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

70–992 PDF 2011

CREATING AN INTEROPERABLE PUBLIC SAFETY 

NETWORK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 25, 2011 

Serial No. 112–51 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

(II)

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 7 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 113 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 113 

WITNESSES

Joseph R. Hanley, Vice President, Technology, Planning and Services, Telephone and Data Systems ..................................................................................... 11 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 114 

Chris Imlay, General Counsel, American Radio Relay League ........................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Paul Steinberg, Chief Technology Officer, Motorola Solutions, Inc. .................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 123 

Dennis Martinez, Chief Technology Officer, Harris RF Communications Division ........................................................................................................................ 55

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 149 

Jeffrey D. Johnson, Chief Executive, Western Fire Chiefs Association, on 

Behalf of the Public Safety Alliance ................................................................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 159 

Joseph L. Hanna, President, Directions ................................................................ 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 200 

(1) 

CREATING AN INTEROPERABLE PUBLIC 

SAFETY NETWORK 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns, 

Shimkus, Bilbray, Bass, Gingrey, Scalise, Latta, Kinzinger, Barton, 

Upton (ex officio), Eshoo, Doyle, Matsui, Barrow, Christensen, 

Towns, Dingell, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; 

Debbee Keller, Press Secretary; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Tim 

Torres, Deputy IT Director; Alex Yergin, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Shawn Chang, Democratic Counsel; Jeff Cohen, Democratic 

FCC Detailee; Sarah Fisher, Democratic Policy Analyst; and Roger 

Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I call the hearing to order. Good morning everyone 

and welcome. We are here this morning to have a productive discussion of how spectrum policy can advance public safety, promote 

broadband, generate revenue for the U.S. Treasury, and create 

jobs. This hearing will focus on how we can bring new and innovative tools to our Nation’s first responders. 

Look, we all share the goal of providing America’s first responders with a state-of-the-art communications network. We are by no 

means the first Congress to attempt to bring public safety these 

tools. Interoperable public safety communication has been an objective of this country since even before the tragic events of September 11 of 2001. Yet even though Congress and the FCC have 

tried time and again to provide the tools and impetus to make this 

a reality, today’s public safety users are only marginally closer to 

the interoperable communications they need. We are here to get it 

right this time. 

Now, what we are not here to do is to point fingers for past failures. Nobody doubts the good intentions and the hard work of 

2 

those who have worked on this issue in the past. But the fact remains we have not been successful. Today’s hearing gives us an opportunity to hear the lessons of the public safety community, the 

wireless sector, and the engineers who make wireless networks 

work. Taking the innovation and expertise of the wireless industry 

alongside the bravery and knowledge of the public safety community, we can all work to provide needed resources to both. 

The successful creation and management of an interoperable 

public safety network will need to focus on four elements: spectrum, equipment, governance, and funding.We have provided public 

safety with nearly 100 megahertz of spectrum for their exclusive 

use. Given that fact, it is strange to me that the debate on public 

safety communications has been so focused on the 700 megahertz 

D Block. Public safety has more spectrum than the vast majority 

of wireless providers, who, as it is oft cited, provide a 16-year-old 

customer with more capabilities than those available to our first responders. As recently as our 2005 DTV legislation, Congress 

cleared 24 megahertz of spectrum for an interoperable public safety 

network. Yet 6 years later, that spectrum lays woefully underused. 

In fact, far from providing next-generation interoperable services, 

more than half of that spectrum has been dedicated to the legacy, 

narrowband voice communications that NYPD Deputy Chief 

Charles Dowd called ‘‘extremely limited’’ at our April hearing. 

Clearly, something in our approach isn’t working. Could we be better using that 24 megahertz for the broadband network that public 

safety needs? 

Congress has also tried to address the finances of a public safety 

network. Chairman Upton’s amendment to the 2005 DTV legislation provided $1 billion to public safety to help defray the cost of 

radios, and, according to the Congressional Research Service, more 

than $13 billion in Federal funds have been invested in public safety communications since 9/11. So I look forward today to hearing 

how these resources have been used to further their intended goals 

and what we can learn from how those funds were spent. 

Now, the last piece of this equation—the governance of the network—may indeed be the most difficult and yet most critical part. 

We need to figure out how this network should be built, operated, 

and maintained. I continue to support the idea of a public/private 

partnership between commercial wireless providers and public safety to address first responders’ needs. Initial FCC efforts to 

hardwire such a partnership into the auction of the D Block, however, failed to find a commercial provider sufficiently interested in 

purchasing the license. This failure is widely attributed to poor 

auction design that asked bidders to sign up for a vaguely defined 

obligation to negotiate with the Public Safety Spectrum Trust—an 

entity created to govern the use of the 24 megahertz spectrum for 

public safety. We should continue to examine better ways of creating a public-private partnership. 

Public safety radio networks have traditionally been characterized by local control of nearly all elements of the network, from 

choosing the equipment vendors to oversight of the standards evolution. It is our goal to create a nationwide, interoperable network, 

this kind of local communications fiefdom cannot continue to dominate the public safety communications debate. 

3 

We need to find the right balance between local input and national coordination. That is why I am glad to see the Public Safety 

Alliance has provided us a witness for the second consecutive hearing on this topic. The Public Safety Alliance represents a sweeping 

scope of public safety entities working together toward a common 

goal, and interoperable communications will require a level of coordination far above the local police and fire chiefs, and a level of 

wireless expertise that, frankly, few can provide. 

To that end, I believe that any governance structure for public 

safety communications should recognize the nationwide scope of 

this critical issue and the incredible pace of innovation in the wireless communications sector. Public safety wireless devices have 

begun to lag behind the capabilities available to commercial users. 

The end result has been firefighters and police officers relying on 

their personal wireless devices sometimes in times of emergency. 

That is not what we want. This cannot be the ‘‘new normal’’ for 

America’s first responders. 

I thank the witnesses for their participation today. I think I can 

speak for all of us when I say we thank each of you for your commitment to increasing public safety and look forward to a vibrant 

discussion of the communications needs of America’s first responders. With that I yield to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, 

for her opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

We’re here this morning to have a productive discussion of how spectrum policy 

can advance public safety, promote broadband, generate revenue for the U.S. Treasury, and create jobs. This hearing will focus on how we can bring new and innovative tools to our Nation’s First Responders. 

We all share the same goal: providing America’s first responders with a state-ofthe-art communications network. We are by no means the first Congress to attempt 

to bring public safety these tools. Interoperable public safety communication has 

been an objective of this country since even before the tragic events of September 

11. Yet even though Congress and the FCC have tried time and again to provide 

the tools and impetus to make this a reality, today’s public safety users are only 

marginally closer to the interoperable communications they need. We’re here to get 

it right this time. 

What we are not here to do is point fingers for past failures. Nobody doubts the 

good intentions and hard work of those who have worked on this issue in the past. 

But the fact remains, we have not been successful. Today’s hearing gives us an opportunity to hear the lessons of the public safety community, the wireless sector, 

and the engineers who make wireless networks work. Taking the innovation and expertise of the wireless industry alongside the bravery and knowledge of the public 

safety community, we can all work to provide needed resources to both. 

The successful creation and management of an interoperable public safety network will need to focus on four elements: spectrum, equipment, governance, and 

funding. 

We have provided public safety with nearly 100 MHz of spectrum for their exclusive use. Given that fact, it is strange to me that the debate on public safety communications has been so focused on the 700 MHz D block. Public safety has more 

spectrum than the vast majority of wireless providers, who, as it is oft cited, provide 

16-year-old customers with more capabilities than those available to our First Responders. As recently as our 2005 DTV legislation, Congress cleared 24 MHz of 

spectrum for an interoperable public safety network. Six years later, that spectrum 

lays woefully underused. In fact, far from providing next-generation interoperable 

services, more than half of that spectrum has been dedicated to the legacy, 

narrowband voice communications that NYPD Deputy Chief Charles Dowd called 

‘‘extremely limited’’ at our April hearing. Clearly something in our approach is not 

4 

working. Could we be better using that 24 MHz for the broadband network public 

safety needs? 

Congress has also tried to address the finances of a public safety network. Chair- man Upton’s amendment to the 2005 DTV legislation provided $1 billion to public 

safety to help defray the cost of radios and according to the Congressional Research 

Service more than $13 billion in Federal funds have been invested in public safety 

communications since 9/11. I look forward today to hearing how these resources 

have been used to further their intended goals and what we can learn from how 

those funds were spent. 

The last piece of this equation—the governance of the network—may indeed be 

the most difficult and the most critical. We need to figure out how this network 

should be built, operated, and maintained. I continue to support the idea of a public/ 

private partnership between commercial wireless providers and public safety to address First Responders’ needs. Initial FCC efforts to hard-wire such a partnership 

into the auction of the D block, however, failed to find a commercial provider sufficiently interested in purchasing the license. This failure is widely attributed to poor 

auction design that asked bidders to sign up for a vaguely defined obligation to negotiate with the Public Safety Spectrum Trust—an entity created to govern the use 

of the 24 MHz of public safety spectrum. We should continue to examine better 

ways of creating a public-private partnership. 

Public safety radio networks have traditionally been characterized by local control 

of nearly all elements of the network, from choosing the equipment vendors to oversight of the standards evolution. If our goal is to create a nationwide, interoperable 

network, this kind of local communications fiefdom cannot continue to dominate the 

public safety communications debate. We need to find the right balance between 

local input and national coordination. That’s why I am glad to see that the Public 

Safety Alliance has provided us a witness for the second consecutive hearing on this 

subject. The Public Safety Alliance represents a sweeping scope of public safety entities working together toward a common goal, and interoperable communications will 

require a level of coordination far above the local police and fire chiefs, and a level 

of wireless expertise that few can provide. 

To that end, I believe that any governance structure for public safety communications should recognize the nationwide scope of this critical issue and the incredible 

pace of innovation in the wireless communications sector. Public safety wireless devices have begun to lag behind the capabilities available to commercial users. The 

end result has been firefighters and police officers relying on their personal wireless 

devices in times of emergency. This cannot be the ‘‘new normal’’ for America’s first 

responders. 

I thank the witnesses for their participation today and I think I can speak for 

all of us when I say we thank you for your commitment to increasing public safety 

and look forward to a vibrant discussion of the communications needs of America’s 

first responders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this very important hearing and to all the witnesses that are here today. I can’t 

help but think that the most common occurrence in our hearings 

is that we’re hearing from the private sector. But at each table 

here, ours and yours, we are all public servants for the most part 

in this. And the importance of what we do and what needs to be 

built simply cannot be underscored enough. This has great significance to our country, the creation of an interoperable public safety 

network. 

We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the horrific attack 

on our country. It’s not a source of pride to any of us that first responders remain unable to seamlessly communicate with each 

other. The attacks on 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the shootings 

at Virginia Tech are among the incidences that remind us why we 

need a robust, next-generation public safety network. We owe it to 

our first responders. You put your lives on the line for our country, 

for our communities every single day. So there has to be a 21st 

5 

Century network that’s put together so that you can really carry 

out what you do so well. 

Over the past several years, we’ve grappled with the question of 

how to best build and maintain such a network. Should we reallocate the D Block or auction the spectrum and use the proceeds to 

build out a public safety network as the FCC’s national broadband 

plan recommended last year? I’ve given this question significant 

thought. And I think the plan we commit to must be properly funded, which is a big thing. It’s a simple phrase but it needs to be 

properly funded. And use the spectrum available to its maximum 

efficiency and bring forward the expertise of those in the telecommunications sector as well. 

We have one chance to build this network and we need to do it 

right. I don’t want to have to revisit this. I don’t want you to come 

in and say it’s broken. Congress does things and if the legislation 

doesn’t get it right, we don’t get back to it for at least another decade, and I don’t think we can afford to do that at this stage in the 

life of our country. 

I think the recent draft discussion by Senators Rockefeller and 

Hutchison offers a well thought out proposal that should be given 

consideration within this committee. I strongly believe that we 

have to leverage the strength of the private sector and establish an 

independent entity that has the responsibility for building and 

overseeing the network. I believe that public safety in our country 

are expert at public safety. But I also think that there are expertise that needs to be brought to public safety that you simply don’t 

possess. I mean there are some that may know something about it, 

but our private sector can really be highly instructive in this. 

I want to hear from our witnesses today on how much spectrum 

is really needed, what are the next-generation applications that 

first responders expect to use, and are there opportunities to use 

some of the spectrum to support commercial broadband networks? 

We should also give significant consideration to the devices that 

public safety will use once a network is built. 

By one estimate, approximately 80 percent of the public safety 

narrowband equipment market is held by one company. Last Congress I joined with Representatives Harmon and Shimkus as a cosponsor of the Next-Generation Public Safety Device Act, which 

would address this serious problem. Spectrum is the foundation for 

any national public safety network, but without a competitive device market, our efforts to achieve interoperability and lower the 

cost of public safety devices could be blocked. We’re planning to introduce this legislation and I would ask the chairman that it be 

considered as part of the comprehensive public safety bill that this 

committee agrees to. 

As we work on the needs of our first responders, we can’t forget 

about our Nation’s 9-1-1 call centers, which are often the first line 

of defense for those in distress. Every day, 9-1-1 call centers receive 

more than 650,000 calls across the country. A next-generation 9-1- 

1 system will enable first responders to receive photos, video, and 

text messages, which can improve the quality and the speed of 

emergency response. I think this all needs to be integrated. These 

upgrades should be incorporated into comprehensive public safety 

legislation. 

6 

So I thank all the witnesses that are here today for not only 

being here today to give us your testimony and your views but also 

to the public safety chieftains of our country for what you do for 

our communities and our country day in and day out. I think that 

you are real heroes of our country. And in response to your needs, 

I think that we can produce a bipartisan, bicameral legislation that 

will honor your work and give you the necessary tools to operate 

a robust interoperable communication network for our country. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. And now I recognize the chairman of 

the full committee, who has put an enormous amount of work into 

this issue over many years, Mr. Upton, for his statement. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I share Ms. 

Eshoo’s enthusiasm and Mr. Walden’s as well by putting together 

a bipartisan plan that really gets to the finish line. 

And today’s hearing, as we know, is focused on the technology 

and the expertise needed to produce an interoperable communications network for our Nation’s first responders. This is by no means 

the first hearing on this issue, nor the first attempt by Congress 

to give public safety the tools needed to make interoperability a reality. 

The ’05 DTV legislation cleared a 24 megahertz block of spectrum nationwide for the public safety’s exclusive use—a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I proposed the amendment 

that was successful and worked with my friend Mr. Stupak to that 

legislation that provided $1 billion for interoperable equipment. In 

all, CRS reports that public safety has been given $13 billion dollars from the Federal Government for radio equipment since 2001. 

But despite those tools, the interoperable network still remains elusive. 

The question is what will bring us closer to making interoperable 

voice and broadband communications a reality? Some say we 

should reallocate the D Block. But current law requires that spectrum to be auctioned and doing otherwise would create roughly a 

$3 billion hole in the budget that most of us know that we cannot 

afford. 

So today we will discuss ways to meet public safety’s technological needs while leveraging the competition and innovation that 

have characterized the commercial wireless marketplace. The dialogue is a critical component of a winning public safety strategy. 

America’s commercial wireless providers are world leaders in technology for sure, spectrum efficiency, and innovative services. Cooperation between the robust commercial sector and the critical 

public safety sector will not only permit each to focus on what they 

do best, but will make both sectors stronger in the tough economy. 

I now yield to Mr. Barton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today’s hearing is focused on the technology and expertise needed to produce an 

interoperable communications network for our nation’s first responders. This is by 

7 

no means the first hearing on this issue, nor the first attempt by Congress to give 

public safety the tools needed to make interoperable communications a reality. 

The 2005 DTV legislation cleared a 24 MHz block of spectrum nationwide for public safety’s exclusive use—a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I proposed 

the amendment to that legislation to provide $1 billion for interoperable equipment. 

In all, CRS reports that public safety has been given $13 billion dollars from the 

federal government for radio equipment since 2001. 

Despite these tools, public safety’s interoperable network still remains elusive. 

The question is, what will bring us closer to making interoperable voice and 

broadband communications a reality? Some say we should reallocate the D block. 

But current law requires that spectrum to be auctioned and doing otherwise would 

create a roughly $3 billion dollar hole in the budget that we cannot afford. 

Today we will discuss ways to meet public safety’s technological needs while 

leveraging the competition and innovation that have characterized the commercial 

wireless marketplace. This dialogue is a critical component of a winning public safety strategy. America’s commercial wireless providers are world leaders in technology, spectrum efficiency, and innovative services. Cooperation between the robust 

commercial sector and the critical public safety sector will not only permit each to 

focus on what they do best, but will make both sectors stronger in this tough economy. I thank the witnesses and look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Upton. This is a very important issue. It is a very vexing issue. I mean we can say that back 

in 2001 there was a legitimate excuse not to have an interoperable 

network, but 10 years later, and as Chairman Upton just pointed 

out, $13 billion being spent at the federal level, the Digital Transition Act, which I helped pass when I was chairman that freed up 

24 megahertz of spectrum for the public sector, I don’t see that 

there is any real excuse to not have an interoperable network. And 

I am not sure it is a spectrum issue. 

In my congressional district in my home county, my firemen, policemen, sheriff’s department have double-digit number of systems, 

very few of whom communicate with each other. It is not a lack of 

spectrum. It may be lack of funding at the local level. But, you 

know, this is an important hearing. 

As the subcommittee chairman said, we need to get the policy 

right, but we also need some honest answers from our witnesses 

about what is going on in the real world. So I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I appreciate the full committee chairman and 

the subcommittee chairman giving this a priority. And I yield to 

Congressman Terry of Nebraska. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing a comprehensive panel before the committee to discuss a very important topic: spectrum. I would like to thank all of our 

witness for being here today, and I look forward to hearing from them. 

The discussion of ‘‘how to best use our spectrum’’ is one that I know all too well. 

As Chairman of this committee, I had the privilege of ensuring that broadcast spectrum was cleared for public safety and wireless broadband uses through the passage 

of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 (DTV). I heard 

from many public safety witnesses on the importance of spectrum and the increased 

need for more spectrum. The DTV legislation passed during the 109th Congress, 

provided public safety with 24 MHz of spectrum, and made available an additional 

10 MHz of spectrum for commercial use in the D-block. 

I believe that before we allocate more spectrum, we should look at the efficiency 

and current usage of the available spectrum. It is to my disappointment to learn 

that public safety officials have not effectively used the spectrum allocated to them. 

We have yet to see a concrete plan of a nationwide public safety network, but we 

hear that there is a need for more spectrum. As for wireless broadband, I understand that there has been a major increase in demand from our consumers, but 

8 

there is still unallocated spectrum available that has yet to be successfully auctioned. I hope to gain a better understanding of why this is the case from this hearing. 

I yield back. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think anyone here 

doesn’t share in the same goal of an interoperable system, but it 

is confusing to me as we sit here 5, 6 years after supposedly putting us on a road to interoperable that we spent $13 billion, we 

provided 24 megahertz, and now we are being told that to solve 

this problem, we need more money, more spectrum, and new governance by way of a new government agency, bureau, whatever we 

want to call it. Frankly, I don’t think any of those solve the problems. I don’t know what the problem is. But that is why we are 

having these hearings. 

If you aren’t using the 24 megahertz properly or efficiently, why 

would we give you 10 more? It doesn’t make sense to me. If 13 billion hasn’t solved the problem, then what is? These seem to be 

overly simplistic requests to solve a problem. I think the problems 

are much deeper than this. 

The second point I want to make is we have been pushed, continually asked why don’t we just take up the Senate bill? Well, the 

Senate bill I don’t think really attacks or goes to the problem. And 

I am not going to apologize. I will defend what this subcommittee 

is doing is deemed diligent, asking the tough questions and trying 

to find the right answers to solve this problem. That is what our 

job is. And so I want to thank our subcommittee chairman and our 

full committee chairman for being diligent. Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will now go 

to the witnesses. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WALDEN. Oh, I am sorry. We won’t go to the witnesses. We 

will go to Mr. Waxman. My apologies. We now go to Mr. Waxman 

for—— 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. We have to be diligent, but we have to do more than 

that. We have got to solve this problem. 

The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is approaching within a few 

months. Our goal should be to have legislation on the President’s 

desk to provide public safety with nationwide interoperable 

broadband before then as a tribute to the brave first responders 

who risked their lives to save others. 

Although there is a broad agreement that we need to get this 

done, there are different views on the best way forward. Some want 

the FCC to auction the D Block to a wireless provider and encourage collaboration between the winning bidder and public safety. 

Others want Congress to reallocate the D Block to public safety. 

Both approaches could work, but recent developments appear to 

favor reallocation. The reallocation approach is strongly preferred 

by public safety leaders and President Obama, and it has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. 

9 

In particular, I want to commend Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison for their leadership. Senator Rockefeller has been 

a tireless champion of the reallocation approach and has put forth 

a discussion draft with Senator Hutchison that is worthy of our 

careful consideration. Their bipartisan draft goes a long way towards addressing concerns about governance, accountability, interoperability, and how we pay for the public safety network. 

Last month, I approached Chairman Upton and Chairman Walden and suggested that we emulate our Senate counterparts and 

work together on a bipartisan House bill that would provide for a 

nationwide public safety network and make new spectrum available through incentive auctions. I hope they will take us up on this 

offer. 

I appreciate the fact that doing this right is complex and challenging. But with the 10th anniversary fast approaching, we need 

to settle on a path forward and move quickly and the only way that 

is going to happen is if we do it together on a bipartisan basis. 

There is no reason why Congress cannot act before this somber anniversary. 

This hearing is an important step in this process. We have a 

panel of distinguished experts before us today, and I look forward 

to their testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from California, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. And 

I also would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. 

This is our second hearing on spectrum this year, and I understand we will have a third next week. As we continue to consider 

spectrum policy, it is my hope that some of the outstanding issues 

out there will be answered so we can move forward and determine 

how best to proceed in a bipartisan manner. I plan to follow up on 

my questions from the last spectrum hearing we had last month regarding who will govern and oversee the public safety network that 

would ultimately possess significant responsibilities. It will have 

responsibility over highly valuable spectrum and significant public 

funding, not to mention needing to ensure the success of this vitally important network for first responders. 

That being said, we must provide public safety with interoperable capabilities they need and deserve to protect our Nation during challenging times. We are all very cognizant as we approach 

the 10th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11. It is not 

acceptable that our Nation does not have a public safety communications system with a nationwide level of interoperability in 

place. More recently, we are seeing how tragic events such as the 

tornadoes in the Midwest have hampered emergency communication efforts in some areas. 

While we debate the merits on how to fund and construct a nationwide public safety system, we can all agree that we must find 

a path that provides the funding required to build an interoperable 

system that fulfills the needs and securities of our public safety 

goals. We must also do it in a fiscally responsible manner. It won’t 

be easy but we must get there, and we must get there soon. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

10 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady. We will move on now to the 

witnesses, get this order right. 

We will start with Mr. Steinberg. We appreciate your willingness 

to come and testify, the chief technology officer for Motorola Solutions. Sir, you know how to use a microphone. Yes, if anybody can’t 

figure out the microphones, that is going to be at least a 2-meg 

penalty on your spectrum. 

Mr. Steinberg, go ahead. 

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

Eshoo, and others members of the subcommittee. 

Mr. WALDEN. But I think you actually have to push it. Does it 

light up? 

Mr. STEINBERG. Yes, is green go? 

Mr. WALDEN. You may have to get a little close to these microphones. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Is that OK? 

Mr. WALDEN. No. 

Mr. STEINBERG. The right green button? 

Mr. WALDEN. No. 

Mr. STEINBERG. No? 

Mr. WALDEN. Maybe we should grab that other microphone. Why 

don’t you just grab Mr. Martinez’s microphone if it will move there. 

Maybe we can get our technical people in here and rewire the 

whole process. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Is that working? How is that? 

Mr. WALDEN. Get real close. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Hello? 

Mr. DINGELL. Try and use your big boy voices. 

Mr. STEINBERG. It is also—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, exactly. Yes. No, we got to get a microphone 

that works here. Mr. Hanley, will you try your microphone? Why 

don’t we start with Mr. Hanley and we will have our technical operations officers come and fix Mr. Steinberg’s microphone and Mr. 

Martinez’s microphone. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, we may be able to set an example by 

sharing if we can’t get it to work. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, right. So let us go to Mr. Hanley first while 

we get the mikes fixed. Vice president, Technology, Planning, and 

Services for Telephone and Data Services. Mr. Hanley, please go 

ahead. 

11 

STATEMENTS OF JOSEPH R. HANLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY, PLANNING AND SERVICES, TELEPHONE AND DATA 

SYSTEMS; CHRIS IMLAY, GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN 

RADIO RELAY LEAGUE; PAUL STEINBERG, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.; DENNIS 

MARTINEZ, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, HARRIS RF COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION; JEFFREY D. JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, WESTERN FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF 

OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ALLIANCE; AND JOE HANNA, PRESIDENT, DIRECTIONS 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH R. HANLEY 

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you. Chairman Walden, Chairman Upton, 

Ranking Member Eshoo, Ranking Member Waxman, and members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide U.S. 

Cellular’s perspectives on this important issue. Today’s topic is of 

great importance to all of us as citizens who rely on our first responders for our safety and as consumers and businesses that need 

mobile broadband to create jobs and compete in the global economy. 

The public interest requires a strategy that can deliver on both 

of these goals. First, we must provide nationwide interoperable 

broadband services for public safety. This network must serve the 

entire Nation, not just a few select communities, and it must be 

provided at the lowest cost to taxpayers by leveraging commercial 

operators’ networks, capabilities, and shared use of the spectrum, 

as well as harnessing market forces to reduce the cost of devices 

and equipment. 

Second, we must expand competitive broadband services for consumers. Broadband is a powerful catalyst for economic growth. 

However, spectrum is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a 

few carriers, and more spectrum is needed to ensure the availability of advanced services, competition, and consumer choice. 

The good news is that these two goals are highly complementary, 

and your decision does not have to be couched as for one and 

against the other. Shared networks and shared use mean lower 

costs and better services for all users of the network. Also, the D 

Block and the public safety block share the same band class, band 

class 14 in the LTE standard. 

In today’s world, public safety agencies may pay several thousand dollars for a single handset that works on public-safety-only 

networks. The economies created by combined the commercial and 

public safety user base will drive cost-effective equipment for this 

band and enable public safety to benefit from the ongoing innovation driven by the commercial market. 

FCC studies also point to the benefits of the shared network approach. An FCC white paper concluded that a stand-alone public 

safety network would cost as much as $20 billion more by failing 

to leverage commercial resources and technologies. 

Now, a casual observer of this protracted debate might conclude 

that it all boils down to a binary choice between holding an auction 

for D Block licenses versus reallocating the spectrum to public safety. In fact, neither approach ensures nor precludes the optimal network build and operation. Rather, each approach requires that 

12 

Congress and the FCC adopt a framework promoting regional partnerships that leverage the best commercial networks in each area. 

This framework must ensure that (1) sufficient funding is available to build and operate and maintain a high quality network in 

rural and urban areas; (2) public safety enters into partnerships 

with commercial operators that leverage the experience and network assets of those operators; (3) the network is designed to be 

fully interoperable and is deployed and used with spectral efficiency in mind, recognizing the scarcity of this national resource; 

and (4) fair long-term opportunities are provided for a range of 

qualified commercial operators to partner with public safety and 

those operators can use available capacity on the network wherever 

feasible. 

In conclusion, Congress and FCC must go beyond choosing between holding an auction of D Block licenses and reallocating the 

spectrum to public safety. U.S. Cellular is prepared to support either approach, provided the needed safeguards are adopted. Without those safeguards, we all risk missing the opportunity that is 

before us today. An incomplete solution could result in sporadic 

coverage that favors urban markets and leaves rural communities 

behind, needlessly inflates the cost of equipment for public safety 

users, permits the inefficient use of the spectrum, fails to spur competition, and adds to the burden on the taxpayer. 

The worst course of action, however, is continued inaction. While 

we have studied and debated the right course to take, we have left 

the D Block and most of the public safety block idle. This inaction 

has meant no interoperable public safety network, it has foreclosed 

spectrum from commercial uses, and is has deprived the Federal 

Treasury as well as public safety of revenues from this spectrum. 

Now is the time to advance the two complementary goals of meeting public safety needs and expanding competitive wireless 

broadband services for consumers by adopting a framework that 

encourages shared public-private networks and regional public-private partnerships. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanley follows:] 

13 


70992.001
14 


70992.002
15 


70992.003
16 


70992.004
17 


70992.005
18 


70992.006
19 


70992.007
20 


70992.008
21 


70992.009
22 


70992.010
23 


70992.011
24 


70992.012
25 


70992.013
26 


70992.014
27 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Hanley. 

We will go next to Mr. Imlay, who is the general counsel for the 

American Radio Relay League, known more informally as the Ham 

Radio Operators. So Mr. Imlay, we are glad to have you here. We 

look forward to your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS IMLAY 

Mr. IMLAY. Thank you very much, Chairman Walden and members of the committee. Is it a great honor and a privilege to appear 

before you today and to represent the interest of the 700,000 amateur radio operators in the United States. We are not first responders, but we are proud to provide support communications, emergency restoration communications, and emergency temporary interoperability communications for first responders and for those involved in local and regional disaster relief. The ARRL has memoranda of understanding with FEMA, with the National Communication System, and the Department of Defense, with the American National Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the National 

Weather Service, and we routinely are involved in that period of 

time during and immediately after the occurrence of a natural disaster in the United States when communications systems are disrupted, overloaded, or fail. 

We are very much supportive of both the creation of a nationwide 

interoperable broadband network for public safety. It has been 

proven to be an absolute necessity. And we are also supportive of 

the allocation of the D Block to public safety as well. In the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, the ability of any network to 

provide interoperable communications is going to necessitate a certain amount of bandwidth. Bandwidth translates into the ability of 

public safety officials to communicate large volumes of traffic which 

are the inevitable need for immediate post-disaster communications. 

There is before the subcommittee now H.R. 607, which provides 

for both the creation of a nationwide broadband network and for 

the reallocation of the D Block to public safety. Those are admirable goals and the amateur radio community supports them. The 

problem, though, with H.R. 607 is that Section 207(d) of that bill 

provides uniquely for a commercial auction and reallocation of the 

420 to 440 megahertz and 450 to 470 megahertz bands. They are 

referred to in the bill as ‘‘paired bands,’’ but they are really not. 

The concept apparently behind that Section 207(d) is that as a quid 

pro quo for the allocation of the D Block, these 2 segments of spectrum would be reallocated and auctioned as a means of paying for 

the creation of the broadband network using the D Block. 

The problem is that those frequency segments would displace a 

number of critical uses. In addition to the amateur service in the 

420 to 440 megahertz band, the United States Government uses 

that band for military radars, including PAVE PAWS radars for 

early detection of offshore surface launch missiles. And they also 

use the band for airborne radars for drug interdiction purposes. 

In the 450 to 470 megahertz segment, there are many thousands 

of business and industrial radio uses which supports small business in the United States for dispatch communications. Broadcast 

radio stations use that segment for remote pickup units to provide 

28 

breaking news to the American public. The band is used for security and alarm systems for the station monitoring security industry. And they are many other uses. These are not public safety allocations. And the displacement of all of these important uses in 

these two band segments is not necessary to the creation of an 

interoperable public safety network. 

We urge the deletion of Section 207(d) of H.R. 607 if the subcommittee decides to use this version of this legislation in any future markup. 

And we are grateful for the opportunity to bring these to your 

attention. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Imlay follows:] 

29 


70992.015
30 


70992.016
31 


70992.017
32 


70992.018
33 


70992.019
34 


70992.020
35 


70992.021
36 


70992.022
37 


70992.023
38 


70992.024
39 


70992.025
40 


70992.026
41 


70992.027
42 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Imlay. We appreciate your testimony. It is part of why we are having these hearings, to find out 

who is using what spectrum and the various issues. 

Mr. Steinberg, I have been advised you should test your microphone to see if it works now. 

Mr. STEINBERG. How is that? 

Mr. WALDEN. Keep talking. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Keep talking? I will keep talking. Still talking. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. All right. Mr. Hanley, will you just help 

us out here and move your mike down to Mr. Steinberg. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Would you like me to just speak loudly? 

Mr. WALDEN. No, because—— 

Mr. HANLEY. Testing. 

Mr. WALDEN. There we go. Is yours working, Mr. Martinez? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. No, it is not. 

Mr. WALDEN. Oh, OK. Don’t pull too hard. You will have to get 

out a soldering iron. Mr. Steinberg, please. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL STEINBERG 

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

Eshoo, and other members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the topic of Interoperable Public Safety Communications. My name is Paul Steinberg and I am the chief technology 

officer of Motorola Solutions, Incorporated. Prior to my current position, I worked at Motorola Networks, where I was their chief architect for cellular and broadband commercial infrastructure products serving customers such as Verizon. 

Motorola Solutions—formerly Motorola, Incorporated—has been 

committed to innovation in communications and electronics for 

more than 80 years. Motorola has served the public safety sector 

continuously over these 8 decades, and the company is very proud 

of its history in this regard. Motorola has remained committed to 

the marketplace and has listened closely to needs of public safety 

and providing public safety with reliable, state-of-the-art equipment and innovative solutions. 

There are three key points that I would like to emphasize from 

my written testimony. Point number one, based on a detailed analysis, public safety will need broadband capacity that will surpass 

what would be afforded by the 10 megahertz the Public Safety 

Spectrum Trust sector below. We recently confirmed this by working with public safety officials on network capacity analyses to understand how broadband networks can enhance emergency response and better protect the safety of all involved. During these 

scenarios, we found that a network infrastructure based solely on 

the existing 10 megahertz public safety allocation will struggle to 

provide the necessary capacity forthcoming. Adding the additional 

10 megahertz D Block spectrum would effectively double the network capacity for public safety and improve incident response. It 

is important to remember that not only does the catastrophic event 

that benefits from this increased spectrum, day-to-day situations 

ranging from an overturned gasoline tanker on the expressway to 

storms and tornadoes, toxic situations in a residence can all benefit 

from the enhanced situational awareness, command and control, 

and that is enabled through this additional spectrum. 

43 

Point number two, FCC Chairman Genachowski has stated as recently as last Thursday at the CIA conference that broadband spectrum needs are predicted to grow 35 times in the next few years. 

Consumer use and demand for broadband application is indeed exploding, as are public safety’s broadband requirements. 

Point number three, there are additional costs that need to be 

factored into an auction scenario that we believe will quickly offset 

the proceeds of an auction. These costs are driven by two main 

items: the need for additional capacity that public safety will have 

to secure and pay for when carriers exhaust their 10 megahertz of 

capacity. A little-known fact is that today public safety spends 

about $2 billion handling for carrier services and an independent 

analyst projects that this will climb to over $5 billion handling in 

5 years. 

The second incremental cost is the need to mitigate the interference between a commercially-operated D Block and the adjacent 

PS base. The equipment cost or capital expenditure to build out a 

20 megahertz LTE network with the D Block allocated is basically 

the same as to build out 10 megahertz LTE network. However, the 

cost to build the network with 10 megahertz initially and to add 

additional spectrum later would be considerably more. 

We all share a common goal of equipping our first responders 

with the best and most innovative technology possible so that they 

can safely and effectively perform their mission. In order to achieve 

this, we at Motorola Solutions certainly support the commitment 

for nationwide interoperability, leverage of commercial standards 

such as through the LTE and private-public partnership. These 

need to be coupled with sound spectrum policy. We have a unique 

opportunity to carve out spectrum that provides the best current 

capabilities and economics for public safety while maximizing future options as the technology evolves. 

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Eshoo, and 

other members of the subcommittee, Motorola Solutions welcomes 

the opportunity to compete in a standards-based environment to 

help public safety realize its vision to have a truly interoperable 

nationwide broadband network. We look forward to working with 

the subcommittee to further realize our shared vision of a competitive market providing innovative solutions for public safety communications. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steinberg follows:] 

44 


70992.028
45 


70992.029
46 


70992.030
47 


70992.031
48 


70992.032
49 


70992.033
50 


70992.034
51 


70992.035
52 


70992.036
53 


70992.037
54 


70992.038
55 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Steinberg. We appreciate your participation in the hearing. Dr. Martinez, we will go to you next, the 

chief technology officer with Harris RF Communications Division. 

We appreciate your being here as well, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS MARTINEZ 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member, and members of the committee. First, let me thank you 

for inviting me to testify about key steps that must be achieved 

rapidly to develop and deploy a truly interoperable nationwide public safety broadband network. 

Let me begin by first introducing you to the Harris Corporation. 

Harris is an international communications and information technology company serving commercial and government markets 

worldwide. Headquartered in Melbourne, Florida, the company has 

approximately 16,000 employees, annual revenues of approximately 

$6 billion, and nearly 7,000 engineers and scientists. Harris is a 

leading global supplier of secure radio communications products, 

services, and systems, embedded high-grade encryption software 

and products for the military, government, and public safety purposes. Harris is a pioneer in the development of internet protocol, 

or IP-based networks for private radio and broadband applications. 

We supply the industry with market-leading narrowband, 

broadband, and multiband networks, services, and devices. 

I serve as the CTO of Harris Corporation’s RF Communications 

Division. I also chair the FCC’s Emergency Response Interoperability Center, Public Safety Advisory Committee, Security and Authentication Work Group. I have spent most of my career bringing 

advanced technologies to public safety, national defense, and homeland security markets. In these roles, I have learned how 

leveraging commercial technology innovation can have a profound 

impact on our Nation’s ability to procure and deploy state-of-the art 

products and services for these mission-critical markets. I have also 

seen that a robust supply chain fostered by appropriate business 

models and multi-source procurement practices must be implemented to ensure that all levels of government will procure these 

capabilities in a cost-effective manner. 

Today, Smartphones, supported by a vast ecosystem of application providers, have unleashed enormous capabilities of modern 3G 

and 4G wireless networks. These capabilities literally are revolutionizing the socioeconomic structure of the world. However, our 

Nation’s first responders, charged with protecting lives and property, are not yet able to take full advantage of this capability. Public safety must be enabled to leverage broadband technology in 

ways that will leverage and significantly enhance their ability to 

perform their missions. It is time for our Nation to build this hardened nationwide interoperable broadband network in the 700 

megahertz dedicated spectrum. We support the reallocation of D 

Block spectrum to public safety and we commend Congress’ examination of this critical issue. 

Two key ingredients—policies that have opened the 700 megahertz broadband spectrum to public safety and the availability of 

broadband technology—now enable construction of this nationwide 

56 

network. It is now time to finalize two final elements: governance 

and procurement. 

The broadband network, properly constructed, will serve first responders and government agencies charged with the public safety 

mission, and this involves federal, state, local, and tribal organizations. Establishing a governance structure to ensure nationwide 

interoperability among these organizations is essential. While we 

must provide this interoperability capability, we must also ensure 

that we are addressing the interoperability requirements that are 

unique to each of those organizations. 

For example, the city of Los Angeles, by virtue of its size, population, and geographic location has needs that differ from a smaller 

inland location such as Bend, Oregon. A key goal in creating a relevant governance structure for all is to ensure that these stakeholders can participate in the establishment process and ongoing 

governance structure that is created. 

The activities of the FCC Commission in the past and ongoing 

rulemakings are to be applauded. They serve as a model for governance in matters outside of their jurisdictional authority. A governance entity must oversee all aspects of the network lifetime 

cycle, through design, implementation, operations, and maintenance. That entity must ensure implementation of a procurement 

model that ensures the achievement of nationwide interoperability. 

In this regard, we must now finalize a regulatory framework and 

determine what interoperability means as a threshold matter. Considerable time and effort has been spent defining interoperability 

from technical and operational perspectives. Here we want to discuss what interoperability means from the perspective of governance and procurement. Indeed, technical and operational considerations alone will not yield the desired outcome. I do repeat, indeed, 

technical and operational consideration alone will not yield the desired outcome. 

We can draw from many examples of success in the commercial 

world. As consumers and users in the commercial world, we understand what this means. It means we can procure these items in an 

open and competitive environment. Our expectations drive the need 

not just for interoperability, but beyond that, interchangeability. 

We choose the device that suits our needs, on the network that provides the service we require, in a highly competitive and innovative 

market. Market demands drive commercial service providers to deliver interoperability. In turn, commercial service providers drive 

interchangeability throughout their supply chain to ensure uninterrupted availability of competitive and innovative products. Their 

business success relies on having multiple sources within their supply chain. This is the model that should guide the governance 

structure and procurement process for this network. In this way, 

interoperability will become not just a mandate; it will become the 

outcome. 

Interoperability, therefore, is the ability to procure the devices— 

network building blocks—that are fully interchangeable. This definition will allow our first responders to purchase equipment in a 

highly competitive and innovative environment. They can purchase 

this equipment with confidence that it will plug-and-play. Creating 

57 

this market dynamic will require funding mechanisms that drive 

this model. 

And finally, let me close by saying that it is essentially that we 

ensure economic viability of the public safety broadband network. 

The need for federal funds to launch the initiative is well understood. Also understood are the challenges in this difficult financial 

time. Here, we want to discuss how these challenges can be alleviated. 

First is the benefit of leveraging a vast commercial ecosystem. 

Second is to realize the savings that will come about through a 

competitive business practice, a competitive procurement practice. 

And third is that we will move to a converged network with converged devices and that convergence process itself will save enormous cost in the future. 

In conclusion, the public safety broadband network will bring unprecedented capabilities to our Nation’s first responders and agencies that support the public safety mission. Built on a competitive 

market and the latest broadband standards, supported by this ecosystem, this network will enable interoperability to become a reality. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the committee’s 

leadership on this issue, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

today. I look forward to further working with you in the future to 

make this a reality. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:] 

58 


70992.039
59 


70992.040
60 


70992.041
61 


70992.042
62 


70992.043
63 


70992.044
64 


70992.045
65 


70992.046
66 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Dr. Martinez. We appreciate your testimony and comments. We are going to go now to Mr. Johnson, Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive, Western Fire Chiefs Association on 

behalf of the Public Safety Alliance, Bend, Oregon Fire League. So 

we are delighted to have you here. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY D. JOHNSON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman Walden, 

Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. I am 

Jeff Johnson, immediate past president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the chief executive of the Western Fire 

Chiefs Association. And today I testify on behalf of the Public Safety Alliance, which represents nine associations representing all the 

leadership in the public safety community. 

In the past 50 years, America’s domestic defenders have been allocated thin slices of spectrum in each new band as it became 

available. That is why today we have more than 55,000 public safety agencies each operating its own mission critical radio system 

over six or more different radio bands. Connecting disparate frequency slices among and between agencies and jurisdictions to 

achieve interoperability requires the purchase, programming, and 

deployment of electronic patching equipment operating under a 

governing protocol. This makes our goal of interoperability limited, 

difficult, and expensive. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Johnson. Let me stop you for a second. Can 

you try your mike? Apparently, we are having—got it. All right. 

Mr. Johnson, if you would like to resume your testimony. I apologize for the interruption. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Following numerous major events 

and other significant disasters which demonstrate communications 

failures, we know that a new model is necessary. Required is a national architecture for public safety wireless communications. 

To create and construct a nationwide public safety wireless 

broadband network, three key ingredients are requisite: the D 

Block spectrum, number one; number two, federal funding; and 

number three, a governance structure which makes it all operate. 

To achieve connectivity coast-to-coast and border-to-border, the 

10 megahertz block of D Block spectrum, currently slated for auction by the FCC, must be added to the 10 megahertz of spectrum 

licensed to Public Safety to build out a network with sufficient capacity. Local control of the network by public safety agencies is 

critical. Utilizing a single technology with adequate spectrum will 

ensure nationwide interoperability and allow us to effectively manage day-to-day operations, as well as major events. 

Public safety expects to enter into a public-private partnership 

with states, counties, local governmental agencies, federal partners, 

utilities, and other agencies such as water and highways who respond to emergency incidents routinely. But public safety must 

have control over the operation of the network in real time to give 

public safety assurance that they will have full preemptive priority 

over its spectrum on a when-needed basis. The network must be 

‘‘mission critical’’ from 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 migration to mission critical voice 

67 

over this broadband network. This migration will happen only 

when technology is developed and tested and public safety has confidence in it and it is affordable. 

Funding is important for the build-out of the public safety 

broadband network. The Public Safety Alliance supports the auction of spectrum by the FCC—from incentive auctions, auctions of 

the unsold portion of the Advanced Wireless Spectrum, or auctions 

of designated federal spectrum—with the proceeds priority-marked 

for funding the construction, operation, and maintenance of a nationwide public safety network. 

A governance structure must be created to manage and operate 

this new nationwide public safety broadband network. Key among 

the seven Public Safety Alliance guiding principles listed in my 

written testimony are, number one, that Public Safety First Responder delegates constitute a majority of the governing body; and 

second, the Public Safety 10 megahertz and the D Block megahertz 

would be combined under a single license issued to the governing 

body. 

Public safety is supported in its quest for the D Block by the ‘‘Big 

7’’, the seven national associations which represent state and local 

governments. We also are supported by the two top U.S. telecommunications carriers, as well as primary manufacturers of telecommunications equipment. 

The 9/11 Commission recommended in its report that an interoperable communications system be established for public safety. 

At a Senate hearing on March 30, former commission chairman 

Governor Thomas Kean said, ‘‘We support the immediate allocation 

of the D-block spectrum to public safety. We must not approach 

these urgent matters at a leisurely pace. We don’t know when the 

next attack or disaster will strike. Further delay is intolerable. We 

urge the Congress to act.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and this subcommittee for today’s 

hearing on this vital issue for public safety. I am looking forward 

to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

68 


70992.047
69 


70992.048
70 


70992.049
71 


70992.050
72 


70992.051
73 


70992.052
74 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We appreciate your testimony as well. Now, we will go for our final witness, Mr. Joe 

Hanna, President of Directions. Mr. Hanna, welcome, and hopefully 

your microphone works. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. HANNA 

Mr. HANNA. Let us hope so. 

Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo, members of the 

committee, my name is Joe Hanna and I currently serve as the 

president of Directions, which is a public-safety-focused wireless 

telecommunications consulting practice. Prior to starting this practice, I retired from public safety communications and the public 

policy arena after 30 years of service. The comments I have prepared for today’s hearing are solely my views and should not be 

construed as representing any client or past affiliation. 

I operate from the assumption that everyone in this room agrees 

that our first responders should have the tools they need to serve 

the public, including access to state-of-the-art communications systems. Some of us, however, fail to agree on the fact that there are 

two distinct and viable paths that can provide public safety with 

the wireless broadband services that they need and deserve. 

Congress has provided public safety with 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 meg band. If prudently utilized, this allocation can 

provide public safety with the capacity they need for day-to-day 

needs. Using that capacity in conjunction with commercial spectrum in the 700 megahertz band, as proposed in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, will give public safety the bandwidth necessary for situations in which the public safety allocation may become overloaded. The difference between those pressing the reallocation to the D Block to public safety and that of the paradigm 

envisioned in the National Broadband Plan is that the LTE platform now standardized as the interoperable vehicle for a public 

safety network provides an automatic, seamless, priority-accessible 

mechanism that can be triggered in the event of an overload of the 

baseline public safety network. 

Equally as important, partnering with commercial entities, a cornerstone to the National Broadband Plan, will allow first responders to take advantage of both reductions in the cost of building the 

core network while taking advantage of the benefits of commercial 

networks and the economies of scale for user devices needed by the 

first responders. 

I wholeheartedly agree with my public safety counterparts that 

the core of this proposed public safety broadband network should 

be centered around a dedicated public-safety-grade broadband network. And this network should recognize no distinction between 

urban, suburban, and rural boundaries. My fellow panelists and I 

also seem to agree that the widespread financial crisis facing cities, 

counties, and States throughout the Nation will now allow America 

to realize the nationwide implementation of a dedicated public safety network without an infusion of federal funds. 

I would also like to note that several legislative proposals that 

have emerged around this debate the past year will help public 

safety use the spectrum that they have been allocated more effectively by providing for the flexible use of 700 megahertz public 

75 

safety spectrum currently allocated for narrowband communications. Failure to provide this flexibility will result in critically needed spectrum lying fallow in many parts of the Nation. 

The greatest flaw that I see in reallocation of the D Block to public safety in lieu of the current law and the proposals of a National 

Broadband Plan, however, will be the unintended consequences of 

creating an island ecosystem. With no commercial economies of 

scale, public safety will again find itself held hostage by a limited 

number of providers resulting in the same low-volume, high-cost 

marketplace faced every day in the public safety land mobile environment. 

Additionally, budget estimates for a public safety network is calculated for the National Broadband Plan were based on a model in 

which the dedicated public safety network would be built in conjunction with commercial rollouts of LTE networks. The broadband 

cost estimates for a standalone public network more than triples 

the cost of a shared deployment. With a shortfall in federal funds, 

public safety will be faced with a difficult choice of determining either how to ask Congress for billions of additional dollars of funding or to choose where the network will be built and where it will 

not be built. 

Instead of building a bridge to nowhere, we are now faced with 

building half a bridge, then forcing you to the unnecessary expenditure of additional billions of dollars to complete the bridge or leaving a substantial portion of America’s first responders without the 

broadband service they deserve. 

One of the most significant issues that must be addressed by any 

legislation considered by this Congress is the provision for a welldefined governance and administrative structure that will be required for the deployment of this initiative. Let there be no doubt; 

this proposed multibillion-dollar venture is massively complex. If 

we fail to adequately address the issue of governance and administration of this effort at the outset, we guarantee extended delays 

in implementation, massive needless cost, and failure to have services implemented nationwide in an acceptable time frame. 

Last, we must be cognizant of the fact that we have other equally-pressing public safety communication demands that must not be 

overlooked as precious and limited federal resources are budgeted. 

Subcommittee Member Shimkus and Eshoo, who were both cofounders of the Next Generation 9-1-1 caucus, they are well versed 

in the needs of the Nation’s public safety answering points to upgrade their 9-1-1 capabilities to bridge this critical length in the 

public safety continuum. At the end of the day, we must all recognize the fact that there is a finite pool of funds, and we must ensure that we responsibly address the myriad telecommunications 

requirements needed to serve both the public and our first responders. 

Again, I would like to thank you for the invitation to speak before this committee, and I would be glad to answer any questions 

you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanna follows:] 

76 


70992.053
77 


70992.054
78 


70992.055
79 


70992.056
80 


70992.057
81 


70992.058
82 


70992.059
83 


70992.060
84 


70992.061
85 


70992.062
86 


70992.063
87 


70992.064
88 


70992.065
89 


70992.066
90 


70992.067
91 


70992.068
92 


70992.069
93 


70992.070
94 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hanna. I appreciate 

your comments, your testimony. I really think we have got a terrific panel of witnesses that really span the spectrum of the topic 

we are discussing today, from the technical level to the user level. 

And so we appreciate all your testimony. 

I would ask unanimous consent—we have two letters from the 

FCC Chairman Genachowski in response to congressional inquiries 

on public safety equipment. We have Motorola’s response to the 

same letter to the FCC in a report from Congressional Research 

Service on federal funds spent on public safety radios. I ask unanimous consent that they be made part of the record. And I would 

recommend to my colleagues on the committee on both sides to 

take advantage of actually reading these documents. A lot of work 

has gone into the answers, which I think will play into whatever 

we do legislatively. 

I will start off with questions. 

Mr. Hanley, first of all, I want to confirm a statement that you 

made that a standalone public safety network would cost in the 

order of $20 billion. Is that what you testified to? 

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you for the question. 

Mr. WALDEN. Please turn on your—— 

Mr. HANLEY. OK. 

Mr. WALDEN. There you go. Just get real close to it. 

Mr. HANLEY. Better? OK. 

I think I was referencing the FCC’s analysis of that question. 

You know, clearly, a network that leverages existing cell towers, 

existing radio equipment is going to be much more cost-effective 

than one that starts from scratch. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. I want to ask you and Mr. Hanna. Part 

of what we are looking here at is the 24 megahertz that public 

safety was given as part of DTV. Ten of it is currently, as I understand it, being used for broadband. There is a 2 megahertz sort of 

barrier wall between that and push-to-talk technology. As we look 

at that, it looks to me like at some point in time, there is another 

at least 12 megahertz that could be dedicated to broadband and 

perhaps LTE, whatever, which is more than what we are talking 

about in D Block. So I guess the question I am trying to resolve 

is what can be done today with 10 megahertz of broadband spectrum? And might that be enough to close this gap in terms of technology and migrate everybody into an interoperable broadband network that uses that 10 megahertz that is now, frankly, not being 

very efficiently used, although push-to-talk is a communication. I 

mean, I got all that with the new technology. So, you know, we are 

talking 2 to 3 billion users, not 100 million users like some of the 

commercial providers have on 10 megs. So could that 10 or 12 megs 

be used for broadband and satisfy this interoperable need? Mr. 

Hanna, do you want to start? And then Mr. Hanley. 

Mr. HANNA. Well, I think the question is well asked. There is, 

unfortunately, a conflict with part of the spectrum at 700 meg public safety allocation, and that is that there are—although not widely deployed—there are a number of large 700 meg narrowband systems already deployed or in the process of being deployed. So that 

spectrum is being built out already. 

95 

Mr. WALDEN. Is that an efficient use of that spectrum when we 

look at LTE and all in the future? I mean, aren’t we creating new 

islands? 

Mr. HANNA. I think in the long term—and Chief Johnson mentioned this as well—in the long term, I think we could certainly 

make better use of it if that were ultimately moved into the 

broadband allocation. Unfortunately, right now, there simply is not 

a technology in play that would allow broadband mission-critical 

voice communications there. 

Mr. WALDEN. Would that apply also, then, to the other 10 in the 

D Block? 

Mr. HANNA. Absolutely. At this stage, there is nothing on the 

table for mission-critical voice in the broadband allocation. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so what would the time horizon be for missioncritical voice in that allocation? 

Mr. HANNA. As Chief Johnson mentioned, and I would echo, it 

is down the road a ways because at this stage—— 

Mr. WALDEN. What does that mean, 3 to 5 years? 

Mr. HANNA. I mean, I would say five to ten at least. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. I didn’t mean to cut you off here, but we 

have limited time here. Mr. Hanley? 

Mr. HANLEY. Yes, I would concur with what Mr. Hanna said. I 

think that we should envision the narrowband spectrum being used 

down the road to augment the broadband spectrum, and we should 

have a definitive plan for addressing that migration as soon as it 

is practical to do so. I think in the short run, whether the 10 megahertz is sufficient depends on the model that is built around it. If 

we have roaming capabilities with other spectrum, that may be a 

way of augmenting the 10 megahertz. The way the network is designed and architected could make more efficient use of 10 megahertz allocation. 

Mr. WALDEN. You know, part of our discussion, too, is about the 

equipment. And from my days either as an amateur radio operator—as a broadcaster who sent both your companies money over 

time, good equipment, the rock solid Motorola in the trunk of the 

mobile unit we had at a base station—but I also know that the 

commercial side spends that equipment a lot cheaper for mass use. 

We have got a letter—and maybe my colleagues can address that 

as my time is running out—from the FCC that did that evaluation 

where some of the hardened equipment for public safety comes in 

at $5,000, and the same sort of communication device in the private, commercial side may be a couple hundred bucks. So I won’t 

ask it because my time has expired, but I think it is an issue I 

think we have to dig into. Say can you get capability with greater 

innovation more often at 1/10 of the cost of what we are all paying 

as taxpayers today? 

My time has expired. I will recognize the gentlelady from California for her questions. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each 

one of you for your excellent testimony today. I think it has been 

highly instructive for the members of the subcommittee. 

Let me just pick up where the chairman left off. This is a report 

from the Federal Communications Commission. This is on the cost 

of public safety communications. It says that ‘‘This is at least partVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:10 Nov 15, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-51 052511\112-51 CHRIS
96 

ly because public safety’’—going back to the cost—‘‘is unable to capture the benefits of competition and economies of scale associated 

with equipment and devices that are manufactured for the commercial consumer marketplace. Commission staff expect that 

leveraging the commercial mass market could reduce cost for public 

safety devices substantially.’’ These are substantial cost differentials here. 

So who would like to comment on this? Maybe we should go to 

Motorola first, since there are some questions surrounding how 

competitive, you know, this whole area is. You mentioned in your 

testimony that you looked forward to a competitive market. I don’t 

know how you define that, but do you want to speak to the costs 

on this just very briefly? And anyone else want to lean in on it? 

Mr. STEINBERG. Sure. 

Ms. ESHOO. It looks like we are going to be picking up the tab 

on this, so we have to pay attention to the cost. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Is this working at all? 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, speak louder. 

Mr. STEINBERG. OK, thank you. 

Ms. ESHOO. We are dying for your answer. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Thank you for the question. It is—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Sure. No, go ahead. 

Mr. STEINBERG. I think it is going around a lot and I appreciate 

the opportunity to clarify. 

The ASPs are thousands of dollars less on average than what are 

typically quoted. And we do compete competitively for all products, 

for example, with—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, where does this figure come from then? I mean 

do you disagree with this with the FCC’s estimates that a stateof-the-art consumer cellular device typically costs a few hundred 

dollars? A typical land-mobile radio for public safety communications may cost as much as 5,000? Is that false? 

Mr. STEINBERG. So I disagree with the $5,000 number. 

Ms. ESHOO. So how much is it? 

Mr. STEINBERG. It is considerably less than that. 

Ms. ESHOO. What is considerably less? 

Mr. STEINBERG. If I could please—— 

Ms. ESHOO. No, I don’t have a lot of time, so if you want to answer it, fine. If not, I am going to go to someone else. 

Mr. STEINBERG. So we will be happy to get back to you with the 

specific data. 

Ms. ESHOO. Great. OK. 

Mr. STEINBERG. That is not my area of expertise. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. To Dr. Martinez, thank you for your testimony. And I think that you centered in on the two areas that are 

so critical, and that is governance and procurement. I think you 

really were helpful to us in how you built your testimony. 

Obviously, interoperability is vital to a seamless communications 

system, and the FCC has recently mandated that all public safety 

broadband networks adopt the LTE as a common technology platform. What, in your view, are additional safeguards that are needed to promote competition in the public safety equipment market? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Congresswoman, thank you. You know, we 

need to learn from the success of the commercial telecom industry. 

97 

That industry has succeeded in innovating rapidly, bringing capability to market quickly, providing a cost-effective solution. And 

how have they done that? Well, they do that through a very competitive process. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. And we call that process multi-sourcing, which 

means that they look at every major component, subsystem of their 

networks, and they ensure that they have multiple sources of supply. They do not engage in sole-source practices. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. They frequently do not single-source. Multisourcing is the answer because it provides for a competitive environment—— 

Ms. ESHOO. If I might, how do we ensure that the equipment 

market keeps pace with the innovation taking place in the commercial sector? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. The first step, of course, was to adopt the common platform, LTE. That was the first step. Pretty much unanimous support—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Right. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. —in the record for that decision on the Commission’s part. Now, having done that, we can’t do it halfway. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. And we discussed this just yesterday. And I believe that was a comment from Mr. Steinberg. We must do it all 

the way. We must continue to follow the standard as it evolves. We 

must leverage the ecosystem as it continues to develop. We must 

ensure that the same competitive practices that have made the carriers so successful are applied as we implement a governance organization or a structure for the public safety network. 

Ms. ESHOO. Great. I just want to get one more question in. 

Thank you very much. 

To Chief Johnson, thank you for your testimony. At the same 

time that you advocate for local control of the network, which is obviously very important, and you mentioned that in your testimony, 

would there be tension between a national governance structure 

and the local control that you testified? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think this is how 

we see it operating. The national governance body would set technology standards so that we have one technological approach to 

make sure that things work as they should. They would set standards and regulations for the network, but you are going to need— 

in some cases it may be a large city; in other places it may be 

statewide or may be regional. The end point is we need local and 

regional presence for operating the dial as it were. Public safety 

views these events and says we have to control the dial. When we 

need the network, we have to reach up, figuratively, and turn it 

over so public safety has access. And I think I don’t expect there 

will be tension between the two. I think, in fact, the local presence 

will make the national governance model stronger. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you for your questions. We will turn now to 

the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Terry. 

98 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I can start off with 

thanking everybody. I agree with Mr. Walden that this is a pretty 

impressive panel and appreciate your expertise in sharing it with 

us. 

My question, it is really three parts to the same question of the 

shared system. And it may be too long with these three to actually 

get real answers from you, so if you guys would like to submit 

longer answers. But specifically to Mr. Hanna and Mr. Hanley, and 

I will ask Mr. Hanley if there is enough time. Mr. Hanna, I will 

let you otherwise, you and others could submit it. But can you comment on the specifics as to why a shared system built out of a network is less expensive than the one in which standalone public 

safety one would be? And would this shared system also—we 

talked about the 12 for narrowband, 2 for guarding, and 10 for 

broadband of the current 24 that has been set aside through the 

digital transition. Are you talking about those 24 plus the 10 to set 

up a shared system? And then last, I think one of the ultimate 

questions is taking all levels of an emergency from your basic 

wreck on the interstate to a 9/11 or Birmingham or Joplin where 

systems are wiped out of a complete city, is there a risk in a shared 

system that at a time of an emergency that public safety wouldn’t 

have enough of the spectrum to operate in both narrow and 

broadband areas? So Mr. Hanley, three questions. 

Mr. HANLEY. OK. So first of all, I think the shared network can 

be lower cost because it is going to leverage existing assets of the 

network operators already have in place. It is going to leverage the 

capabilities that those operators have to efficiently operate networks and their knowhow in those areas. I think those are the 

quick answers to that question. We can provide more detail in writing. 

To your second question, our vision of a shared network involves 

the 20 megahertz of the D Block in the adjacent public safety 

broadband license spectrum. So that is what we are talking about 

when we envision the 20 megahertz shared network. But other constructs certainly could be part of that as well. 

And then I think to your last question about the different types 

of emergencies, I think that you can envision a number of operation constructs to be either developed in rules or negotiated between operators and public safety agencies to go as far as 100 percent utilization of the capacity in an emergency situation. I think 

that that depends on the way the model is set up and what other 

resources the other network operator has to serve its base of commercial customers. 

Mr. HANNA. Well, I think the first question certainly is that, the 

cost-savings from co-location at the outset. I mean if you are putting in two systems at the same time, same location, obviously 

there are some savings there. 

To the third question, I think there is a spin I haven’t heard yet. 

If you are co-located or have a commercial partner, if you have a 

major disaster—so, for example, what we witnessed the last few 

weeks with the tornadoes—in a public safety environment, at least 

in the initial deployments that I am looking at, in one major jurisdiction, public safety was looking at building out 350 sites, which 

sounds like a lot. In that same jurisdiction, that same coverage 

99 

area, one commercial carrier has 5,500 sites. So just by sheer numbers, if you have something like a tornado or an earthquake or 

whatever, the probability of having sites in play, as well as effective use of spectrum in more sites I think certainly gives you an 

advantage that you don’t have in that standalone, you know, purely 

hardened public safety network. There has to be that core public 

safety piece. Don’t get me wrong there. I support that. But if you 

are co-locating and co-serving with a commercial partner, you gain 

the access to, in this case, thousands of additional sites that somebody else has already paid for. 

Mr. TERRY. Thirty seconds, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I think the general discussion in the 

public safety community is if we are allocated the 20 megahertz of 

spectrum, we fully intend to have a commercial partner for all the 

reasons my colleagues here have articulated. It would not be costefficacious to go out and to replicate the kind of systems that exist 

out there. Some jurisdictions may want to but we actually see, as 

part of the D Block approach, having a commercial partner. The 

last thing I think we want is to shut down and overwhelm a commercial system because we are the output of the emergency response system and the call from someone trapped in their collapsed 

house is the input. And to shut down either of those at the expense 

of either is not helpful to the system. 

Mr. WALDEN. I believe next is Ms. Matsui from the list I have. 

Go ahead for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my 

opening statement, one of the important issues that I believe has 

not been fully addressed but is central to ensuring an efficient and 

effective public safety network is who will govern and oversee this 

vast network that possess significant responsibilities. 

This question is to Chief Johnson and Mr. Hanley. In your opinion, who should oversee and possess ultimate responsibility and accountability for ensuring the development and deployment of a 

broadband public safety network, an achievement of nationwide 

interoperability? Chief Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congresswoman. We think that the 

provisions in S28, the Rockefeller bill, come very close to what we 

envision, which is we wouldn’t expect the Federal Government to 

fund a network and then not have some presence in terms of the 

governance model. So in that particular model there are four cabinet-level positions in it. 

Second, public safety needs to have a prominent position in 

terms of the governance and so do local governments for all the 

reasons I have articulated already. 

But lastly, we believe strongly that our private-sector commercial 

partners and the people that are manufacturing the devices and 

can see over the horizon better than someone like myself, they 

need to be present and active as part of the governance model. So 

I think those are the three pieces. 

Ms. MATSUI. So is this like a public-private kind of a nonprofit 

sort of partnership here you are talking about? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I think, Congresswoman, I don’t know if I 

could articulate what is the best legal construct for the governance 

100 

model, but I do think those three pieces have to be present in 

terms of who sets policy on the network. 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Hanley? 

Mr. HANLEY. I would agree that there needs to be some level of 

national governance and the constitution that Chief Johnson mentioned is probably an appropriate representation. A lot of the 

standards work needs to be overseen at that level. There may be 

applications that should be hosted on a nationwide basis. So I 

think it is a federal system in the end with governance from some 

type of national entity as well as a lot of local flavor. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. It seems like it is sort of floating at this time. 

And we don’t want it to keep floating like this. Now, as we know, 

the current licensee of the existing 10 megahertz of the public safety broadband spectrum is the Public Safety Spectrum Trust. Chief 

Johnson and Mr. Hanna, if a new entity was to hold the license 

and/or be responsible for governance and oversight of the network, 

would you support transferring the Public Safety Spectrum Trust 

License to this new entity? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Congresswoman, we would. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. And Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. Absolutely. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. And what would need to happen to ensure a 

smooth transition? Either of you want to comment on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congresswoman, I think we would have to lay out 

a pretty rational and detailed plan about how you transfer the license. There is all sorts of detail that have to be vetted at your 

level, frankly, and at the administrative level to make sure that we 

are legally going about it properly. And then that governance body 

is going to have to go to work about setting the standards and 

making sure that this thing deploys effectively. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Now, if we create a new entity to manage this 

public safety network, they will have awesome responsibilities and 

have responsibility over highly valuable spectrum and significant 

public funding, not to mention needing to ensure the success of this 

vitally important network for first responders. Mr. Hanley, Dr. 

Martinez, and Chief Johnson, that said, how would we ensure accountability and success of any new entity to manage the public 

safety network? And Dr. Martinez first, if you would comment. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. If you create an independent entity, then obviously, as you have stated in your question, then there is therefore 

a need to have a responsibility and accountability. That is certainly 

the challenge with an independent organization, a nonprofit organization is how do you hold it accountable for spending taxpayers’ 

precious funds? I would suggest to you it will require extensive 

oversight certainly from bodies such as this one. It will require 

oversight and participation from the states and local entities to ensure that, first of all, their needs are being met in a responsible 

way, funds are being responsibly spent. As I have advocated earlier 

in my testimony, that their procuring equipment in a competitive 

and open market. And therefore it is going to require continued 

oversight from organizations such as this committee. 

Ms. MATSUI. Right. OK. Mr. Hanley? 

Mr. HANLEY. First of all, clear objectives that are agreed to by 

policymakers so that there is a clear benchmark against which the 

101 

organization can be measured. I think the examples that Dr. Martinez cited are appropriate as well in terms of oversight. I think 

some type of an audit process would also be important to make 

that work. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Chief Johnson, just a quick comment because 

I am running out of time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I concur. I just think that we are going to have 

to lay this out very clearly when we charter the governance body 

with what our expectations and timelines are, and it has to have 

the mix we discussed and we have to hold people accountable. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, thank you very much. And I think we are 

talking about something that is sort of theoretical now at this point 

that we are going to have to figure out how we deal with this. So 

I will continue to ask questions. So thank you very much. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you for your questions and for the answers. 

I believe Mr. Bass, actually, was here when the gavel fell and so 

you would be up next, Mr. Bass. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is an interesting 

hearing and I appreciate the fact that the subcommittee is addressing this complex issue in an orderly and pragmatic manner. And 

I think these hearings are helpful to us understanding, you know, 

what our side of the capital will do with this issue. 

Mr. Hanna and Chief Johnson and Dr. Martinez, can you explain 

to us or give us your perspective on why we will don’t even have 

voice interoperability yet for public safety, let alone any broadband 

network? Chief Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congressman. I think it has its roots 

in the thin slices of spectrum that have been given to public safety 

over the years. And there were reasons that that happened, but 

those reasons don’t apply in this market today. Technology has surpassed the reason for doing that originally. So what happens is in 

the street equivalent, it is like everybody is operating on their own 

road. 

Mr. BASS. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And then the public expects us to cooperate and 

be co-productive at the local level when we respond. Now we need 

to talk. So what we have had to do is we have had to build lanes 

between our own roads. And it is such a broken model. I think the 

public safety community’s perspective on this is we would love to 

stop spending money on interoperability, have a vision for national 

architecture which we are articulating, and spend our money there 

rather than connecting these thin slices. And that makes so much 

sense on a lot of fronts. And most of all of those is this D Block 

spectrum paired with the 10 megahertz we have eventually will be 

capable of radio-over-IP communications, but it is capable of data. 

And it is contiguous to the 700 narrowband channels which we 

have. And what that allows us to do is it allows a single technological approach. And I think that is why we are focusing on moving away from the thin slices and spending money on interoperability and move to one swath that will help us get all of it done. 

And Mr. Chairman, if I might, with your pleasure, sir, we would 

like to introduce one additional piece of communication from the 

Public Safety Alliance into the record, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

102 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. BASS. Mr. Hanley? I mean Dr.—well, either one of you two 

guys. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. You know, if we look at how 13 billion plus, that 

was at the federal level plus what was spent at the state and local 

level, it is a large sum of money. The predominant practice has 

been really one of looking backwards. And by that we mean the 

predominant practice has been about focusing on operability, not 

interoperability. Significant amount of energy and emphasis spent 

on backwards compatibility as opposed to future interoperability. 

The procurement process has gone astray. It didn’t focus on the 

core fundamental issue. We have to procure systems that are interoperable. You have to drive this car looking through the windshield, not through the rearview mirror. And so sad to say that 

most of that money was spent in a manner that did not move the 

ball as far forward as it could have and should have. We have 

learned that. We must not repeat that mistake. 

Mr. HANLEY. I think it is a question of priorities and local resources. For the commercial sector interoperability was essential 

from the beginning. Folks had to be able to roam and have a seamless experience wherever they went. It was imperative that we 

have interoperability. The focus has been on operability in the local 

incident environments in public safety, so I think that is the reason. 

Mr. BASS. Mr. Steinberg, just a quick comment because I have 

other questions. Do you have any comments on this? 

Mr. STEINBERG. I mostly would agree with Chief Johnson. It is 

the fragmented spectrum that has been the root of the problems 

that we have had from the beginning. The only thing I would also 

offer is that we have made substantial progress, maybe albeit not 

as rapidly as we would have liked on creating interoperable networks with the deployment of the APCO–25 standard across 27 

States. We cited several instances of good practices where we are 

achieving many, many agencies of interoperability within a State 

such as Michigan, Colorado, Ohio, Minnesota, San Diego to name 

a few. So there has been some progress made but more needs to 

be accomplished. 

Mr. BASS. On the cost side, is there an appropriate division in 

responsibility between the Federal Government and state and local 

law enforcement or first responders? How much should the States 

and localities be responsible for? And I have 14 seconds left so 

somebody answer it quickly. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Any time you deploy a large system, this issue 

comes up and the best way to answer it is I think all of us will 

end up contributing to it. The formula, I don’t have a great recommendation for you on except that state and local governments 

have infrastructure that will drastically lower the cost of deploying 

if they share. And it is sharing backhaul, it is sharing towers and 

infrastructure, it is sharing building. All of those things will contribute to lowering the cost of the system, and that may be the way 

they share. Or they may share real dollars. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you for your questions. We go now to the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

103 

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

thanks to all the panelists for your testimony. It has been very instructive. 

Chief Johnson, there has been a lot of discussion in recent years 

about the optimal nature of the spectrum at 700 megahertz band 

for broadband. The propagation characteristics of these frequencies 

allow wireless signals to penetrate buildings and other topographic 

obstacles while transmitting high-capacity data signals. If public 

safety owns the D Block on the 700 megahertz band through a reallocation solution, how are you going to make sure that this spectrum will be used in the most efficient manner at all times? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. The 

spectrum that public safety has, we often hear about the 100 megahertz we have. About 50 megahertz of that is in 4.9, and 4.9 is 

really good short distance to backhaul data but is not good for penetrating buildings. It is not good for going through windows. And 

when the public safety community talks about how we feel about 

the 4.9, we are often saying that is one we are least likely to use 

because its short distance would be cost prohibitive to build a tower 

network around it. So when we start talking about that would be 

the one we would be capable of relinquishing in terms of likelihood, 

the response we usually receive is well, yes, you want to give us 

back the one that isn’t very useful on the street. 

And that is kind of our point is it is not very useful. It is allocated to us but it is not as useful as the 700 megahertz. So the 700 

megahertz, the big advantage with that is the data is likely to perform the same as the voice does, and when the voice and the data 

perform the same at street level I am talking, then the police officer or fire fighter are able to count on having voice access and data 

access. The minute they become dissimilar, then you quit relying 

on them. Say, voice works and data doesn’t. And that is a critical 

factor in terms of people actually using it at the street level. The 

700 spectrum is optimal. It is optimal because of how the wave performs and it is also optimal because it is beside our voice channels. 

Mr. DOYLE. So how do we make sure, though, when you are not 

using it that we are getting the most efficient use of that whole 

spectrum, though? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congressman. I think the model we 

envision with a commercial partner would allow roaming onto that 

network while that spectrum is not being used. And what that 

would do is that would generate some enterprise money, which 

would help offset the cost of operating the system and building the 

system and dealing with some of the technological flip-overs that 

will naturally occur. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Mr. Steinberg and maybe Dr. Martinez 

and Chief Johnson also, the size of the public safety community is 

routinely described as consisting of about three million first responders and, you know, if we look at a smaller subset, maybe a 

half a million or so that actually are in the field and are in need 

of mobile communications. So I am just curious, why is Verizon’s 

22 megahertz of the 700 megahertz spectrum sufficient to launch 

its 4G LTE service to 100 million subscribers, yet you need almost 

that same amount for public safety? Why is that? 

104 

Mr. STEINBERG. Thank you for the question, Congressman. There 

are several reasons why that is different. We are really kind of 

somewhat comparing apples to oranges here if I may. The public 

safety networks are built to be ultimately resilient and reliable 

such that even if the complete network has failed, the devices can 

communicate with each other. That is part of the reason for the additional cost that was alluded to earlier in the handsets. They are 

engineered to a different grade of service, a different resiliency. So 

the way that they use the spectrum and the mode of communication is considerably different. The network service level that it is 

engineered to is considerably higher, especially from a coverage 

point of view and a grade of service that it provides to the end 

users overall. 

Mr. DOYLE. Dr. Martinez, do you have any—— 

Mr. MARTINEZ. You know, in scientific terms the problem is that 

communications in public safety is very lumpy in time and space. 

A good day is not when you use the spectrum efficiently; i.e., you 

are utilizing it heavily. That is a bad day. That means lots of 

things are going wrong. You can’t apply the same metrics to the 

spectrum efficiency utilization in a commercial carrier network that 

public safety has. The issue in public safety is not one of global capacity. It is when an incident happens, you need localized, high-capacity communications. And that is the problem. And you don’t 

know where incidents happen, so therefore, we have to create that 

capacity everywhere because an event can happen anyplace, as we 

all know. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is the fundamental problem in comparing 

those two business cases. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Chief? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, I think to compare commercial and 

public safety use, I guess I would say commercial systems are more 

likely to have broad use throughout the community. When public 

safety needs a network, it is very likely to just overwhelm a single 

site. When you land a plane in the Potomac, that is not going to 

do much for us in New England. That is going to light up that cell 

site and all the cell sites around it. And the capacity is required 

to move that amount of traffic at that site, and that site could be 

about anywhere in the Nation. And I think the network engineers 

and architects could attest to why you need that much from an engineering perspective. As a practical perspective, you need that 

much because when we need it, we need it. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you so 

much. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Hanley, did you have something you wanted 

to add? 

Mr. HANLEY. I just wanted to add public safety networks are engineered for the peak demand at its given time and place and that 

is really one of the strongest arguments for making sure that we 

have a mechanism for commercial utilization because while you are 

engineered for the peak and you are going to have—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

105 

Mr. HANLEY. —incidents—you are going to have a lot of spare capacity most of the time. We need to make sure that is used effectively. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, I think that is part of our discussion here is 

how often do you need that 10—you need it when you need it, but 

how often is it just going to sit there fallow and are there other 

uses during that period? Yes, well, I guess I am chairman. Dr. 

Martinez? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. And the problem is that if you try to use that capacity for commercial purposes, you devalue its commercial 

value—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. —because it is subject to preemption. When you 

need it in an event, a horrific event, then you will have commercial 

users trying to communicate on a network that is overwhelmed 

with public safety—— 

Mr. WALDEN. But it doesn’t—— 

Mr. MARTINEZ. That was the lesson learned from the D Block. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, that and the way it was structured and the 

unknowns. You buy it and then we will tell you what you have to 

do. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Certainly as well. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to get myself in trouble with my colleagues here again. Mr. Bilbray, I think you are up next. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you clarifying it. One of the big problems with the D Block is nobody knew 

what they were buying, you know, especially when you have other 

commodities on the market and that lack of definitive explanation 

of what you were buying for your constituency, you know, wasn’t 

there. 

I appreciate Mr. Steinberg being here because I just remember 

20 years ago we were putting in a unified system for a county of 

three million people with federal and state agencies in there down 

in San Diego, so I appreciate you bringing that up. But I think that 

we have got some real challenges, and I think a lot of it is not just 

technology. A lot of it is mindset. I remember being mayor of a 

small city of 30,000, we had a dispatcher for the police department, 

one for the fire department, one for the public works, and one for 

the lifeguards. You know, but each one of them had to have their 

own little pie. 

Chief, your comment about the need to have the private sector 

at the table I think is quite appropriate, though, understanding 

that those of us in government who use the system won’t even 

know what is possible if we do not have those guys at the table, 

right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, Congress. That is our view. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Now, my question is we do have a vehicle—and 

maybe I am dating myself—by the Disaster Preparedness Councils 

in every region is sort of the hybrid between a local, regional, and 

fed because it is actually a federally mandated agency that really 

works with these problems. In fact, I think that was really the key 

in San Diego we used to put it together. Maybe that is a component 

of a hybrid between the federal, local, and regional that needs to 

be considered of rather than reinventing the wheel, take a look at 

106 

what we have restructured, used again, and move forward. A comment about that, Chief? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, I am really not very familiar with who comprises that. I guess I would say it is important at the national level 

and at the local level, whatever that is, that you have people on 

there that understand public safety and they understand networks. 

And I think the same mix we talked about has to be present at the 

local level as well because a network operation is, after all, what 

we are after. 

Mr. BILBRAY. And that is really a challenge because those two 

disciplines don’t tend to meet very often. 

Question, Mr. Hanna. We have allocated the 4.9 megahertz. 

Should public safety be using that spectrum as part of this solution? 

Mr. HANNA. Oh, absolutely. As Chief Johnson said, at this time, 

4.9 is not really optimum spectrum for any type of broad-based application. It certainly has great potential for offloading traffic in 

hotspot-type zones. It has backhaul provisions. In some areas, it is 

used widely. In many areas, it is not used much at all. And I think 

there are a couple of studies that have shown that 4.9, you know, 

if paired with this network certainly can enhance the spectrum 

that we already have. So I think if we just take a look at how we 

reengineer that and build that into the network, I think we have 

great application for that. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Let me sort of throw something out, too. Mr. 

Hanley, you are probably the youngest one on the panel, wouldn’t 

you guess? What do we got? How old are you? 

Mr. HANLEY. Forty-four. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Is he the youngest, guys? OK. I just think it 

is appropriate we bring up these items that we don’t like to talk 

about in proper company, but Chief, can we admit that there may 

be a whole generational gap that we are ignoring here and that is 

with data? I think you and I know we grew up not texting our 

friends, not being comfortable in the text and the data file, but I 

see that like the cruisers that we put computers in, we never implemented the swipe card technology, though it was there, you 

know, back when we were implementing systems in the late ’70s, 

early ’80s. Don’t you think that there may be a heck of a lot more 

opportunity for data to be used in public safety than what we accept now just because we have always been used to grabbing that 

mike on our sleeve and talking into it, and especially with the next 

generation who is coming in with a whole new set of tools. These 

are videogame kids that are flying Predators now, and I think just 

as much as the old army didn’t accept the Predator, now we embrace it. I think there is a real challenge for all of us to sort of look 

over the horizon and be able to see what the next generation may 

take of this. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, your observations are quite insightful. The young firefighters we are hiring today are astonished at 

the lack of technological capability that we have. And the reality 

is is that because we don’t have a mission-critical grade data network today, it really is impeding efficiencies. And I will be specific. 

If you don’t have the ability to receive and transmit GPS or automatic vehicle location data in the field, then you can’t efficiently 

107 

deploy your resources, which means that you deploy them statically 

and you have holes that pop up and you have no way to sense that 

and adjust to it. 

Secondly, just even things like controlling traffic signals as opposed to using light to get close to it and turn the signal. The system ought to be able to sense we are coming, it ought to know 

where we are going, and it ought to clear the route and heal the 

route as we pass through it. I think, you know, the networks that 

we deal with, the commercial partners, they are quick to tell you 

that in the last 5 years, they have grown between 5,000 and 8,000 

percent in terms of throughput of data on their networks. The 

same thing is going to happen in public safety because the industry 

has not yet fathomed what public safety needs and designed aggressively to it because we don’t have a network to put it on. 

And I think you are correct in assuming that we are going to see 

some amazing evolutions in terms of the technology brought to 

public safety. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make 

sure that as we move forward with a national upgrade that we do 

not continue to try to apply an alpha code in the world of GPS. And 

for those of you who don’t know alpha code, you can go back and 

study Lord Nelson and everything else. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. I didn’t know you knew him. OK. And I just want 

to say, Mr. Johnson, I think you are right on target, and this is 

what we are trying to capture is that innovation and not have an 

isolated network that fails to capture that. So we are just trying 

to figure out how to get there because my iPhone, I can plug in a 

coordinate and up comes the GPS and it walks with me through 

town. There is ability there. 

I am going to go Mr. Gingrey and that I think is our last on the 

panel. 

I will just tell you in advance and not on Mr. Gingrey’s time, we 

have got a whole bunch of questions. Remarkable panel, thank you 

for your testimony. And we are going to submit those because they 

do require longer answers than we have time for today and I will 

do so formally later. But thank you. 

Mr. Gingrey? 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I agree. We do have 

an excellent panel. Unfortunately, I have been going back and forth 

between this committee and another subcommittee hearing a 

markup. That happens a lot up here and I apologize for that. But 

you have done a great job and we appreciate you being here. 

Mr. Hanna, I am going to turn to you first. How important is it 

that public safety partners with commercial providers if we are 

going to accomplish these goals that we all agree we need to accomplish? 

Mr. HANNA. I appreciate that question. When I first started 

working with this issue about 6 years ago, I came to public safety 

talking about broadband on the basis of that relationship between 

commercial and public safety. I think it is only through that relationship, particularly where you have the economies of scale and 

the broader ecosystem that we really take full advantage of what 

this has to offer. So I think that element is really paramount to the 

success of this network. 

108 

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you. And let me go to Mr. Steinberg, Dr. 

Martinez, and Mr. Hanley, and all three of you can respond. How 

soon will voiceover internet protocol over LTE be available? Are we 

talking 1 year, 2 years, 3 years? How soon could public safety migrate from narrowband and utilize broadband for the entire 24 

megahertz, the DTV legislation cleared for public safety? 

Mr. STEINBERG. I will start if you don’t mind. 

Dr. GINGREY. Yes. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Thank you for a very insightful question. That 

is one that goes around a lot. It is difficult to predict exactly when 

but let me talk to some of the things that have to occur. Moving 

voice to broadband, commercial-grade voice, which I think you will 

see carriers start to do. I have seen an announcement even from 

one carrier recently that they are heading in that direction in 2012. 

The difficulties of transcending that to public-safety-grade missioncritical voice, there are a few things we have to overcome to make 

that occur. Most of them are nontechnical. 

One is we need an interoperable standard. There is no standards 

body in place today that specifies push-to-talk, mission-critical 

voice type communications. So we would want that in place and we 

want to make sure that we create interoperability. 

Two is we have to make sure that the network is built out to the 

coverage requirements that are necessary to support mission-critical-grade voice. 

Three, there are few things in 3GPT standards, nothing major, 

that have to occur to support that to actually function properly. 

And then four is we have to actually make sure that once we get 

there, we truly do achieve interoperability, but not just for voice. 

We need to think about, as I think the previous question was instructive, about push to X, push to media, so that are thinking 

about not just the past but we are thinking about the future as 

well. 

So how long will that take is difficult to answer. I heard answers 

earlier in the 5- to 10-year range, perhaps while you were out of 

the room. That is probably not unrealistic considering the maturation that will be required to achieve mission-critical-grade push-totalk. 

Dr. GINGREY. Let us have Dr. Martinez and Mr. Hanley quickly. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. Congressman, we at Harris have been delivering mission-critical voice over IP for over a decade. We understand how to do that. We understand, too, Mr. Steinberg’s point 

that there is work to be done in developing of standards. We believe the technology is here today to do that. We believe it will take 

time to further develop the devices and to the right form factors for 

our first responders and other public safety organizations, but we 

believe that is going to take about 2 to 3 years. We believe there 

is a point where you have to mature the technology Chief Johnson 

made reference to earlier. We must do this in a responsible manner. 

I would say from an operational perspective, we are probably 3 

to 5 years away from that being an effective tool in the field. 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Hanley, would you tend to agree with that? 

Mr. HANLEY. I do agree with that. I think that we need a resilient network that will support mission-critical applications and we 

109 

need voice quality that is acceptable. And that is the time frame 

that is appropriate. 

Dr. GINGREY. I will continue with Dr. Martinez and Mr. Steinberg in my final question. Some have criticized the public safety 

equipment community for using a narrow definition of interoperability. How do you define interoperability? And would your definition permit seamless use of competitors’ public safety radios with 

your company’s network elements? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Congressman, as I have testified earlier, I believe we have addressed interoperability from a technical and operational perspective, yes indeed. We believe that the definition of 

interoperability really is the notion that you can procure interchangeable equipment. Your own experience in the use of cell 

phones and Wi-Fi devices, you already understand this. You purchase it with confidence that it is going to work. No matter which 

cell phone manufacturer I purchase from or which operator I operate on, we have the ability to communicate. We can text, we can 

send images, and so on and so forth. Those are fully interoperable 

systems but they are built on a base of interchangeable devices and 

technologies. We believe that is the model going forward in how we 

are going to achieve interoperability is to enforce the procurement 

process to implement that model. 

Mr. STEINBERG. And if I could just amplify a bit. 

Dr. GINGREY. Yes, please. 

Mr. STEINBERG. I believe Dr. Martinez spoke correctly that I believe today we have the interoperable standards of the P25 APCO 

standards that allow this to occur. Interoperation does occur on 

networks today between competitive handsets and networks. I 

would just offer as well that Motorola solutions offers at no charge 

to our competitors or other suppliers of equipment an interoperability test facility that they may bring the devices into and validate that they conform and work. 

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you all. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Recognize the gentleman from Louisiana. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Steinberg, given that the absence of a nationwide network 

both since September 11 as well as we experienced with Hurricane 

Katrina, a time consideration clearly is going to have to be a consideration in all of this. One of the things I want to ask from a 

technical standpoint, what would promote a quicker deployment of 

a nationwide network? Reallocating an additional 10 megahertz to 

public safety for a new build-out or supplementing public safety’s 

existing spectrum working with commercial providers to create that 

existing network? 

Mr. STEINBERG. That is an excellent question and thank you for 

the opportunity to address it. 

I think there are several factors that have to go into achieving 

what you stated is an excellent goal. First, I do believe that one 

of the problems we spoke of earlier that has contributed to interoperability issues is the hodgepodge or the fragmented spectrum 

that public safety has accumulated over the years. So that is one 

of the reasons why we do face an opportunity with the 700 megahertz spectrum band and the opportunity to reallocate the D Block 

if we can work out all of the other logistics to go with that to create 

110 

a nice wide swath of spectrum that everybody can operate upon in 

a consistent fashion. 

To your question about what actually gets us there quicker, I 

think it is a combination of really both factors that have to be 

brought to bear to actually move us along in that direction. 

Mr. SCALISE. All right. Mr. Hanna, from what I have been hearing and, you know, whether it is testimony here just talking with 

various groups, there are a number of ways to achieve interoperability and I think some have been touched on today, but if you 

could talk to me about the benefits of creating a nationwide interoperable system in connection with commercial spectrum in the 700 

megahertz band as proposed by the President’s National 

Broadband Plan. 

Mr. HANNA. Well, the concept is if you’re working on a common 

platform, which is the LTE platform, if you have the network sharing agreements, then you have the ability to roll over from one network to the other. So you are simply taking advantage of each other’s spectrum in that regard. And what we have talked about earlier is on a day-to-day basis, public safety does not need the entire 

block of spectrum. So on those days that you have the bad days 

that were mentioned earlier, then you can move into that spectrum, that commercial spectrum, and vice versa in some circles as 

some people proposed. So I think in that regard, you know, you are 

making maximum use. It is good stewardship of the spectrum that 

we have. 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you have an idea of both low end and high end 

when there is low utilization, high utilization how much spectrum 

would be covered on each of those extremes? 

Mr. HANNA. I don’t think I could be in a position to tell you, you 

know, how many megahertz we are going to be using in a given 

day. That is a bit outside my expertise. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. I don’t know if anybody else—— 

Mr. HANLEY. Let me just say it is a function also of how densely 

the cell sites are architected as well, how much capacity is deployed in a given location. So without seeing an architectural design, it is hard to comment on that. 

Mr. SCALISE. Yes, and I know that is—— 

Mr. HANLEY. I think you probably can use all the capacity in a 

serious emergency concentrated time and place. You are going to 

have a lot of times when you are using much less than that. 

Mr. SCALISE. Yes, and I think that is one of the things that the 

chairman talked about at the outset of the hearing is the importance of putting a real structure in place so that you are not just 

throwing money and maybe underutilizing spectrum, not using it 

to the best of our ability when it is such a scarce resource so that 

we can get the best bang for our buck but also push those timelines 

so that we are not facing the 10th anniversary of whether it is September 11 or Katrina or some other disaster and you still don’t 

have that interoperability where we can best achieve that goal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman. We recognize, now, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also—I didn’t 

get a chance to welcome Dr. Martinez who is from a company in 

111 

Florida, Harris Corporation. He is the CTO. I have had the experience of touring Harris, and actually, when I was an Air Force officer when it was Radiation Incorporated I used to come in there and 

fly and accept satellite ground stations for the Strategic Air Command. So I want to welcome Dr. Martinez. 

And one thought I was thinking about is assuming—in your 

mind, what government oversight should there be to make the 

interoperable system work? Maybe you can give us some ideas on 

that, what oversight should be done. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. We, of course, recognize that this network will 

serve federal, state, local, and tribal organizations. Clearly, they all 

have to participate in a significant way in the governance structure, however it evolves. It is important that we don’t get to a point 

that those organizations find themselves looking at the structure 

from the outside in. They have to be part of it, a fundamental part 

of it. 

The National Broadband Plan articulated that 3 organizations in 

particular that were important: the Federal Communications Commission and what it is doing, the Department of Commerce, and 

the Department of Homeland Security. We believe those three organizations must continue to play a significant role and collaboration in defining the structure, however it emerges. And those organizations continue to provide oversight from regulatory perspective, 

from policy perspective. But ultimately, we need to assure that 

those organizations, the stakeholders are able to perform the dayto-day governance functions. 

Mr. STEARNS. What would be the worse fear, the worst thing that 

you would be concerned about? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is a great question. My worst fear is this 

issue of economic viability. And I touched upon it very briefly. We 

must ensure that this network remains economically viable. And 

that means two things: that it is cost-effective and affordable and 

that we never put it into a position where we are unable to sustain 

it. And so I would say that my biggest concern today would be that 

we wouldn’t make the full commitment to ensure that it remains 

adequately funded and that we make the commitment to ensure 

that we are funding it correctly. 

And I have made the point repeatedly that we have to procure 

it in a responsible way that allows for innovation and competition 

and multi-sourcing we believe is the key vehicle. 

Mr. STEARNS. Anyone else on the panel who would like to comment, perhaps what their worst fears are or what the role of oversight should be on the interoperable system? Anyone else? Yes, sir, 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. On the governance model, you know, I have had a 

chance to look at great detail at the proposal you mentioned earlier 

that has been presented to Senate. I would say that while I am not 

enamored with all the provisions of the bill, I am highly impressed 

with the governance model that they have laid out in that document so far. 

I am not quite sure if the rest of my panel shares my concerns. 

I have deep concerns about a governance model run strictly by the 

government because I think our record in that area is rather replete with not being the most successful models. And I think my 

112 

public safety counterparts would agree that a model run purely by 

public safety, you know, not including people from industry and 

those people who are paying for it also has its issues. So I would 

say that the model that I have seen so far in Senator Rockefeller’s 

bill or the draft that has been presented I find I like it very much. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Hanna, let me just follow up with a question 

for you. We have provided the first responders with approximately 

13 billion in federal funding over the last decade, as well as approximately 100 megahertz of spectrum for their exclusive use. 

Where have those resources gone? What worked, what didn’t, and 

why? 

Mr. HANNA. Well, that question has been—we have partially addressed that. I mean, one of the unfortunate things is that it has 

gone many places, and that is part of our problem. It has been put 

out in piecemeal, fragmented basis. I would say we have had a lot 

of jurisdictions who have received a lot of that money. They have 

put it to good use in their local jurisdiction. There has been no requirement, though, that they have interoperability with others. 

And I would also suggest that, you know, we have enabled—the 

Congress has enabled this process by, you know, many times we 

kneejerk to a situation. After 9/11 we put a great deal of money 

on the table, which was admirable to respond to a need, but I don’t 

know that it was put out, you know, with the planning that was 

needed to ensure a unified approach. 

So I think the very fragmented nature of public safety communications, we have soaked that in, it has been used locally, but we 

haven’t had the coordination that we would like to see out of this 

bill. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to ask that same 

question to Chief Johnson if I could. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congressman. I think it has mostly 

been spent looking backwards, but I think there has been 3 causal 

areas. One, interoperability, which everyone talks about, and we 

use the name to do other things. I think there has been plenty of 

this money spent on core operability and buying equipment for core 

operability that is interoperable-capable and therefore met the 

terms of the grant requirements, for example. 

And I think, second, the Federal Government has had a little 

piece of responsibility here in that as we ask all the public safety 

responders in the Nation to narrowband their radios, for many of 

them, if not most of them, that meant a wholesale replacement of 

their radios. So when you are facing a wholesale requirement to replace your entire radios—mountaintop, handheld, mobile, et 

cetera—to meet the narrowbanding requirement, then you start 

looking for money. And that money is either some of it earmarked 

for interoperability, which you can do on your path to 

narrowbanding, and some of it operability with interoperable-capable. And I think it is worth adding that one of the benefits for the 

Federal Government in narrowbanding is they recapture the spectrum that is left behind when you narrow that band. That band, 

I assume, will at some point in time be repackaged, reformed at 

auction and in part offset some of the expenses that have been 

made in this area. 

Mr. STEARNS. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

113 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. Gentleman, we really appreciate your testimony, your insights. As I mentioned earlier, we 

will have some additional questions we would appreciate your response to. And I think I can speak on behalf of the whole subcommittee how impressive this panel has been and how helpful in 

our work you have been. And we look forward to continuing the 

conversation as we work to get it right this time and make sure 

that you have the interoperable network that you need at a price 

we can afford and that we are maximizing use of the spectrum 

along the way. 

So thank you all, and with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank you for holding this important hearing and all our witnesses for sharing their insights, particularly Mr. Martinez, CTO 

of Harris Corp., which is based in Florida. 

With the ten-year anniversary of September 11th quickly approaching, the time 

is now for Congress to act towards creating an interoperable public safety network. 

In the DTV legislation we cleared spectrum in the 700 MHz band, known as the 

D Block, to be auctioned for commercial use. Against my objections, the FCC moved 

forward with a conditioned auction that, as I predicted, resulted in no bidders showing up. 

The D Block now sits fallow and valuable spectrum goes unused while we face 

a looming spectrum crunch. I look forward to hearing the testimonies of our witnesses as we explore the best and most cost-efficient way to utilize the D Block and 

build an interoperable public safety network. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. I would also like 

to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses this morning. Thank you for appearing 

before the Committee to give testimony and answer our questions. 

The problems with constructing a national interoperable public safety network are 

not new. The debate about whether it is better to reallocate or auction the D Block 

also has become alarmingly long in the tooth. In brief, we have made precious little 

progress since 9/11 in improving the resources available to first responders. 

I intend to use this morning’s hearing to productive ends. I will ask our witnesses 

questions about reallocating the D Block and how to guarantee public safety has the 

resources with which to construct and maintain a national interoperable network. 

I also welcome our witnesses’ opinions about how to make certain cash-strapped municipalities do not face undue burden in modernizing their communications equipment and infrastructure, as well as how to strike an appropriate balance between 

broadband and broadcast media in times of emergency. 

I note that there are a number of public safety bills circulating Congress. Many 

of them would reallocate the D Block and pay—at least partially—for the construction and maintenance of a public safety network by allowing the Federal Communications Commission to conduct voluntary incentive auctions of broadcast spectrum. I am deeply suspicious of what the Commission would do with broad authority to conduct incentive auctions. As such, I will not consider granting the Commission that authority until the Commission has explained sufficiently to this Committee how it would use it. 

I look forward to a productive hearing and yield back the balance of my time. 

114 


70992.071
115 


70992.072
116 


70992.073
117 


70992.074
118 


70992.075
119 


70992.076
120 


70992.077
121 


70992.078
122 


70992.079
123 


70992.080
124 


70992.081
125 


70992.082
126 


70992.083
127 


70992.084
128 


70992.085
129 


70992.086
130 


70992.087
131 


70992.088
132 


70992.089
133 


70992.090
134 


70992.091
135 


70992.092
136 


70992.093
137 


70992.094
138 


70992.095
139 


70992.096
140 


70992.097
141 


70992.098
142 


70992.099
143 


70992.100
144 


70992.101
145 


70992.102
146 


70992.103
147 


70992.104
148 


70992.105
149 


70992.106
150 


70992.107
151 


70992.108
152 


70992.109
153 


70992.110
154 


70992.111
155 


70992.112
156 


70992.113
157 


70992.114
158 


70992.115
159 


70992.116
160 


70992.117
161 


70992.118
162 


70992.119
163 


70992.120
164 


70992.121
165 


70992.122
166 


70992.123
167 


70992.124
168 


70992.125
169 


70992.126
170 


70992.127
171 


70992.128
172 


70992.129
173 


70992.130
174 


70992.131
175 


70992.132
176 


70992.133
177 


70992.134
178 


70992.135
179 


70992.136
180 


70992.137
181 


70992.138
182 


70992.139
183 


70992.140
184 


70992.141
185 


70992.142
186 


70992.143
187 


70992.144
188 


70992.145
189 


70992.146
190 


70992.147
191 


70992.148
192 


70992.149
193 


70992.150
194 


70992.151
195 


70992.152
196 


70992.153
197 


70992.154
198 


70992.155
199 


70992.156
200 


70992.157
201 


70992.158
202 


70992.159
203 


70992.160
204 


70992.161
205 


70992.162
206 


70992.163
207 


70992.164
208 

Æ 


70992.165