest of the country, including our big cities. Accordingly, it is important that adequate public funding be considered to ensure that 

no area of the United States is left behind, with the goal of covering 99 percent of 

the country’s population. 

Interoperability costs money, and we believe that the single greatest challenge to 

ever having a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network is funding, 

to both cover the cost of building the network and the cost of operating it. This is 

why we prepared a detailed cost model for the plan, which we subsequently published in a white paper. I urge the Committee to take advantage of this research, 

as well as our findings on network capacity. 

Based on our research, we determined that public safety should have a dedicated 

network, owned and controlled by public safety, and the core of this network should 

be the spectrum that the Congress has already dedicated to public safety. We have 

determined that this spectrum, with the latest engineering and cellular architecture, will perform as 160 megahertz would if you used the out-dated technology public safety is currently using. This core will meet the needs of public safety for dayto-day operations and for most emergencies. 

Unfortunately, America will inevitably face not just day-to-day public safety needs 

but the needs caused by occasional major disasters, and accordingly the public safety network must be able to expand its capacity to deal with extreme circumstances. 

For that reason, the FCC recommended that public safety be able to roam over to 

commercial networks with priority access to provide as much as 60 additional megahertz of spectrum. This concept has the additional advantage of providing two or 

more back-up networks, and therefore much more resiliency and redundancy than 

we currently have. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, let me assure you that our top priority in this matter is the same as yours, a nationwide, interoperable public safety 

broadband network, and we will work with you, our federal partners, the states, the 

public safety community and other interested parties to achieve that goal under any 

circumstances. 

I should note one last important point. Not only is time of the essence because 

of the need for us all to be prepared for the next catastrophic event, but also because more time in this regard will cost the Federal Government far more money. 

The commercial 4G broadband networks are being planned and built. The first public safety 700 megahertz networks are being prepared for deployment as early as 

this year. Delaying the funding of the network actually will increase the cost of the 

network. 

In closing, I appreciate the Committee’s leadership for taking up this important 

issue. The costs of not being prepared are too great. The costs of not seizing this 

technological opportunity cannot be recovered. There are vast areas of agreement 

on the plan for a public safety broadband network, and I know that we can build 

from that agreement to develop together a smart plan going forward that meets the 

needs of our nation’s first responders. I look forward to working with public safety, 

our federal partners and you on this important endeavor. Thank you for this opportunity to talk to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I thank you. And I also retract my mildly obnoxious comment because you are quite clinically neutral. 

[Laughter.] 

Admiral BARNETT. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And from the FCC, that’s a big improvement. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me start out and ask a question of Steve 

McClure. 

A number of witnesses have referenced this, but when we had 

our meeting, I had never been to a meeting like that. I’d had individual meetings with individual people. But, we had the National 

32 

Guard, we had sheriffs, we had EMS, we had the emergency communications service, which, in West Virginia, is about five hundred 

years old. We had everybody. There were about twenty of us in a 

relatively small room, and there was consensus that we need to do 

this. It was almost like somebody had poked a wound. Everybody 

just came together. There was no dissension; there were just people 

pouring out frustration. And maybe because I was there, it was a 

chance to do it. But I was stunned by what you said because you 

talked about what I called your ‘‘five minutes.’’ If you go five minutes outside of Ripley, which is your state capital, so to speak, in 

Jackson County, you’re dead on the cell phone, you have to use 

your other one. 

It has been suggested that a commercial auction approach to this 

would, in fact, satisfy your needs. And I’d like you to respond to 

that. You are forced, obviously, to rely on commercial carrier networks now. What are some of your problems with that, if you have 

them? 

Mr. MCCLURE. Well, I think I answered that in my testimony, 

that I wouldn’t feel—in my own opinion, I wouldn’t feel comfortable 

relying on commercial. I have to rely on two now, and I still don’t 

have coverage in the county. It just seems to me that, in my opinion, we would take care of ourselves better. We would look after 

ourselves better. 

One of the honorable commissioners from Kanawha County was 

talking about operability versus interoperability, and I, in my personal opinion, don’t think that the commercial way is the way to 

go. I think public safety needs to control this and police themselves 

on this. That’s, personally, my opinion. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Let me ask any and all of you. There has 

been a lot of debate about how much spectrum public safety needs 

for broadband, as I’ve indicated. The FCC staff and certain commercial interests, now somewhat more muted, maintain that public 

safety needs no more than 10 megahertz. I don’t think that you actually said that, but let me finish my question. 

Admiral BARNETT. I’m sorry. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. But, I think they do. And I think they need to 

be side by side, which is what the advantage of the D Block is. And 

that makes a big difference. I don’t know what your statistics are 

in the number of calls that you’re getting and emergencies you’re 

responding to, but I think they’re going to grow exponentially, as 

will the population. And therefore, in your opinion, this reliance exclusively on commercial networks for public safety, what are the 

flaws that you see with that? Jackson County has answered, but 

I am interested in what others of you say. What are the differences 

between commercial and public safety networks? Are commercial 

networks built to withstand disaster conditions? 

Anyone. 

Mr. DAVIS. To your point, Mr. Chairman, that’s exactly right. 

They’re not mission-critical. That is to say that if you take a look 

at an average 911 Center, across the United States, we have redundant system built into redundant system, we have fail-safe 

after fail-safe, so that our 9–1–1 calls will come through and that 

we’re able to dispatch to our officers in the field. We control that 

ability to dispatch to our officers in the field. We know that if we’re 

33 

simply relying upon the commercial networks, that those towers, or 

whatever it is that they’re building, are not going to be built to the 

same mission-critical grade that we will require. 

Also, you’re absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, in the future, so 

many differences are going to be taking place in public safety. 

We’re going to be—there’ll be a firefighter or a police officer who 

will be responding to an emergency, and they will have hand-held 

or a uniform-mounted camera, and streamed video will be going 

back to a control center, telling them what’s happening, and also 

communicating with the officer or the firefighter about what they 

need to be doing. We can’t afford, when we need to have these 

types of mission-critical applications, as they become available, 

coming to us and have to go to a commercial network to say, ‘‘You 

know, we’d like to negotiate with you on whether or not we’re going 

to be able to do this on our system.’’ We’ve got to be able to control 

our own destiny. It’s the mission-critical building—it’s the criticality of having those backup systems, that we build our systems 

to, and the ability to be able to control what it is that we’re doing 

on those systems. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time is expired. If somebody wants to 

add—— 

Yes, please. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the other 

differences is, if you’re the CEO of a private wireless carrier, your 

fiduciary is to generate a return for the shareholders, which means 

you’re going to deploy your communications systems in highly 

dense areas. And the areas of the country and state that are more 

sparsely populated are not commercially feasible to put towers and 

infrastructure in. When we’re in public safety, our obligation is to 

protect this entire country. Wildfires, hurricanes, and all sorts of 

natural disasters occur not just in dense urban areas. So, not only 

is mission-critical a component, but we have to have a broader 

view. 

Further, I don’t think there’s a board of directors of any wireless 

company in America that is going to rate the goodwill of their CEO 

on when they gave their entire network to public safety so we could 

run a very demanding call that generated a lot of emergency communication traffic at a point-specific area. 

Public safety has access, sir, to commercial networks now. We 

can buy a wireless card and use data systems today. That’s not our 

issue. The issue is mission-criticality. The issue is control of the 

network so that when we need it, we can reach out and adjust it. 

And as the wireless carriers that attended and participated in the 

forum on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week said, ‘‘It is not realistic to expect public safety will ever control our networks.’’ And it’s 

just a flawed model. 

Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. 

And, Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I think that, listening to what you’re 

saying, you’re making very good points. What I am trying to do is 

put the goal and the practicality together, because if we turn this 

over to public safety, which I want to do, there is a huge issue of 

34 

how to pay for it. Local communities and the states will be required 

to pay for this enormous building out of the network. 

Is there a way that you could feel comfortable with mandated 

preemption, letting the commercial people build out the network, 

at their expense, and then having preemptive rights from the commercial system? If the commercial people say, ‘‘That is not a viable 

business model,’’ then that’s off the table. 

But, assume that it’s a viable option; then the question becomes, 

Can preemption be strong enough to give public safety what it 

needs? 

So, I would like to ask both the Admiral, any of the public safety 

people, and the Mayor, who is going to be the one that’s going to 

be finding the money to foot the bill? Obviously, there are grant 

possibilities at the federal level, and there could be, possibly, lowinterest loans, and there might be other ways to augment and supplement local funds. 

But, there’s going to have to be a local component, when every 

mayor I know and every Governor I know says that everyone is 

short of money in the public sector. 

So, I’d like to hear from the person who is going to have to find 

the money—the Mayor—and the public safety people and the FCC, 

to see if there is a preemption capability that would be viable 

enough that it could satisfy the needs of public safety, while having 

the investment needed to build out the systems come from the commercial sector. So, let me start with the Mayor, and then the Police 

Chief or the Fire Chief, and then Admiral Barnett. 

Mayor? 

Ms. PARKER. Senator, as I indicated earlier, we’re already paying 

for it now. And, as you know, the City of Houston is approximately 

640 square miles, with a very large urban area around us. And, 

years ago, we made the decision—we went 800 megahertz, the 

county went 700 megahertz, and literally, the smaller communities 

have been ponying up tax dollars to try to figure out whether they 

link to the two major commercial—or, rather, public networks for 

emergency response. And our concern is that the local communities 

are bearing all the costs now. 

I don’t have an answer for you, whether it is better to—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. But, will it be the same? Won’t it be more 

to have this new band? 

Ms. PARKER. No, ma’am. We’re having—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Or, will it be the—— 

Ms. PARKER.—we’re—we have to do it. We don’t have a choice. 

And we’re bearing the cost now. We—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. And you don’t think the costs would be 

greater. 

Ms. PARKER. No, ma’am. I cannot tell you whether we can convince the commercial sector to build the towers in the areas that 

we need it, into the more rural pockets, where there’s not the commercial applications that they might be seeking for their shareholders. But, for a U.S. Conference of Mayors standpoint, the concern is that—again, we support the bill, very strongly, but the bill 

envisions working with the states. And we believe that funding— 

we need funding help at the local level, and that’s the request from 

the mayors. 

35 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Hutchison, for the opportunity. 

I think, first is, local money will continue to flow in, in some type 

of a match arrangement. As the Chairman of Oregon’s Interoperability Council, the Oregon legislature has committed over $400 

million to build out a statewide network. What this bill will allow 

us to do is have an adequate spectrum platform, of which—not only 

to address current needs, but also to address our future needs. 

If you take a retrospective look at what public safety’s needs are 

for spectrum, we’d be looking into a chasm, because there have not 

been, historically, the applications and the tools that we need in 

the field. If you listen to AT&T, they’ve talked about a 5,000-percent increase in their network demand for the data side in the last 

three years since the introduction to the iPhone. I expect some of 

the things that Chief Davis talked about are going to be a very 

great reality in our very near future, but first we need the platform 

to ride on. 

I’d also like to talk about—I think public safety—once we have 

an adequate allocation of spectrum, I think we envision some kind 

of a relationship with private wireless carriers, but not on the critical components, not on whether the system is built to missioncritical standards, not on whether we control the network. But, do 

we envision the possibility of a roaming agreement? Of course. Do 

we envision maybe, in rural areas, where we build out a public 

safety system that otherwise wouldn’t be commercially viable for a 

wireless company to hang their equipment on our towers or share 

some less critical component? We think a lot of that makes sense, 

but first we need the spectrum that will allow us to have that kind 

of a discussion. 

And then, last, to discuss preemption. Preemption on a network 

that is down does not help public safety. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. We need a system that is up. And the reality is, 

is even if a commercial carrier were to allow us preemption, they 

have critical calls coming back from the customers who’ve—they’ve 

promised services to. We have people, trapped in cars on a bridge 

that’s collapsed into a river, that are trying to make critical 9–1– 

1 calls in. And even if we filled the commercial network with preemptive communication for public safety, there are still meaningful 

calls that need to reach dispatchers, and there’s critical information 

that needs to reach people that need to make decisions. And if we 

overwhelm a single commercial system, because we haven’t allocated adequate spectrum to public safety exclusively, I think we’ll 

shut down half of a very important network. 

Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Admiral BARNETT. Senator, with regard to preemption, yes, there 

are ways that they can control it. As Dr. Zdunek said, this is not 

your father’s priority system, this is Internet-based, this is LTE. 

But, there’s a predicate to this, as well, that I want to make sure 

we understand. We’re actually, at this point, talking about the 

backup systems. The core of the public safety broadband network 

is the 10 megahertz which will be owned and controlled by public 

safety. We’re only talking about when those bad days—when that 

36 

capacity is completely used up. And that capacity is tremendous. 

As I mentioned, it act—it will act, under the new cellular architecture and the new engineering, like 160 megahertz would on the old 

systems. It—as a matter of fact, public safety has 20—25 times the 

spectrum per user as commercial interest does across the spectrum. 

So, it’s a lot of spectrum for them to use. But, on those bad days, 

when they do roll up, or when they do have to roll over to commercial networks—I agree with Chief Johnson, his definitions for mission criticality, I think, are good: backup power, hardened networks, the ability to rollover to other ones. We’ve incorporated 

these things into the core network. We included those in the cost 

model, because we do believe the core network that they’re going 

to use on day-to-day operations or for most major emergencies has 

to be hard, it has to be mission-critical. The one thing that I would 

say that we incorporated into our plan, that I think I hear Chief 

Johnson borrowing, is the ability to have backup networks. In an 

area like Washington, D.C., there would be, I don’t know, six or 

seven backup networks if the public safety network failed, as it did 

back in March. If our system had been in place at that point, they 

would have simply been able to roll over to a commercial network 

and continue to operate. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

I think I’ll start with you, Chief Davis. You talked about how Dblock is critical for accessing information for first responders. You 

talked about new technologies like automated license plate information and infield biometrics video streaming. And could you talk 

about your understanding of the need for the full 20 megahertz of 

spectrum in the 700 megahertz bandwidth and why 10 megahertz 

won’t work? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, thank you very much. It’s an excellent question. 

We know what we know, and we know what we don’t know. 

What we do know is that we are already using some very critical 

and innovative applications, as we speak, to try and help us. It has 

already been mentioned, by the good Mayor here, the budget situations that all of us are facing. Certainly, we’re facing them in the 

City of San Jose; I’ve lost 8 percent of my department in the last 

12 months. I have to rely upon technology to help me innovate and 

to multiply my forces. 

Currently, we have a system in place in San Jose, where, rather 

than stopping somebody in the field who doesn’t have identification—and we believe we need to identify them—rather than needing to take that person back to the police department, we have a 

system in place, where you can take their thumbprint in the field, 

electronically, send that over our broadband system, and have that 

person identified in the field. Saves us time, improves the accuracy. 

That is but one technology that is currently out there and available 

to us. 

What we don’t know is what’s still coming. And we know that 

people are innovating. We’re San Jose. We’re the center of the technological universe, if you will. 

37 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, there are a few others, you know— 

Mark Warner, thinks Virginia—— 

Mr. DAVIS. We’d give him some credit. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—is the center of the—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I always claim Minnesota—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—brought you everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it note. 

Mr. DAVIS. I appreciate that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me paint a picture for you, if I can, because this 

is where we know we’re going. Let’s—let me take you on a car stop 

of the future. 

A police officer is going to initiate a car stop. Currently, what do 

they do? They need to pick up the radio, call in the license plate, 

hope they got it right, approach the car, encounter the driver in the 

car, ask for a driver’s license, since there’s sort of—this exchange 

takes place. A lot of data needs to—take—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS.—transpire, usually by hand. But, in the future, here’s 

what will happen: The police officer will stop the car. The camera 

in the car will automatically read the license plate. The license 

plate technology, reader technology, will transmit that back to the 

database, to immediately begin a search. The officer will approach 

the driver. He will look at the driver. The on-person camera will 

take a visual of that person’s face, and facial recognition technology 

will kick in. He will engage the driver. He will speak. Voice recognition technology will kick in. All of these things improving and 

enhancing our ability—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So—— 

Mr. DAVIS.—not only to see locally, but with all of our partners 

in state and federal—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, what you’re saying is you’re going to 

need the—— 

Mr. DAVIS. We know it’s coming. We know it’s coming. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I have a few more questions here. 

Chief Johnson, I’ve heard from a number of your chiefs in Minnesota who are very active. And I just wanted to ask one very 

quick question about 9–1–1. One of the things that we’re doing 

with our bill, the 9–1–1 bill; that would be of great help for firefighters is to have the ability that before entering a burning building, to actually download the blueprint of that building before they 

go in. And these are the kinds of things we’re looking at, which 

spectrum could be helpful for. Very briefly, because I have some 

questions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, very insightful. I think, not only the blueprint of the building, but the closest unit to that call needs to be 

dispatched, which means we need to be pushing out GPS location 

of the unit just passing through the area, further. The future will 

hold for us the ability to control traffic signals, rather than pushing 

traffic out of the way with lights and siren. I think there are many, 

many applications that will help us, both, be effective and efficient. 

38 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Admiral, in the case of an emergency, the 

FCC recommends public safety have priority to roam over commercial networks. Can you talk about the risks and benefits of doing 

that and some of the concerns raised by some of the other members 

of this panel? And then you also talked about delay, and how you’re 

concerned about delay in terms of funding if we don’t move quickly. 

Admiral BARNETT. Yes, ma’am. The ability to roam over onto 

other networks—I think, as Chief Johnson indicated, public safety 

is actually interested. I don’t think there’s actually any disagreement on that. That’s something that we’ve got slated and the FCC 

wants to move forward on. It just adds greater resiliency and redundancy. And for those days—you know, God forbid, the next 9/ 

11—it will provide the amount of capacity that we would have 

available in any situation. We’ve incorporated these concepts into 

the plan. 

With regard to delay, one of the—I mean, we do—we are very 

concerned about the cost of the network. We think that’s the greatest threat. So, by delaying—if we delay for any reason—the commercial 4G networks will continue to build out. 

One of the cost savings that we see is, if the public safety system 

can be built at the same time, it will reduce the cost by leveraging 

some of those constructions, to be able to use the sharing infrastructure, the towers, those sorts of things. If we wait until—we 

have to wait to actually send out another truck to put up the public 

safety equipment and antennas and that sort of stuff, it’ll greatly 

increase the cost. So, we’re concerned about that. 

We incorporated into our plan, also, the idea making sure that 

the rural areas gets coverage, as well, so that they don’t have to 

rely on commercial networks going out there. So, as Director 

McClure mentioned, you know, what he needs out there is another 

tower to make sure that he has coverage, not actually more spectrum. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The reason I didn’t want to make any comments at the beginning is because you have a mayor on the panel. As a former mayor, I appreciate it and thank you. 

Mayor Parker, congratulations. I know it’s delayed, but thank 

you for being here today and for the others that are here. 

I want to first start with you, if I can, Mayor. Then I have a couple questions. As a former mayor, someone who had to spend lots 

of money building out the LMR system and getting operability between all our systems, I know how it can be and what it can cost. 

And I want to just echo your comment, ‘‘We love our states, but 

they’re inefficient in delivery in systems where there is large 

areas.’’ You mentioned 600 square miles that you have to cover. In 

Anchorage, where I was mayor, we had 1900 square miles to cover. 

So, in our view, it would’ve been logical to just direct the resources 

right to our community because we would be able to deal with it. 

39 

And also we would deal with our adjoining communities much easier than a state trying to do a state-wide perspective. Is that the 

position that the Conference of Mayors is focused on, and yourself? 

It’s not saying the state shouldn’t be part of the role, but there are 

regions that are more able to deploy and manage the development 

of their system. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. PARKER. Yes, sir. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the larger cities in the United States. 

Senator BEGICH. Correct. 

Ms. PARKER. It would be the National League of Cities that 

would represent many of the more rural areas. But, yes—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Ms. PARKER.—we believe that the large urban areas, or those 

with already-built-out very sophisticated emergency response systems, should have direct access to federal support, if possible. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me make sure, Admiral, I understood what 

you had said. On the issue of roaming, there is no opposition to priority roaming for public safety in the commercial network systems. 

Admiral BARNETT. I think there’s broad agreement across the 

public safety community that they do want to have roaming with 

priority access. 

Senator BEGICH. And, from the commercial folks, there’s no objection to that. 

Admiral BARNETT. Well, we have talked to the—in the process of 

developing the National Broadband Plan, we talked to them about 

that. What they’re—you know, the system is set up, the LTE is set 

up to do that. It has 15 levels of priority. What we would be considering, in our proceedings, is imposing upon them a responsibility 

to allow public safety to negotiate with them and be able to have 

priority access and roaming on that. 

So, it would be for compensation, as it is now for priority services, under the current systems. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me try it again. I want to make sure we’re 

talking the same language. There’s no objection to them being in 

priority position, but what I just heard was, as long as there’s just 

compensation for where that priority fits and how you’re paid. 

Admiral BARNETT. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. I want to make sure that’s clear, because 

I will tell you—again, as a former mayor—those bills get big. And, 

you know, we would—and I’ll put myself in the shoes of a mayor 

for a second—we would always love to say, ‘‘We should be priority 

one, but we can’t afford it.’’ How do you address a public product— 

that’s what you’re leasing from the public—and then when the public needs it, as a priority for public safety, which is the fundamental priority of any government, the compensation will determine the prioritization. How do you justify that? 

Admiral BARNETT. Well, the compensation won’t determine it; it 

will actually be the—in essence, the baseline for it. But, this is the 

reason why—and I think it’s an unusual thing, and it’s reflected in 

Bill 3756—that there needs to be operating funds. This is not just 

to build a network, but public safety is going to need money to operate, to maintain, and, an important thing, to upgrade the network. We want—— 

Senator BEGICH. Understood. 

40 

Admiral BARNETT.—public safety networks to be able to keep 

up—as the commercial networks improve in technology, we want 

them to keep up with them. That’s why we think the operating 

fund for them are very important. As I think both the Mayor and 

the Chief mentioned, they’re paying commercial rates right now. 

We’d like to see that, I guess, transferred over—— 

Senator BEGICH. Doesn’t mean they like it. 

Admiral BARNETT.—to their own—— 

Senator BEGICH. They have to. 

Admiral BARNETT. They have to. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Admiral BARNETT. So, I’d like to see it incorporated over into 

their own network and—so that there would be much less expense 

to them. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Anyone on the panel want to respond to that discussion we just 

had here? Anyone have any additional comment? 

[No response.] 

Senator BEGICH. They’re negotiating here, so—— 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I’ll take a run at that. I think the Admiral spoke correctly. I think we acknowledge there’s strength to having roaming agreements. But—so, if we just focus on what we 

agree on, what we agree on is that there’s added value to roaming, 

in how we envision the future public safety broadband network. We 

agree that 10 megahertz, as the public safety broadband core, is 

important. Where we disagree is whether 10 megahertz is enough. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And public safety’s view is, it is not. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And the National Broadband Plan contemplates 

that it is. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Thank you very much. 

My time is out, but I’d be interested in any regulatory or statutory issues that you think inhibit the ability for you to do the work 

you need to do, in the sense of expanding because lots of times we 

can legislate, but then when it goes into the federal bureaucracy, 

you never know what comes out of that. And the regulatory process 

is very burdensome. So, I’d be very interested in, what are the 

items that are really hampering your ability to pursue? You don’t 

have to do that now, because my time is up, but if you could prepare something for me, I’d appreciate it. Thank you all very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. 

A lot of this is relatively esoteric, for lots of people. It’s complicated, but to get down to the nub, what is the effect on the local 

community? 

Some advocate building a network used by both first responders 

and commercial companies. My state, New Jersey, is the nation’s 

41 

most densely populated state and home to what’s identified by the 

FBI as the most dangerous 2-mile stretch in America for a terrorist 

attack. Now, if a shared public/private broadband network was 

built, what would happen during an emergency, in a state like 

mine, when police, fire, and other first responders, and residents, 

all need to use the network at the same time? Will we have the 

expanded use of the network available, no matter what the crisis 

or the load might be? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Senator. 

One thing I know that we don’t want to happen is that, based 

upon our current experiences, the commercial networks are going 

to crash at some point as—if everybody is calling. What we can’t 

have is to have the person running our dispatch center or controlling our radio communications and our data networks have to stop 

and call somebody to initiate preemption. That person, such as the 

Deputy Chief, down from New York P.D., here, needs to be able to 

hit the switch, do what he needs to do in that center to make it 

happen now. I can only imagine the types of protocols we would 

need to go through to hit the commercial entities to ask for permission for this preemption. And we just don’t trust that. We know 

that those networks are going to get clogged. We know we’d be— 

we need to be able to control them at the public safety centers. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You know, my state lost 700 people on 

9/11. And a lot of the people who were lost were those who were 

trying to help those who were stuck in the buildings. But, the fact 

of the matter is that it’s believed that some perished and couldn’t 

do what they wanted and were there to do because there was no 

way to communicate. And that’s a disastrous situation. 

Before I came here, I was a Commissioner of the Port Authority 

in New York/New Jersey—it’s a bi-state agency—that had so many 

of its police officers and other emergency personnel there. So, when 

we think of what happens when a couple of towns, located not too 

far away from one another, have problems at the same time, is 

there an override? Is there an ever-increasing expansion of the network to take care of the traffic, no matter how heavy? 

Dr. ZDUNEK. Senator, if I could—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Please. 

Dr. ZDUNEK. If I could answer that. 

First of all, in times of emergency, it’s—we agree, it’s extremely 

critical for public safety to have instant access. And it’s also important that we understand that the broadband network that we’re 

talking about is primarily for data and primarily for video communications. So, the notion of—access to the network, for a packet 

network, will be automatic. The priorities for the public safety 

users, when they need access to the commercial network, will be 

built into the device, and that slowing down of the existing traffic 

and allowing the public safety priority traffic—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Override. 

Dr. ZDUNEK.—will be—will override that traffic and will be automatic. 

Second, from the standpoint of multiple disasters in multiple 

communities, spectrum is important, but it is also, and maybe more 

important that the number of sites that cover those—that cover the 

geographic area, are provided. The more sites there are, the more 

42 

capacity there is. Allowing public safety the priority access on a 

commercial network that will have many more sites and will be 

much more densely built out, will be of an extreme advantage in 

the situation that you describe, where there are multiple disasters, 

multiple situations that must be responded to in different geographic areas. Those geographic areas, those incidents, will be 

served by different cell sites, and the capacity will be there to serve 

those. 

Admiral BARNETT. We recommended 44,000 sites across the nation, incorporated that into the cost model that we recommended 

to Congress. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I assume the record will be 

kept open and questions submitted will get a prompt response. 

And thank you all for the work that you do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

And now Senator Udall, to be followed by Senator Warner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, very much. 

Admiral Barnett, the public safety network envisioned in the 

FCC’s National Broadband Plan would use 10 megahertz of existing public safety spectrum, and, in emergencies, would provide an 

additional boost of spectrum from a shared public/private network. 

Members of this committee have heard from public safety officials 

who are deeply skeptical of the FCC’s approach. Given this skepticism, why should Congress have confidence in the FCC National 

Broadband Plan’s proposal to build a public/private network? And, 

could you also comment on the rural part of this? New Mexico is 

a very rural state. And so, I’m wondering what your thoughts are, 

in terms of making sure that our service reaches all of those rural 

areas. 

Admiral BARNETT. Thank you, Senator. I certainly understand 

public safety’s concern with some of the experiences that they’ve 

had with their own commercial providers. But, as Dr. Zdunek 

said—just indicated, this is a new technology that will have, actually, these aspects built in. LTE has 15 levels of priority. They will 

be able to, you know, go to the first in line—and, really, first in 

line is not the best analogy; it’s kind of like they have their own 

speed lane that they’ll be able to use. 

With regard to rural, I’m very—I come from a rural state, Mississippi. I’m very concerned about that aspect of it, because if it’s 

not nationwide, it really is not going to be interoperable. And we 

can leverage the commercial networks for about 95 percent of the 

network. So, you can envision a carrier putting up their own 4G 

antenna, you can also envision, at the same time—the public safety 

antenna going up at the same time. But, at some point, that—we’ve 

kind of reached the area that Director McClure mentions, where 

we’re—it’s too rural. And, for that reason, we incorporated into the 

plan the ability and the money to push additional sites and towers 

and equipment out there so it provides coverage to that. It’s very 

critical that we fully fund that. 

D Block is reallocated. We think that that affects the markets 

and therefore drives up the prices, and we would have some conVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Nov 21, 2011 Jkt 071255 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71255.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
43 

cern that Congress would need to address this if the prices go up 

and then the cost goes up, in essence, for reaching rural areas. 

Senator UDALL. And thank you very much. 

And I’d like the public safety witnesses to comment on the standalone public safety network costs, and whether it’s worth it. As you 

all know, spectrum is a scarce and a valuable resource. Public safety officials should have the spectrum; they need to protect us in 

emergencies and during natural disasters. The FCC estimates it 

would cost $15.7 billion to build a stand-alone public safety network. And, as Admiral Barnett’s testimony states, we could save $9 

billion if we built a shared network with private phone companies 

that want access to more spectrum for commercial uses. 

I’d like to hear more from our public safety witnesses, particularly why they think the more expensive approach to building this 

network is justified, and, what are the added benefits, in terms of 

increased public safety? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator. Is the cost worth it? I think, 

one of the things we need to recognize is that investment in these 

systems is going on today at the local level. And what I think an 

adequate piece of spectrum will do is, I think it will be focused investment in one specific area that we all are moving too. And I 

think that’s going to happen over time. If we come up short, here, 

we’re going to continue to address this by adding other swaths of 

spectrum, and we’re going to end up with a multiple-device scenario and the interoperable problems that we have today. 

I think one of the issues you raised, that I think is excellent, is 

the issue of roaming and whether public safety has the adequate 

ability to access the commercial networks. 

During disasters—I can’t overstate this—during disasters, business, city, county, all aspects of a government, have business-continuity issues that they’re going to be using this exact network for. 

Additionally, if we want to reflect on September 11th, of the number of people in those towers calling 9–1–1 and using the wireless 

networks, for us to overwhelm the network to achieve a public safety mission, and shut down meaningful communication from government, business, and other people, would be to ignore that these 

wireless companies have meaningful wireless clients and customers 

today that need to access their systems. 

Further, I think that even—even if preemption occurs, we’re still 

going to run out of spectrum in public safety with an intense event 

where we are controlling our bomb robots, we are moving wireless 

video, we are running extensive fire, police, and federal presence 

at an emergency scene. I think even if we had preemptive authority, we’re still going to need network control. And when you start 

talking network control, that’s when the commercial carriers get 

very nervous. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Ms. PARKER. Senator, if I may, we’re already spending the money 

now, at the local level. And that is—and that’s not going to stop. 

And we’re making a—we’re creating a patchwork system today, 

hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

44 

Senator Warner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I appreciate 

your leadership on this. 

And, you know, it is remarkable that, almost a decade after 

9/11, we don’t have this interoperability issue. 

I differ with some of my colleagues in public safety on this. I 

think we have talked about the 24 megahertz that we’re discussing 

right now, in the 700 block. I think we also—bear in mind that 

there’s another 7500—75 megahertz in lower spectrum, very good 

spectrum, at 500 level and other levels, that public safety also has. 

And, you know, having spent a long time in the industry, a long 

time ago, you know, recognizing how hard it is to get common 

standards and—great respect for all you do in public safety, but 

trying to get your radio engineers to decide on common standards, 

common equipment, has been a real challenge. 

And, quite honestly, I think we need to—I do believe that there’s 

always going to be the problem that in this market, smallness in 

size is always going to be chasing the commercial market. So, your 

equipment, as always, in the current approach, is going to be three, 

five, ten times more expensive than the commercial side. I think 

that doesn’t make any long-term sense. I believe there is an ability 

to prioritize. 

And again, we’re talking about surge capacity. I think Admiral 

Barnett’s comment right now that—it was, we move from 

narrowband to broadband. You are going to have the equivalent of 

160 megahertz. That’s enormous added spectrum that will be able 

to be used. And I do think there are ways, with appropriate 

prioritization, that you can join these surge moments and meet the 

public safety needs without breaking down the very valuable roles 

that the commercial networks have, as well. I believe that the more 

we can get now, there are additional equipment requirements you 

had, and hardened systems—but the closer we can get the commercial equipment to mirror the public safety equipment, again, if 

we’re talking—what Mayor Parker’s looking for—how we bring 

down these costs—as long as this is a small market chasing the 

commercial market, we’re never going to get close to equating the 

cost. 

I guess, I’d like to also ask, colleagues, a couple of questions. One 

is—you know, partially this is talking about what we do with the 

D Block. And I know there’s disagreement, in terms of exclusivity 

that the Chief wants, and others, and whether that could be 

shared. I, frankly, believe there is a shared process. But, I guess, 

what I’d also like is—beyond the D Block discussion—is: how could 

we give you the appropriate incentives, in public safety, to think 

about your existing other narrowband spectrum you have, converting that to broadband as well, which expands your capacity? 

Have we thought about narrowband conversion to broadband, using 

the existing spectrum you’ve got, as well, for broadband, the enormous opportunities that adds? 

And again, I think about the challenges Mayor Parker has got. 

In Virginia, we finally bit the bullet on what—circa 2004—was the 

45 

most comprehensive interoperable system for all of our state services and our STARS market. The problem is, technology keeps moving ahead, and, by the time we make that investment, the commercial market’s moved ahead and we’re antiquated already. 

One of the things I think would be, and it’s not part of the discussion so far, but just to stir the pot a little bit, as we move toward more of a broadband system, could we even think about, on 

an optional basis, for communities to say, OK, some of that lower 

spectrum, that may not be fully used as you migrate to more 

broadband, perhaps we could look at incentive options to give those 

communities that might have excess spectrum, the chance to throw 

those into a bucket on an incentive option and share some of the 

proceeds. Because, Parker, my concern is that the notion that the 

Federal Government is going to continue to ante up for, not only 

total construction costs, but ongoing operating costs. And you continue to make your local government or state government costs. I 

just think there’s not enough money to have this all happen. 

And I would just ask the public safety community—and I look 

forward to working with the Chairman and the Ranking Member 

on this—to think about other revenue sources, to think about how 

we can migrate more spectrum into broadband, you know, to not 

close your minds about what we could do to, kind of, guarantee you 

on priority access and co-location. Again, and we think about rural 

communities. I’ve used up most of my time, but, you know, feedback on this notion of narrowband to broadband and some of the 

other spectrum that’s really been not the subject of today’s testimony, but how, as we move to broadband, that could be, perhaps, 

better utilized and give you a revenue stream. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator and members of the Committee. 

So, let me just start by acknowledging your point about co-productivity of the commercial devices. That’s part of our vision, as 

well. But, we’re talking about the devices, and you can make small 

changes by the inclusion of band 14, in the engineering of the commercial devices that cover our spectrum, and then that does make 

those devices more coproductive. And it allows us to help, as you 

would say, chase the commercial market at more their pace. 

You know, our emphasis has been on the spectrum and the network and the infrastructure, and I’m going to set that aside for just 

a moment. 

Regarding the narrowband voice channels, you correctly articulated that, currently allocated, we have 10 megahertz of broadband 

in the public safety broadband swath; 12 megahertz of narrowband 

voice; and 2 megahertz to guard those bands—— 

Senator WARNER. Guard—— 

Mr. JOHNSON.—from interference. If we were to employ the 12— 

if we were to convert some of the narrowband today, we believe the 

interference would be drastic with the narrowband channels. I 

think there may be a logical date where we can migrate some of 

that capacity to broadband. 

I would tell you, based on what I’ve seen, Senator, we’re 15 years 

out before some of these technical issues can be solved and some 

of the operational issues can be—— 

46 

Senator WARNER. Of course, I have to remember, back in the 

1980s, when everybody in wireless, when I first got involved, said, 

‘‘You know this cellular stuff is going to be really big. After thirty 

years we’ll build out one national network, and 3 percent of Americans will have cell phones.’’ Luckily for me, and, I think, for the 

American people, they were wrong. I think, in this area, if we can 

leverage some of the commercial applications, we can be more aggressive. 

Any comments on some of the lower spectrum, as we think about 

this additional, you know, voice spectrum? You’ve also got voice 

spectrum at much lower bands that are extraordinary valuable. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Senator, I think when the Admiral talked 

about the 160 megahertz currently allocated to public safety, that’s 

across all the bands. Some of those bands do not lend themselves 

well to broadband high-speed data application, and some of them 

do more so. So, what we’ve focused on here is the spectrum that 

is best suited to achieve our broadband needs. Is there a date in 

the future where some of the spectrum that we currently operate 

land/mobile radio on could become available? I think that’s a very 

realistic possibility. 

Senator WARNER. And I’d ask you—and I know my time’s expired, to think about—you know, I can’t imagine us forcing you to 

give that up, but I would love for the public safety community and 

local governments, who have to foot the bill, to think about what 

kind of incentives could be used, and perhaps, again, through incentive auctions with shared proceeds that might give you that revenue stream, that might give that win-win. Because my concern is 

about all these stand-alone networks and the bill that is footed by 

the Federal Government, it’s going to be a rough challenge. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

Let me just close with a couple of questions. 

First of all, there has been a lot of talk about, If we’re going to 

be able to afford this, and where money is going to come from? 

That’s all answered in the bill. It’s going to pay for itself. And it’s 

going to come from three sources: revenues from the incentives auctions, which is included; second, revenues from the auctions of specific spectrum bands, by which I mean specific spectrum that has 

been identified for repurposing such as the NOAA and the spectrum known as AWS3 band, that’s a second source of revenue; and 

third, revenues from the lease of networks to secondary users. 

Now, that’s all kind of esoteric talk, but it all turns into a great 

deal of money. And, in effect, it pays for everything that we’ve been 

talking about here this morning. So, this question of who’s going 

to pay for it, how we are going to do it, is solved by the bill itself. 

It’s just that the bill isn’t that well known. 

Second, we are going to be working leveraging with commercial 

interests. There’s the thought that we’re not going to do that. We 

are. But, please don’t try to convince somebody from West Virginia 

that commercial wireless operators or broadband operators have 

any interest in rural West Virginia; they don’t, because there’s no 

money there. 

That was the problem with the mine safety explosion. It took 

place way up ‘‘a holler,’’ as we say. And, you had this, sort of, horVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Nov 21, 2011 Jkt 071255 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\71255.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
47 

rible sight of these miners’ families waiting to see if their miners 

were alive, and they couldn’t call anybody, because there was no 

cell service. There were landlines, but only a couple at the coal 

plant operation. So, you had this sight which was witnessed by the 

national media, of truckloads of Verizon people coming with huge 

poles, trying to put up more landlines, which doesn’t happen in a 

day, so that people could communicate with their relatives. Now, 

I’m not even talking about public safety and the problems they 

had. 

Thirty-one percent of West Virginians have absolutely no access 

to cell whatsoever, by the decision of broadband companies. The 

commercial sector made the decision, ‘‘There’s no money to be made 

in large swaths of West Virginia, and therefore we don’t do it,’’ Mr. 

McClure, ‘‘We’re not going to do it,’’ and, indeed, they don’t. Talk 

about it, but they don’t. And oh, they talk about it, but they don’t. 

And Steve McClure knows that part of the problem in West Virginia is topographical. Only 4 percent of our land is flat. That 

means that 96 percent isn’t. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And so, even on the interstates, if you live there 

long enough, you actually learn, because the interstates, obviously, 

are huge open areas, where obviously cell phones are going to be 

available. No. You learn, if you’re driving on the interstates in 

West Virginia, those particular places where you can make a cell 

phone call. 

Now, this is the way the commercial sector works, because they 

won’t put up the towers. That’s why we have to have the money 

provided in here for you to put up the towers, because they won’t. 

They won’t do it. Their shareholders don’t require that. The public 

does require that, which is why the extra 10 megahertz is important; and the paying arrangements are important, not only for the 

building out, but the operating of all of this. 

But telecommunications companies are not kind to rural areas 

because it’s not in the interest of their shareholders to be kind to 

rural areas. And, I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is. 

Now, I understand that T-Mobile and Sprint and others, they’re 

against this because they want to buy the 10 megahertz themselves, so of course they’re against it. And, they wrote part of the 

proposal, or the plan, that you referred to. So, of course they have 

a point of view. 

My point of view is to make sure that you have everything that 

you need, the money to do it, it’s set aside so there are no vagaries. 

And yes, you’re going to cooperate with commercials. And yes, 

you’re going to hang, as you said, I think, Mr. Davis, things on the 

towers; of course the commercials can use that. But, the towers are 

going to be out there, where emergencies will be taking place, 

which is virtually everywhere, which is a very large project, which 

is why we need the extra 10 megahertz. 

Now, there are those in the Administration who don’t want to do 

this, although now I’m feeling much better about the FCC, if we 

don’t do this, what will we be saving? What do they want to do 

with this 10 megahertz? Well, they want to sell it or they want to 

do whatever. Why do they want to sell it? To reduce the deficit. 

48 

Well, that’s a good idea. So, how much would it reduce the deficit? 

Maybe $2 to $3 billion. 

So, you’re left with the moral choice of $2 to $3 billion of deficit 

as we’re about to extend tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires, 

on into the distant future, I think. Terrible idea. But, if we’re going 

to do that, we have to come down to a choice of priorities. And I 

mentioned that with a Veterans Committee hearing this morning. 

If you’re going to take care of veterans and they have been hurt 

by toxic problems that emanate from the Agent Orange era, which, 

incidentally, would have never really revealed itself if Admiral 

Zumwalt had not, himself, gone before the public. It wasn’t Congress, it wasn’t the Administration, it wasn’t anybody who talked 

about it; it was Admiral Zumwalt who said, ‘‘My son was killed by 

Agent Orange.’’ And all of a sudden the Congress sprang into action and did a lot of things. 

Well, that’s the situation here. We have sort of an Agent Orange 

question of the incapacity of you to serve the purpose for which you 

accept much lower salaries than you could otherwise get and put 

your lives at risk to help others. It’s such an easy choice. We can 

pay for it, we can do it. We do the 20 megahertz. Yes, we cooperate 

with the commercials but don’t depend on them, because they won’t 

go out to the rural areas. You need to. And I—there’d be parts of 

urban areas they won’t go to. You know, there are parts of cities 

they won’t touch. Other parts of cities, which are prosperous and 

have lots of businesses, they will touch. 

But, it’s a national preemption, a priorities problem, and this is 

the chance to do it. It will be a national embarrassment—Senator 

Warner mentioned them—this, himself—the sheer national embarrassment if we come up to September 11, 2011, and we don’t have 

this system or we don’t have it being developed. I don’t know how 

many people perished from your services in 9/11, but there had to 

be a tremendous number of them, and they couldn’t communicate 

with each other. It goes back to the first Gulf War, when nobody 

could communicate with each other. And the services couldn’t communicate with each other. We just have a terrible communications 

problem. Well, this is one place where we cannot have it. And you 

have to have the capacity; you have to have the range. And we’re 

just going to keep working at this and having hearings on this 

until we get it done. 

And, I’m actually very happy about the FCC. You’ve become my 

new best friend. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Because your National Broadband Plan had a 

sort of a different tack on it, and it didn’t necessarily go for the 

extra megahertz. But, I read neutrality, at least, in you. And I 

think that’s really good. Now we have to work on the Administration to feel exactly the same way, which is why it’s so important 

that you all showed up and gave your good testimony. 

So, get it done, we must. A question asked, I did not; but, I made 

a statement that I had to make. 

And, with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on public safety communication. As we all know, the 9/11 Commission report cited the inability of first responders to communicate with each other as a significant challenge to providing comprehensive response on that horrific day. The report also found that ‘‘compatible and 

adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, state, and 

federal levels remains an important problem.’’ Even with that warning we witnessed 

the very same problems during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita where public safety officials had to actually run handwritten notes between command centers since different agencies were unable to communicate with each other via radio. 

Given that we just observed the ninth anniversary of 9/11, it is deeply troubling 

that public safety still does not have the nationwide interoperable communications 

network it requires to effectively respond in times of national or regional emergency. 

A nationwide interoperable public safety network is long overdue but I am concerned the recent debates about the D Block will unfortunately only delay the deployment of this critical asset. 

As we all know, in 1997, Congress directed the FCC to provide public safety agencies with spectrum in the 700 Megahertz band. A decade later the FCC established 

rules for the construction, deployment, and operation of a nationwide public safety 

broadband network through a public-private partnership. The FCC unsuccessfully 

attempted to auction off the D Block spectrum for this network. 

However, the National Broadband Plan, which the FCC released earlier this year, 

recommended this spectrum be put up for auction again and that a spectrum-sharing partnership be created where public safety can use in times of an emergency. 

While several wireless carriers have supported this recommendation, others, including some public safety organizations, have opposed it and support direct allocation 

of the spectrum to public safety. 

Doing so certainly presents its own issues and challenges—primarily funding. 

How are we going to ensure that public safety has the necessary funds to pay for 

a nationwide interoperable network? If we don’t have adequate funds, we will only 

exacerbate the problems we currently face. 

It must also be recognized directly allocating additional spectrum to public safety 

won’t automatically cure the problem that continues to plague public safety communications—the lack of interoperability. If the lack of interoperability continues to be 

an issue, no amount of spectrum is going to be effective. That is why I am very 

pleased the FCC recently established ‘‘ERIC’’—the Emergency Response Interoperability Center—a recommendation of the National Broadband Plan. ERIC will assist 

in ensuring that applications, devices, and networks used by public safety organizations all work together, so that first responders nationwide will be able to communicate with one another seamlessly. 

One thing which deeply concerns me about the fracture that has developed on this 

issue and with spectrum policy in general is the lack of trust that seems to be developing among parties. While public safety can make a strong case for why it needs 

its own spectrum, other stakeholders are also making similar claims. But this sense 

of absolute entitlement presents a serious problem since spectrum is a finite resource—and we cannot manufacture new spectrum. With growing demand for spectrum but a limited supply of it, such traditional thought of direct allocation will not 

get us very far and a spectrum crisis will truly present itself. 

The only way we are going to prevent any looming spectrum crisis is through a 

multi-faceted solution that includes robust spectrum management policy, which utilizes spectrum sharing and reuse opportunities, and technical innovation that improves spectral efficiency so spectrum holders can do more with less. But if there 

is a lack of trust then it will be difficult if not impossible to employ spectrum sharing and reuse practices and, as a result, we will not be able to meet the future needs 

of all spectrum users and Americans will suffer—in both innovation and national 

security. 

50 

This is why Senator Kerry and I have introduced comprehensive spectrum reform 

to modernize policy and fix fundamental deficiencies in our nation’s radio spectrum 

management and coordination activities. Taking this corrective action will allow us 

to meet the growing demands for spectrum that both commercial and government 

users are experiencing. For consumers, these fixes will lead to additional choices, 

greater innovation, lower prices, and more reliable services. 

The fate of the D Block is not the only important issue we face in addressing the 

need for a nationwide, interoperable public safety network—I unfortunately think 

some parties have forgotten this. I hope this hearing and the witnesses testifying 

today will shed light on all the challenges we face and the solutions to overcome 

them. 

I do have some concerns about the legislation being reviewed today but I am more 

than willing to work with the stakeholders and you, Mr. Chairman, to properly address this matter. The nation has for too long lacked a nationwide interoperable 

public safety network, so we need to find the quickest and most feasible path to 

achieve that goal. 

Thank you. 

July 21, 2010 

Hon. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman, 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Committee, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

Ranking Member, 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Committee, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN F. KERRY, 

Chairman, 

Communications, Technology, and the 

Internet Subcommittee, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN ENSIGN, 

Ranking Member, 

Communications, Technology, and the 

Internet Subcommittee, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, Subcommittee Chair 

Kerry, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Ensign: 

We are writing to express our strong support for the reallocation of the D Block 

spectrum for public safety. The Public Safety Alliance (PSA) and leading national 

associations representing America’s state and local governments, known as the 

‘‘Big 7,’’ join us in our support. 

After almost nine years since the catastrophic events of 9/11, our nation’s first responders still lack crucial access to interoperable public safety broadband communications. Over time, public safety has been granted only small sections of spectrum 

but never enough to consolidate communications into a single frequency band. This 

means that when multiple agencies respond to an event, they cannot communicate 

with each other because they each use radios operating on different portions of the 

spectrum. 

In March 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released their 

National Broadband Plan. The plan calls for auctioning the government-owned part 

of the broadband spectrum, known as the D Block, to the highest bidder, with an 

understanding that the winner would provide priority access to public safety. However, this is woefully insufficient. During times of crisis, commercial networks are 

the first to fail because of inferior infrastructure and high-usage demand. A public 

safety network must be able to withstand an assault to its infrastructure and endure the highest usage demands of first responders during ‘‘mission critical’’ times. 

The D Block must be allocated exclusively to public safety in order to protect our 

citizens. 

Legislation is necessary to allow the FCC to reallocate the D Block to public safety. Representatives King and Clarke are spearheading legislation to achieve this 

goal. In the House, The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2010, (H.R. 5081) 

has gained more than 40 bipartisan co-sponsors since its introduction in late April 

2010; we ask for your support and Senate sponsorship of a companion bill. 

Without this crucial legislation, the FCC is required to auction the D Block. The 

first attempt by the FCC to auction the spectrum failed in March 2008 because of 

the viability of forming a partnership agreement between the auction winner and 

public safety. Public safety officials, service providers, and infrastructure vendors 

agree that a more effective method would be to reallocate the D Block directly to 

public safety. The additional 10 MHz of spectrum will be combined with the current 

51 

10 MHz of spectrum allocated for public safety, in order to create a 20 MHz block 

of spectrum to build a nationwide public safety broadband network. When built, the 

new broadband network will be able to support a broad range of public safety, government, and critical infrastructure and consumer applications, such as voice, video, 

and data services. 

The FCC has granted 21 conditional waivers and has received an additional 11 

petitions for waivers, either to/from states or localities, to build-out an interoperable 

public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz spectrum. When these network 

build-outs begin, if public safety does not have ownership of the D Block, costs will 

be higher and the system created will not meet the full requirements of public safety. With the D Block reallocation to public safety and funding for network buildouts, our nation’s first responders will have the required communication needs to 

provide the most effective service to every American. 

Our nation cannot afford to miss this one-time-only opportunity and we call on 

you and your colleagues in Congress to support our first responders who put their 

lives on the line every day to protect and serve their communities by introducing 

and passing a companion bill to H.R. 5081: The Broadband for First Responders Act 

of 2010. 

Sincerely, 

Governor DAVID A. PATERSON, 

New York. 

Governor THEODORE R. KULONGOSKI, 

Oregon. 

Governor PAT QUINN, 

Illinois. 

Governor JIM GIBBONS, 

Nevada. 

Governor CHESTER J. CULVER, 

Iowa. 

Governor MARTIN O’MALLEY, 

Maryland. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP C. STITTLEBURG, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER FIRE COUNCIL

Since well before the September 11 attacks, first responders have had a clear need 

for additional radio spectrum space so they can communicate more effectively. In 

the wake of those terrorist acts, the 9/11 Commission made it clear that providing 

more radio spectrum to emergency services was a priority for improving both security and safety. Gaining access to a greater range of the spectrum would allow emergency services personnel to communicate more effectively. 

On July 31, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revised plans 

to auction portions of the 700 MHz band of radio spectrum in order to create a nationwide interoperable broadband network for use by public safety. The revised FCC 

rule bundled electromagnetic spectrum bands of 758–763 megahertz and 788–793 

(the D Block) with 12 MHz of spectrum already designated for public safety to be 

auctioned to a private entity that would have entered into a partnership with public 

safety organizations to develop a shared nationwide interoperable network for commercial and public safety users. Public safety users would have had priority access 

to the network during major emergencies. Originally, commercial entities like 

Google and Verizon Wireless expressed interest in the commercial market, but the 

auction, which took place in January 2008, received only one bid that fell far short 

of the $1.33 billion reserve price set by the FCC. 

In March 2010, the FCC proposed that the D Block be put up for auction again, 

only this time without the conditions that private bidders were required to meet in 

the previous auction to address the needs of public safety. This would basically 

leave public safety with only the spectrum it is licensed for and not enough to build 

out an effective nationwide public safety broadband network. Additionally, once the 

D Block is auctioned it would be gone forever—public safety won’t get a second 

chance. 

The NVFC’s top priority for public safety communications is for establishment of 

a nationwide broadband network with requisite funding. This requires the D Block 

to be allocated, by Congress, directly to public safety. This will provide for the establishment of a nationwide broadband network that volunteer departments can access 

at a cost effective rate and would allow rural, volunteer emergency service agencies 

52 

to upgrade intra- and interoperability without making significant outlays for new 

equipment. 

All public safety agencies face significant resource constraints but most volunteer 

fire and EMS departments operate on a shoestring budget even during the best of 

economic times. Volunteer agencies commonly serve rural areas that tend to have 

low population densities and a high poverty rates. Most volunteer agencies have to 

rely on private fundraising to supplement taxpayer contributions to their operating 

budgets. In communities of 2,500 residents or fewer, private donations make up 

close to 20 percent of the budget of volunteer fire departments, on average. 

S. 3756 addresses the communications needs of the public safety sector generally 

by directing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to, ‘‘. . . take all actions necessary to ensure the deployment of a nationwide public safety interoperable 

broadband network in the 700 MHz band . . .’’ The NVFC is particularly pleased 

that the bill specifically recognizes the communications challenges facing emergency 

responders outside of densely populated areas, declaring that the FCC, ‘‘. . . shall 

ensure that the network is deployed and interoperable in rural, as well as urban, 

areas, including necessary build out of communications infrastructure in rural areas 

to accommodate network access and functionality.’’ 

S. 3756 also addresses concerns that had been expressed publicly by the FCC 

about the feasibility of creating a nationwide broadband communications network 

for public safety using the D Block, which revolved around a lack of funding to build 

it. The bill creates a ‘‘Public Safety Interoperable Broadband Network Construction 

Fund’’ and a ‘‘Public Safety Interoperable Broadband Network Maintenance and Operation Fund,’’ ensuring that the resources will be available to build this vital communications tool for public safety users. 

The NVFC strongly supports S. 3756 and asks the members of the Committee to 

vote to report the bill favorably so that it can be taken up and passed by the full 

Senate. It is crucial that this bill be enacted this year so that the FCC and public 

safety can begin to work together on building the much-needed broadband communications network. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UTILITIES TELECOM COUNCIL

The Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) appreciates this opportunity to provide a 

Statement for the Record to the Committee regarding a nationwide interoperable 

public safety broadband wireless network. UTC’s statement will focus on the need 

for Congress to: (1) Ensure that the public safety community is afforded the maximum flexibility in the build-out and operations of a nationwide public safety 

broadband wireless network; and (2) Encourage innovation and regional flexibility 

by allowing public safety to execute agreements to build, operate and share the public safety network in a manner which best suits their needs and the circumstances 

as well as broader public safety interests, especially during emergencies. 

Introduction 

The Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) is the only trade association devoted to the 

telecommunications and information technology interests of critical infrastructure 

(CI) entities. Through its core members and affiliated trade associations, UTC represents virtually every electric, gas, and water utility and energy pipeline in the 

country—including public, cooperative, federal and investor-owned—on issues affecting their communications networks and infrastructure. UTC also encompasses an 

associate membership that includes a wide variety of the nation’s largest equipment 

manufacturers, engineering companies and others that support the communications 

needs of its core members. These diverse members have united to ensure the integrity of the critical infrastructure communications networks that support the safe, reliable and secure delivery of essential services to the public at large. 

Since 1948, UTC’s primary focus has been protecting and promoting the private 

internal communications of the nation’s critical infrastructures. These communications networks are designed, built and operated to the highest standards—which 

must exceed those available on consumer-oriented commercial service networks. 

They are used for routine dispatch, emergency restoration and for remote monitoring and control of valves, switches and systems, among other functions. As such, 

these networks are essential to protect the safety of life, health and property and 

cannot be compromised. 

To help its members ensure the reliability of the basic services they provide, UTC 

seeks to protect their rights as licensees of radio-frequency spectrum and to gain 

CI access to new spectrum as needed. UTC also tries to protect members’ rights over 

their own infrastructure to ensure its safety, to enable their opportunities to use 

53 

and provide telecommunications services as desired, and to assist members with 

their move to more advanced technology, ‘‘smart grids,’’ and compliance with homeland security responsibilities. In these efforts, UTC works with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Congress, the 

Departments of Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security and other agencies and 

offices—including state governments—as needed. 

UTC also represents the interests of utility members that choose to act as 

facilitators and providers of telecommunications services. As facilitators, UTC’s 

members provide capacity services on their fiber networks and the poles, ducts, conduit and rights-of-way that they own or control, or wireless collocation on their communications or transmission towers; others are engaged in municipal networks or 

are deploying Broadband over Power Line systems for internal applications or commercial services. As providers of telecommunications services, in many cases UTC’s 

members offer the only source of advanced communications capabilities in a community. UTC supports a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework by advocating telecommunications competition among all providers. 

In its sixty-two year history, UTC has grown into a global federation of industry 

and affiliated trade association members in Canada (UTC Canada), Europe (European UTC) and South America (Aptel). In addition, the nation’s major critical infrastructure trade associations—including the American Gas Association (AGA), American Public Power Association (APPA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 

(INGAA), the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the 

American Petroleum Institute (API—are affiliated members of UTC. 

As part of our federation mission, UTC spearheads the Critical Infrastructure 

Communications Coalition (CICC). CICC is a policy-focused group which recognizes 

the commonality of interests among all critical infrastructure industries—energy, 

water, railroads, petroleum and natural gas production and oil pipelines—in providing and maintaining the nation’s safe, efficient and reliable delivery of essential 

public services. In addition to the aforementioned organizations, CICC enjoys the 

support of the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the National Association 

of Water Companies (NAWC), and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL). 

Allocation of the 700 Mhz D Block to Public Safety 

UTC supports the allocation of the 700 MHz D Block to public safety, with certain 

qualifications noted below, for the following reasons: 

1. A nationwide interoperable public safety wireless broadband network must 

be built to meet public safety’s needs for resiliency, reliability, redundancy and 

ubiquity; it cannot be made to piggyback on other networks that do not satisfy 

those requirements or be forced to negotiate costly agreements to provide the 

priority access it requires during emergencies. 

2. Public safety must have the ability to expand its communications capabilities 

to incorporate bandwidth intensive improvements in technology to perform their 

mission critical functions more efficiently and cost-effectively. This is a rare opportunity to allocate 20 MHz of contiguous bandwidth to provide for the longterm needs of public safety; otherwise, should future bandwidth requirements 

require more spectrum than the 10 MHz currently allocated to public safety, the 

nation will return to the times of patchworked systems and fractured equipment 

markets. 

3. Public safety should be able to control with whom it partners to build and 

operate the nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network, and not be 

forced to deal with a spectrum license holder whose business model may be fundamentally incompatible with public safety. 

UTC’s support, however, is predicated on several qualifications: 

1. Congress should maximize, not restrict, partnership opportunities for public 

safety in the build-out and operations of a nationwide interoperable wireless 

broadband network. 

Congress should not dictate a preference for a specific type of communications infrastructure, or specify technical operational parameters which would restrict the 

ability of local, state and regional public safety entities to: (1) partner with whomever best meets their construction and operational needs and (2) leverage existing 

financial and infrastructure resources. Additionally, a network built on spectrum 

owned by others or controlled by those who do not share common network requirements or similar business models minimizes public safety’s ability to control costs 

and deployment timetables to serve the more rural areas where the need to communicate is most urgent. 

54 

1 Report to Congress, A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, FCC, p. 252–253 (March 

16, 2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/. 2 Id., p. 253. 3See http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020458038. 

Rather, Congress’ proper role is to dictate the national policy upon which the network will be built, namely, nationwide interoperability, reliability, resiliency, redundancy and ubiquity. How those policy goals are met should be determined by public 

safety according to their circumstances and needs. 

In particular, the language in S. 3756 which requires backward-compatibility with 

existing commercial 2G and 3G networks should be stricken. This requirement may 

be an appropriate way to ensure adequate capacity for public safety by enabling 

roaming onto existing commercial networks where such infrastructure currently exists. But, in areas where there is no such commercial infrastructure, or when public 

safety chooses to partner with other, noncommercial providers, to build or operate 

the network, the requirement for backward compatibility is inappropriate. As Chairman Rockefeller noted during the hearings, ‘‘71 percent of West Virginians have no 

access to cell service because commercial providers won’t put up the towers to provide coverage.’’ Further, such a requirement may actually preclude public safety 

from partnering with anyone other than a commercial provider and may cause public safety, or its preferred partner, to incur additional unnecessary expenses to comply with the requirement. 

Utilities and public safety share common communications network characteristics 

and functional requirements, as more fully explained later in Supplementary Information section of this statement. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan noted those 

similarities: 

The wide-area network requirements of utilities are very similar to those of 

public safety agencies. Both require near universal coverage and a resilient and 

redundant network, especially during emergencies. In a natural disaster or terrorist attack, clearing downed power lines, fixing natural gas leaks and getting 

power back to hospitals, transportation hubs, water treatment plants and 

homes are fundamental to protecting lives and property. Once deployed, a 

smarter grid and broadband-connected utility crews will greatly enhance the effectiveness of these activities.1

Utilities have built and operated private, internal communications networks as 

the most efficient and cost-effective means to meet their mission critical function: 

the safe and reliable production, transmission and distribution of energy and water. 

Requiring backward compatibility with commercial networks would effectively eliminate the opportunities for public safety to partner with utilities in the build-out and 

operations of the nationwide broadband network, despite the synergies between 

these two communities. 

The FCC has cited the unique public interest benefits of shared utility/public safety networks when granting waivers in the 800, 900 and LMR bands, including: (1) 

Improved utility communications and interoperability with public safety; (2) Costsavings; (3) Increased coordination with security and public safety personnel; (4) Enhanced crew safety; (5) Prompt repair of power systems; (6) Impact on public safety 

of aging utility equipment and network infrastructure; and (7) That utilities support 

and sometimes respond before public safety when emergencies occur. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan encouraged the leveraging of utility infrastructure and allowing utilities to share the 700 MHz band, thereby reducing costs and providing options for the public safety community to leverage commercial networks, private networks, or both.2

And finally, this type of technical requirement may act to vitiate current agreements between public safety and utilities in terms of build-out and use agreements, 

such as that outlined in a waiver filed by the State of Nevada on behalf of a myriad 

of public safety entities and NV Energy for a network in the 700 MHz band allocated to public safety,3 or have a chilling effect on negotiations that may already 

be underway in other parts of the country between public safety and other noncommercial service providers. 

2. Congress should encourage innovation and regional flexibility for public safety 

to execute shared use and access agreements to meet regional needs and circumstances, including priority access and preemption on the network. 

In its National Broadband Plan (NBP), the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) recommended that public safety should be allowed to enter into agreements 

55 

4 Ibid. p. 315. 5 Jeffrey Johnson, Chief of the Western Fire Chiefs Association and Former President of the 

International Association of Fire Chiefs, Salem, Oregon. 6See Final Report of the FCC’s Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane 

Katrina on Communications Networks at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/advisory/hkip/ 

karrp.pdf. 7 Id. at 9. 8 Hurricanes of 2005: Performance of Gulf Coast Critical Infrastructure Communications Networks; United Telecom Council; November 2005. 9P.L. 105–33, Title III Stat. 251. 

10P.L. 93–228, Sec. 427 (42 USC 5189(e)). 

with utilities on uses and priorities. Although the network will take years to build, 

carrying critical traffic from multiple users can help lower costs for all.4

One of the essential components of a nationwide public safety broadband network 

is reliability. Preemption or priority access implies that the network is fully functional under all conditions. As stated by a public safety official during the hearings, 

‘‘Preemption on a network that is down does not help public safety.’’ 5

The differences in network performance and resiliency of commercial networks 

compared to utility private, internal networks were highlighted in an FCC report 

on communications network performance following Hurricane Katrina.6 The FCC 

found that utility networks not only continued to operate during hurricane conditions but, in general, continued to operate afterwards. By contrast, the commercial 

cellular networks had 20 percent of their cell sites down a week after hurricane.7

Those findings were confirmed by an independent UTC survey of utilities in the impacted areas.8

In sum, public safety should have the flexibility and authority to determine priority use and appropriate preemption protocols based on its needs according to the 

particular circumstances, not by Congress. Of course, use agreements of this type 

assume that the network will be operational when needed the most. 

Supplementary Information 

UTC would also like to take this opportunity to provide some additional information to assist the Committee in its deliberations. 

Utilities and Public Safety Share A Common Mission and Business Model in Design, 

Deployment and Operations of a Communications Network 

The communications networks operated by utilities and public safety are essential 

to meet their common mission: the protection of life, safety and property. Utility 

field crews are among the first to respond to emergencies, working side-by-side with 

public safety personnel, to protect the public from downed wires and the consequences of power outages, and to repair and restore essential public services, including clean water. In fact, utility communications were designated ‘‘public safety 

radio services’’ under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, recognizing the key role of 

utilities in the emergency response effort.9 Moreover, utilities have been classified 

as ‘‘essential service providers’’ under the Robert T. Stafford Act for coordination of 

emergency response efforts.10

This commonality of purpose means that public safety and utilities use a common 

business model when constructing and operating a communications network: they 

must be able to communicate wherever emergencies may occur and the lives and 

safety of the public and utility line crews are at risk, whether it be rural or urban 

or in mountainous or flat terrain. Network design and the deployment timetable are 

driven by the needs of public safety to protect the public and of utilities to ensure 

worker and public safety and to provide reliable power and water. In short, communications infrastructure investments by public safety and utilities are not based on 

maximizing subscriber revenues, as are commercial communications service providers, but to meet mission critical needs. In fact, the business model of utilities and 

public safety and that of commercial service providers appear fundamentally incompatible with each other. 

Public Safety and Utilities Share Common Communications Needs 

For decades, utilities have built, maintained, and operated their own private, internal communications networks for mission critical functions because of the need 

for greater resiliency, reliability, redundancy and coverage than can be provided by 

commercial communications networks, especially in rural or unpopulated areas. 

These are the same design and operational requirements of a public safety network, as cited in the testimony by Mr. Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive of the WestVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Nov 21, 2011 Jkt 071255 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71255.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
56 

11Written testimony of The Honorable Annise Parker, p. 4, available at: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecordlid=91233a4d-cbed–4b43–87bc– 

0983538b9318&Statementlid=05ae28ca–1527–4147–9313–7a5d5222ef44&ContentTypelid=14f 

995b9-dfa5–407a–9d35–56cc7152a7ed&Grouplid=b06c39af-e033–4cba–9221-de668ca1978a&Mo 

nthDisplay=9&YearDisplay=2010. 

ern Fire Chiefs Association and former President of the International Association 

of Fire Chiefs before the Committee, namely: 

• Reliability: The network must remain operational even when the power is out 

for days or weeks at a time and when commercial networks are unavailable for 

whatever reason, including lack of back-up power at cell sites, infrastructure 

damage, or inability to meet the surge in communications demand; 

• Redundancy: The network must have back-up facilities to maintain communications if any portion of the network is compromised; 

• Resiliency: The network must be able to operate under adverse conditions, including hurricanes, ice storms, floods or manmade disasters; and 

• Ubiquity: The network must operate everywhere emergencies may occur, even 

in the most rural, less-populated and rugged terrains. 

Public Safety and Utilities Share Common Communications Deficiencies 

Utilities do not enjoy access to any dedicated spectrum to meet their unique communications needs. In contrast, over 400 MHz has been allocated to commercial 

services, and more than 90 MHz to public safety. 

Despite the differences in spectrum availability, the spectrum assignment framework used by the FCC to allocate spectrum for designated services has led to serious 

deficiencies for both public safety and utilities. These include: 

Patchworked systems with no interoperability—Utilities have shared access to a 

total of 30 MHz of spectrum in disparate bands depending on what spectrum 

is available in a given geographic area, resulting in a lack of interoperability 

during emergencies with and among out-of-area field crews who assist restoration efforts and with public safety personnel. This same problem is shared by 

public safety amongst themselves as well as with utilities with whom they need 

to coordinate emergency response efforts. 

Fractured market for technology and equipment manufacture—With no access to 

sufficient spectrum to meet their needs, each utility has had to design its network based on the spectrum available, leading in many cases to proprietary and 

thus more expensive solutions to their communications needs. Public safety has 

suffered from these same deficiencies. 

Insufficient bandwidth—Increasingly sophisticated situational awareness tools 

(including video, mobile data, and personnel and resource management) require 

broadband capabilities that cannot be supported by available spectrum. And 

with the advent of Smart Grid, the lack of a utility-grade broadband network 

sufficient to handle distributed generation, integration of renewable energy 

sources, load balancing efficiencies, electric vehicle deployment and consumer 

control over energy use will become acute. 

In sum, the testimony of The Honorable Annise Parker, Mayor of Houston, Texas 

pertaining to public safety communications is equally applicable to utilities: 

To date, public safety has been granted only small sections of spectrum over 

time, but never enough to consolidate communications into a single frequency 

band. This means that when multiple agencies respond to an event, they cannot 

communicate with each other because they each use radios that operate on different portions of the spectrum. Many police carry multiple radios just to ensure 

they can communicate with other responding agencies during emergencies.11

Public Safety and Utilities Need Interoperable Communications Both Within as well 

as Across Sectors—— 

As noted above, utility emergency restoration crews are among the first to respond to emergencies, working side-by-side with public safety personnel, to protect 

the public from downed wires and the consequences of power outages, and to repair 

and restore essential public services, including clean water. 

During large scale emergencies, utility personnel from all parts of the country 

converge on the scene, pursuant to mutual aid agreements. Because of the fractured 

nature of the current spectrum available to utilities for mobile communications, 

crews cannot communicate with each other or with the impacted area crews, thus 

57 

12 Id., p. 3. 13Written testimony of Stephen E. McClure, Director, Jackson County Emergency Medical 

Services, Ripley, West Virginia, p. 5 available at http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index 

.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecordlid=91233a4d-cbed–4b43–87bc–0983538b9318&Statementlid 

=4cb696da–2a4a–4e17–825c–8fa925516db9&ContentTypelid=14f995b9-dfa5–407a–9d35–56cc71 

52a7ed&Grouplid=b06c39af-e033–4cba–9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=9&YearDisplay= 

2010. 14 Ibid., p. 4–5. 15 ‘‘Utilities Telecom Spending Market Forecast,’’ a research study conducted by the Utilities 

Telecom Council published in June 2009. 16Oral Testimony of The Honorable Annise Parker, Mayor, Houston, Texas during the Committee hearings. 

leading to inefficiencies and dangerous situations in the coordination of power restoration efforts and in personnel and other resource allocation decisions. 

In addition, utility personnel cannot communicate with public safety to coordinate 

emergency response efforts. UTC’s report on utility network performance following 

Hurricane Katrina found that there was little or no formal coordination with state 

or local agencies or public safety organizations during or after the storms.12 Lack 

of interoperability between utilities and public safety causes public safety to allocate 

personnel to babysit downed wires until crews can be dispatched, or lines are deenergized before public safety can aid those who are hurt, disabled or in need of 

medical assistance. A common communications platform built to utility (and public 

safety) grade standards for those involved in emergency response, particularly in the 

immediate aftermath of the disaster, would mitigate consequences by more efficient 

resource allocation and a more timely response. 

The testimony of Stephen McClure, Director of Jackson County Emergency Medical Services in Ripley, West Virginia underscores this point and is equally applicable to utility communications: 

‘‘A unique opportunity exists to change the paradigm of public safety communications where multiple frequency bands and incompatible technologies create 

obstacles to interoperability and perpetuate inefficiency. The ultimate goal and 

vision of the public safety broadband network is to learn from the mistakes of 

the past and plan for a future in which wireless broadband networks deployed 

on a common frequency band—using a common technology platform—provide 

public safety with the tools they need for the twenty-first century.’’ 13

Leveraging of Existing Utility and Public Safety Resources Can Reduce Build-out 

and Operational Costs 

There are several areas in which the costs of a nationwide interoperable wireless 

broadband network can be covered through the use of current utility and public resources, including: 

Infrastructure: Utilities currently operate extensive communications systems, 

with tower sites throughout their service territory. When combined with public 

safety infrastructure, broadband network construction will be limited to filling 

in the coverage gaps, not built from the ground up, especially in rural areas. 

Equipment Costs: Due to the fractured nature of the current communications 

scheme for utilities and public safety, equipment markets are smaller and nonhomogeneous, and in many cases only proprietary solutions are available. A 

broadband network for use by both public safety and utilities would expand the 

potential equipment market based on common standards and drive costs down 

for all. 

Financial Resources: Numerous federal monies are already available to assist 

in network construction and operations. In addition to those mentioned in the 

written testimony of Stephen McClure,14 a portion of grants awarded under the 

Smart Grid (SG) Investment Grants program administered by the Department 

of Energy (DOE) are being used by utilities for communications infrastructure 

investments. 

A study conducted by UTC in June 2009 revealed that utilities will be spending 

$5.2 billion in 2010 alone (including DOE grants) for SG deployment, much of which 

for communications infrastructure to enable SG.15 Moreover, state and local government have appropriated millions of dollars to improve public safety communications 

capabilities on patchworked systems,16 scarce resources which can be better spent 

on a new common broadband platform. 

We thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit this Statement for the 

Record. Please contact the following individuals who would be pleased to answer 

any questions or provide any additional information the Committee’s requires durVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Nov 21, 2011 Jkt 071255 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\71255.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
58 

ing its consideration of this issue: Bill Moroney, President and CEO, UTC at 

bill.moroney@utc.org, 202.833.6801; Michael Oldak, Vice President and General 

Counsel, UTC at mike.oldak@utc.org, 202.833.6808, or Prudence Parks, Director of 

Government Relations, UTC at prudence.parks@utc,org, 703.623.4026. 

September 23, 2010 

Hon. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison: 

On behalf of the 19,000 cities and towns represented by the National League of 

Cities, thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter and express our support 

for the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovations Act of 2010, S. 3756 (the 

Act). This bill would reallocate the portion of 700 MHz radio spectrum known as 

the ‘‘D Block’’ to public safety so that a national interoperable public safety communications network can become a reality. 

For years, state and local first responders have sought to build a national interoperable communications network that will provide secure transmission of real-time 

voice, video, and other data. Currently, first responders in the United States lack 

adequate secure broadcast spectrum to achieve this goal, in part, because public 

safety entities have been granted only small sections of spectrum and never enough 

to consolidate communications into a single frequency band. This lack of substantial, 

secure bandwidth on a national scale has hampered our first responders’ efforts to 

consolidate public safety communications. The result is a patchwork of public safety 

communications systems, where neighboring jurisdictions—and often, local police 

and fire personnel—cannot communicate with one another or share information effectively. 

By reallocating the D Block to public safety and creating a fund for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such a network, the Public Safety Spectrum and 

Wireless Innovations Act would provide a one-time opportunity to improve our country’s emergency response system by creating a modern interoperable broadband network that would quickly distribute information to first responders, doctors, public 

institutions, and private citizens. 

In addition to reallocating the D Block, the Act calls for the creation of a construction grant fund and a maintenance and operation grant fund for the public safety 

interoperable broadband network. As currently drafted, the legislation permits only 

states to directly request and receive grant funding unless they delegate that authority to an agency or political subdivision. To ensure an accelerated deployment 

of this network, we urge you to also include a provision that would allow local governments or regional public safety agencies to directly request and receive funds to 

deploy, maintain and operate the 700 MHz nationwide public safety interoperable 

broadband network within their jurisdiction. Of course, we concur that any local 

plan is to be coordinated with the state and conform to federal standards. This approach will ultimately benefit the entire national interoperable broadband system 

by expediting the construction of the system and providing a foundation for rapid 

expansion across a region. 

The National League of Cities looks forward to working with you to enact the 

Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovations Act of 2010 and ensure that we 

develop a nationwide interoperable public safety communications network that will 

guarantee first responders receive the information they need when lives are at risk. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD J. BORUT, 

Executive Director, 

National League of Cities. 

59 


923EMS1.eps
60 

Æ 


923EMS2.eps