U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

99–943 2016

STATUS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND 

NETWORK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 2, 2016 

Serial No. 114–112 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

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

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES

T.J. Kennedy, President, First Responder Network Authority ............................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 57 

David Furth, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission ............................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 61 

(1) 

STATUS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND 

NETWORK 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Barton, 

Shimkus, Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Bilirakis, Johnson, 

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

Clarke, DeGette, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor for Communications and Technology; Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; 

Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Gene Fullano, Detailee, 

Telecom; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Professional Staff, Communications and Technology; Gregory Watson, 

Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology; Christine 

Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications 

and Technology; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, 

Minority FCC Detailee; and Ryan Skukowski, Minority Policy Analyst. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. We will call to order the subcommittee on Communications and Technology for our hearing on Status of the Public 

Safety Broadband Network. 

This morning we convene to examine the progress in the deployment of the nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, a mandate given to FirstNet by the Congress in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and for which FirstNet was created. 

With the January 13th release of the request for proposal to 

award a contract for the deployment and operation of the network, 

FirstNet has achieved its most crucial milestone to date and within 

the time frame promised by Chairman Sue Swenson. I commend 

Ms. Swenson, the FirstNet board, and the staff of FirstNet for 

reaching this milestone, especially given the time lost in FirstNet’s 

early days when controversy hobbled its efforts. 

2 

If FirstNet is able to stay the course to the timeline it has established for the RFP process, proposals will be due just one year after 

the United States Government Accountability Office released its report on FirstNet’s progress in establishing the network. In that 

GAO report they observed that FirstNet faces a multitude of risks, 

significant challenges and difficult decisions in meeting its statutory responsibilities, including how to become a self-funding entity. 

Today’s discussion with FirstNet will give us the chance to gain 

a better understanding of the RFP, what it means for our nation’s 

first responders, and FirstNet’s thoughts on how it envisions its future. To that end, we have begun to hear concerns from parties 

that are candidates to build FirstNet’s network. 

Some have expressed concern with FirstNet’s attempts to establish a private-public partnership for the deployment and operation 

of the network through a single contract that covers all the states 

and territories rather than a ‘‘network of networks’’ approach. 

FirstNet is asking one company to take on the obligations nationwide. This approach could make it tougher for small and regional 

companies to participate in FirstNet without partnering with one 

of the nationwide carriers. 

Others are concerned that FirstNet’s RFP asks the winning bidder to take on the obligation to serve the needs of public safety, but 

does not provide an economic incentive to do so. In broad strokes, 

the RFP takes the approach that rather than FirstNet paying for 

the contractor’s services, wireless providers will come to play in exchange for access to FirstNet’s spectrum and the ability to charge 

public safety users subscription fees. The RFP also envisions grants of up to $6.5 billion in funding to 

support the build-out and operation of the network, but requires repayment of nearly 85 percent of that money in the form of sustainability payments to FirstNet. In short, it appears FirstNet is asking a wireless provider to take on the obligation of building a network to public safety specifications in exchange for a monopoly on 

public safety users and a zero interest loan. 

Others still have expressed concerns that this seems to be a rehash of the failed approach of the FCC’s 2007 700 megahertz D 

block auction. Then, the FCC asked the wireless industry to pay $2 

billion for a nationwide license that would come with an obligation 

to negotiate with, and serve the needs of, public safety. Even with 

the prospect of holding the D block license going forward as enticement, the wireless industry was not willing to put up the capital 

needed or build the network public safety was demanding. 

Nine years later, FirstNet is asking wireless providers to take 

similar terms without the enticement of a license. I hope that these 

concerns are misplaced, but there is a small but growing chorus 

asking why FirstNet believes that this time it will be different. 

The legislation that created FirstNet was not my preferred approach. I favored construction from the bottom up, not the top 

down. And while I take some comfort that FirstNet has chosen a 

public-private partnership as the vehicle to deploy the network, the 

concerns we are hearing are valid. But for better or worse, the RFP 

is in the field. The die is cast. Whether a business case can be 

made for what FirstNet is asking will be better understood in April 

when responses are due and proposals are submitted. 

3 

So today is an opportunity for FirstNet to answer some of these 

questions, maybe assuage some of the fears, and to inform the committee of what the RFP means for the deployment of a public safety broadband network that reaches all corners of the United States, 

urban and rural. 

Finally, we will also hear from the FCC. The FCC plays a critical 

role in the state ‘‘opt out’’ provisions of the statute as it is charged 

with reviewing and approving a state’s plan to deploy its own radio 

network. With the RFP issued and an award in the fourth quarter 

of 2016 anticipated, states will need to understand the process in 

order to make an informed decision on whether to accept FirstNet’s 

plan or deploy on their own. 

As delay from the commission could frustrate deliberations of 

states deciding whether to opt out, I hope that when we gavel out 

today we will do so with an understanding of when the FCC will 

satisfy this statutory duty. I now recognize the vice chair of the 

subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

This morning we convene to examine the progress in the deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network. A mandate given to FirstNet by Congress 

in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and for which FirstNet 

was created. 

With the January 13th release of the Request For Proposal to award a contract 

for the deployment and operation of the network, FirstNet has achieved its most 

crucial milestone to date, and within the timeframe promised by Chairman Sue 

Swenson. I commend Ms. Swenson, the FirstNet Board and the staff of FirstNet for 

reaching this milestone—especially given the time lost in FirstNet’s early days when 

controversy hobbled its efforts. 

If FirstNet is able to stay the course to the timeline it has established for the RFP 

process, proposals will be due just one year after the United States Government Accountability Office released its report on FirstNet’s progress in establishing the network. In that report GAO observed that ‘‘FirstNet faces a multitude of risks, significant challenges, and difficult decisions in meeting its statutory responsibilities, including how to become a self-funding entity.’’ 

Today’s discussion with FirstNet will give us the chance to gain a better understanding of the RFP, what it means for our nations’ first responders, and FirstNet’s 

thoughts on how it envisions its future. To that end, we have begun to hear concerns from parties that are candidates to build FirstNet’s network. 

Some have expressed concern with FirstNet’s attempt to establish a private-public 

partnership for the deployment and operation of the network through a single contract that covers all the states and territories. Rather than a ‘‘network of networks’’ 

approach, FirstNet is asking one company to take on the obligations nationwide. 

This approach could make it tougher for small and regional companies to participate 

in FirstNet without partnering with one of the nationwide carriers. 

Others are concerned that FirstNet’s RFP asks the winning bidder to take on the 

obligation to serve the needs of public safety, but doesn’t provide an economic incentive to do so. In broad strokes, the RFP take the approach that rather than FirstNet 

paying for the contractor’s services, wireless providers will come to play in exchange 

for access to FirstNet’s spectrum and the ability to charge public safety users subscription fees. The RFP also envisions grants of up to $6.5 billion in funding to support the build-out and operation of the network, but requires repayment of nearly 

85 percent of that money in the form of ‘‘sustainability payments’’ to FirstNet. In 

short, it appears FirstNet is asking a wireless provider to take on the obligation of 

building a network to public safety specifications in exchange for a monopoly on 

public safety users and a zero interest loan. 

Others still have expressed concerns that this seems to be a rehash of the failed 

approach of the FCC’s 2007 700 MHz D block auction. Then, the FCC asked the 

wireless industry to pay $2 billion for a nationwide license that would come with 

an obligation to negotiate with, and serve the needs of, public safety. Even with the 

prospect of holding the D block license going forward as enticement, the wireless 

4 

industry was not willing to put up the capital needed or build the network public 

safety was demanding. Nine years later, FirstNet is asking wireless providers to 

take similar terms without the enticement of the license. I hope that these concerns 

are misplaced, but there is a small but growing chorus asking why FirstNet believes 

that this time will be different. 

The legislation that created FirstNet was not my preferred approach. I favored 

construction from the bottom up, not the top down. And while I take some comfort 

that FirstNet has chosen a public-private partnership as the vehicle to deploy the 

network, the concerns we are hearing are valid. 

But for better or worse, the RFP is in the field. The die is cast. Whether a business case can be made for what FirstNet is asking will be better understood in April 

when responses are due and proposals submitted. Today is an opportunity for 

FirstNet to answer some questions, maybe assuage some fears, and to inform the 

committee of what the RFP means for the deployment of a public safety broadband 

network that reaches all corners of the United States, urban and rural. 

Finally, we will also hear from the FCC. The FCC plays a critical role in the state 

‘‘opt out’’ provisions of the statute as it is charged with reviewing and approving a 

state’s plan to deploy its own radio network. With the RFP issued, and an award 

in the fourth quarter of 2016 anticipated, states will need to understand that process in order to make an informed decision on whether to accept FirstNet’s plan or 

deploy on their own. As delay from the commission could frustrate deliberations of 

states deciding whether to opt out, I hope that when we gavel out today we will 

do so with an understanding of when the FCC will satisfy this statutory duty. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

our witnesses for being here. Good to see you again. 

In 2012, Congress recognized the importance of public safety and 

emergency communications and established a nationwide public 

safety network to meet the needs of all Americans and our first responders. Since that time, this committee has long agreed that a 

reliable network is essential for first responders to facilitate their 

communication needs and support their everyday missions. 

Developing a nationwide interoperable network is a significant 

task, but if properly established would be vital to protecting the 

lives of the American people. Therefore, it is imperative that the 

implementation of FirstNet is successful. I am encouraged by the 

progress FirstNet has made since its creation, however, there are 

still many unanswered questions about the future of this network 

ranging from the inclusion of rural providers to the FCC’s review 

process of the states’ plan to build their own radio access networks. 

I hope today’s hearing will be an opportunity to learn more about 

current developments and the next steps for FirstNet. I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony today, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 

back. 

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

the gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo. 

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

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

this important hearing. It is an important time in the life of 

FirstNet and we welcome the witnesses and eager to hear from 

you. 

A few weeks ago I joined with the sheriff of Santa Cruz County 

at home to unveil the 21st Century Policing initiative which is designed to improve the public trust and safety in the communities 

that they serve. It is the first law enforcement agency in California 

5 

to adopt the White House initiative, which I think really makes it 

a stand-out agency. It was a forward-looking announcement of renewed commitment to stronger police-community relations. 

And essential to the effort, the reason I raise it, is providing law 

enforcement and public safety officials with the tools and the resources they need to do their job. And of course this includes the 

deployment of the nationwide interoperable communications network for first responders, or FirstNet. So I know that the entire 

sheriff’s department was eager to know where we are on our work, 

and they want to see it fully implemented and operational. 

So where do we stand? And I think that that is what we want 

to examine today. In California, there are more than 2,000 public 

safety agencies and over 200,000 first responders. It is no wonder 

we are called the nation state. While FirstNet is a nationwide effort, its success really depends on local consultation with communities and, I think, the states, and I want to examine that in my 

questioning. 

And so I think the success really is going to depend on the consultation that takes place with both, and I know that over the 

course of nearly three years that FirstNet has traveled the country, 

met with public safety leaders, tribes, federal agencies and the industry, last month was really was the culmination of the investment in that time where the RFP established a framework and was 

put out. 

Now ultimately we all want to see the creation of a robust and 

reliable network that is going to eliminate the tragic communication failures on 9/11, but I think that success is also going to be 

measured by whether we integrate the network with NG911 where 

we ensure device competition and utilize strong security measures. 

In 2013, California received 15.3 million calls to 911, 15.3 million 

calls, and 9.5 million were wireless. These calls were answered obviously by dedicated professionals located in 450 public safety answering points, the PSAPs across the state. So as we move to an 

NG911 environment where call takers can receive text messages, 

photos and videos, it makes sense that this information can be 

seamlessly transmitted to the first responders headed to an emergency situation. That is all part of this network. It has to be. 

I have been a long time advocate for greater device competition. 

Now late last year I wrote to the FBI urging the agency to ensure 

that they engage in a forward-looking procurement of land mobile 

radios that does not restrict competition to brand name, proprietary features and standards that can only be met by one vendor. 

This is all in the interest of the taxpayer. 

And we need to ensure that first responders are equipped with 

state-of-the-art radios, and I think that FirstNet can learn from the 

FBI’s failed acquisition of the LMR which was eventually struck 

down by the GAO last October, so there is a lot of there there to 

this. 

Finally, in order to prevent the breach of sensitive FirstNet data 

cybersecurity has to be a core focus, so I hope that you will address 

that issue in your testimony. The continuation of the unraveling of 

the OPM and the IRS and other agencies that have the massive 

security breaches should be instructive to FirstNet, because you 

6 

are going to have to utilize the most innovative security technologies available. 

And I think that in doing so it will not only lessen the chance 

of a widespread breach and prevent disruption, but there is a word 

that is so operational in this and that is ‘‘confidence,’’ confidence 

in the system by all the users. 

So I thank Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Furth for being here today. We 

look forward to asking you questions and look forward to hearing 

your testimony, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

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

the gentlelady from Tennessee for opening comments. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 

each of you for taking your time for preparing for being here and 

to work with us through this. As you know, it is not the first hearing that we have had and I am certain it will not be the last one 

that we are having. We all agree that we do need a national public 

safety network and we know that it is something that we still have 

some outstanding questions, some issues and some lack of agreement on. 

First of all, as I mentioned last June, and I am going to come 

back to this issue, looking at the redundancies and the ability for 

you to protect yourself from breaches and hackings. And we know 

that that exists. I think the possible hacking of the NASA network 

and what we have learned from that is of tremendous concern to 

us, and thereby it is of concern for what you are doing. 

When you talk about an enterprise system you have one set of 

expectations. When you talk about a closed system you are going 

to have an additional set of expectations and encryptions, and so 

let us delve into that a little bit as we approach this issue. Second 

thing, and the chairman has mentioned this, the opt-out process 

and the ability for states to control some of that. I think we have 

got to go in and look at that just a little bit. 

So we will discuss those further, and Mr. Chairman, I will yield 

the balance of my time back to you so we can move forward to their 

testimony. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her 

time. We recognize the ranking member of the full committee now, 

the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our ranking member, for holding this hearing, and thanks to Mr. Furth for being 

here, and welcome back, Mr. Kennedy. 

It was not many months ago that FirstNet was here to testify, 

but at the pace that FirstNet is moving a few months can be a lifetime. Since our last hearing in June, FirstNet has released its 

much anticipated request for proposal, and while government procurements do not usually keep people sitting on the edge of their 

7 

seats this one is a big deal because it contains a road map to the 

future of communications for first responders. 

Back in New Jersey we know from experience how important it 

is that we complete this road map quickly. After we were struck 

by Hurricane Sandy, I heard from first responders about their difficulty communicating. I heard time and again how their radios 

were not interoperable, public safety officials from different communities could not coordinate because their radios could not talk 

to each other, and first responders could not call for help when 

they needed it. So this past September I hosted a forum in my congressional district with local officials and industry leaders to see 

the progress that has been made, and Mr. Kennedy joined us and 

provided valuable feedback. Thank you, T.J. 

Together we took a critical look at what worked and what did not 

work during the storm. We learned a lot. I incorporated many of 

these lessons into the Sandy Act that I recently introduced, and we 

also heard once again that interoperability was a big challenge. 

But this is why FirstNet is so important. FirstNet will help ensure that first responders across the country have the best, the 

most rugged communications equipment, and it will also make sure 

first responders can hear each other when they call for help. 

In New Jersey we are already seeing the fruits of this labor. We 

are the home to one of FirstNet’s five early builder projects, ours 

is called JerseyNet, and these projects are already showing how 

this network can benefit first responders. I had the opportunity to 

see this equipment for myself at the forum and it is impressive and 

it will save lives. 

I am happy to say that JerseyNet was up and running when we 

were hit by the recent snowstorm that crippled the east coast last 

month. As large and devastating storms become more frequent because of climate change, we need FirstNet at full force across the 

country as soon as possible. 

So thanks again to our witnesses, and I yield the balance of my 

time to Mr. Doyle. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo for holding this hearing today. And thanks to Mr. Furth for being here. I’d also like to welcome back 

Mr. Kennedy. 

It was not many months ago that FirstNet was here to testify. But at the pace 

that FirstNet is moving, a few months can be a lifetime. Since our last hearing in 

June, FirstNet has released its much anticipated Request for Proposal. And while 

government procurements do not usually keep people sitting on the edge of their 

seats, this one is a big deal. Because it contains the roadmap to the future of communications for first responders. 

Back in New Jersey, we know from experience how important it is that we complete this roadmap quickly. After we were struck by Hurricane Sandy, I heard from 

first responders about their difficulty communicating. I heard time and again how 

their radios were not interoperable—public safety officials from different communities could not coordinate because their radios could not talk to each other. First 

responders could not call for help when they needed it. 

So this past September I hosted a forum with local officials and industry leaders 

to see the progress that has been made. Mr. Kennedy also joined us and provided 

valuable feedback—thank you T.J. Together, we took a critical look at what worked 

and what did not work during the storm. We learned a lot. I incorporated many of 

those lessons into the SANDy Act that I recently introduced. We also heard once 

again that interoperability was a big challenge. 

8 

But this is why FirstNet is so important. FirstNet will help ensure that first responders across the country have the best, most rugged, communications equipment. 

And it will also make sure first responders can hear each other when they call for 

help. 

In New Jersey we are already seeing the fruits of this labor. We are the home 

to one of FirstNet’s five Early Builder Projects—ours is called JerseyNet. These 

projects are already showing how this network can benefit first responders. I had 

the opportunity to see this equipment for myself at the forum. It is impressive and 

it will save lives. 

I am happy to say that JerseyNet was up and running when we were hit by the 

recent snowstorm that crippled the East Coast last month. As large and devastating 

storms become more frequent because of climate change, we need FirstNet at full 

force across the country as soon as possible. 

So thank you once again to our witnesses. And with that, I yield the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. DOYLE. I want to thank Mr. Pallone for yielding to me, and 

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

glad that we are continuing our oversight of FirstNet. This year 

marks the 15th anniversary of the attacks on 9/11, and that terrible day is a constant reminder of why we need to make sure that 

FirstNet is successful. 

I am very disappointed that it has taken this long for us to address our first responders’ pressing need for upgraded and interoperable communications system. FirstNet will play an integral 

role in bringing our first responders into the twenty-first century, 

giving them access to high speed data, apps and a competitive market for devices. 

Everywhere in our economy we see how these advances have 

been leveraged for unprecedented improvements in coordination 

and communication. From Uber and Lyft to Waze and Twitter, 

smartphones are enabling unparalleled innovation at an unparalleled pace. My hope is that FirstNet will bring these same benefits 

to first responders and that the results will be a safer country for 

both our citizens and first responders alike. Thank you, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlemen yields back the balance of his time, 

and now we will go to our distinguished panel of witnesses. We appreciate you both being here today and the good work that you are 

doing out there for our first responders and trying to make all this 

work. 

So we will start with Mr. T.J. Kennedy who is the president of 

First Responder Network Authority. Good morning. Welcome back 

and we are glad to have you here. 

STATEMENTS OF T.J. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT, FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY; AND, DAVID FURTH, DEPUTY CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF T.J. KENNEDY 

Mr. KENNEDY. Good morning. Thank you. Chairman Walden, 

Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the First Responder Network Authority. I welcome the opportunity to brief you on 

FirstNet’s ongoing progress in facilitating the deployment of the 

first interoperable nationwide public safety broadband network 

that will serve our nation’s first responders. It is also a pleasure 

9 

to appear here today with Deputy Director of the FCC’s Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Mr. David Furth. 

FirstNet continues to take the responsibility of creating the nationwide public safety broadband network very seriously. The 

FirstNet board and executive management team are proud to be 

leading such an experienced, diverse and hardworking team that 

understands that when it comes to public safety failure is not an 

option. They are dedicated to delivering a network that our first responders will depend on into the future. 

We have learned as we have grown, and akin to every start-up 

organization we have developed structure and procedures to improve the way that we do business. As mentioned the last time I 

was before this committee, we continue to do what we said we 

would do and remain on track in meeting our timelines. The most 

tangible example of this is the recent release of our objectives 

based RFP that ultimately will result in the selection of a partner 

or partners which will actually deploy and operate the nationwide 

public safety broadband network. 

The release of this RFP is the culmination of years of hard work 

comprising tens of thousands of working hours and more than a 

few all-nighters. It is the result of numerous RFIs, public notices 

on 64 different topics, a special notice in draft RFP documents, responding to over 650 questions from industry related to those documents, two different industry days, 55 state and territorial consultations, hundreds and hundreds of outreach events, conferences, 

meetings and public safety data input that came in from more than 

15,700 public safety entities representing around 1.7 million public 

safety individuals. 

Nowhere else in government has there been the level of interaction and coordination between and among local, state, tribal, federal, and industry stakeholders to deploy such a network. This network has not yet been deployed not because of any lack of desire 

or need, but because it is extremely complex. 

Well, today I sit before you feeling optimistic that we are on the 

cusp of a successful public-private partnership to deploy a truly 

interoperable broadband communications network for public safety, 

informed by public safety and our other state, local, tribal, and federal stakeholders. 

This input from public safety across the country is an incredibly 

important effort and we have been able to draw from it and ultimately use it to develop performance based public safety-centric 

RFP. After all, this is public safety’s network. Throughout the RFP 

process, we will select a private sector partner and together establish the nationwide network. Additionally, we will develop an open 

and competitive marketplace where public safety objectives will 

drive competition for industry to deliver equipment that public 

safety needs to fully utilize and leverage all the great innovation 

that the network will provide. 

FirstNet is dedicated to open standards for the network for applications and even the devices that run on it. Application of open 

standards policies ensures the widest opportunity for companies of 

all sizes to bring innovation and to bring new solutions and products to the market for use on the nationwide public safety 

broadband network. 

10 

Through teaming and partnership opportunities, we believe that 

industry will be able to truly develop an innovative network that 

will not only be deployed in urban areas, but also available in rural 

America which is critical as it makes up the majority of land mass 

in the United States. We believe that rural telecommunications and 

infrastructure providers will be a key component of the network in 

rural America, which is why we made teaming with such providers 

an evaluation factor in the RFP. 

FirstNet understands the critical importance of rural coverage, 

and we believe the significant effort that FirstNet has undertaken 

to engage and encourage teaming and foster inclusion of these important entities can ensure the widest possible geographic coverage 

for the network overall. 

We expect our efforts in the RFP to achieve a win-win-win for 

public safety for states and for industry, and will create a viable 

public-private partnership that will provide all of us with the best 

opportunity to move forward quickly and do something that many 

people have felt was just too hard and complicated to achieve. 

The release of this RFP along with the substantial consultation 

efforts across the nation are significant accomplishments, but we 

have an enormous amount of work ahead of us in both of our core 

areas of focus. The first being to execute and complete the procurement process, the second being our ongoing important consultation 

with public safety across the country. 

Mr. Chairman, while this is not an easy task, I and our team are 

truly dedicated to the mission that Congress has given FirstNet on 

behalf of public safety, and I am honestly excited to come to work 

every morning to work on this amazing mission. I am confident reporting to you that our board of directors and the rest of the 

FirstNet staff are equally passionate about deploying this network 

for public safety. 

FirstNet is very fortunate to have attracted a talented group, 

and I am honored to be a part of this organization as we work towards that successful deployment of the FirstNet network. I applaud the leadership and guidance of the FirstNet board. Sue 

Swenson, our board chair, and the entire board have worked tirelessly to make sure that we ensure that public safety is the key 

focus of everything we do each day. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:] 

11 


99943.001
12 


99943.002
13 


99943.003
14 


99943.004
15 


99943.005
16 


99943.006
17 


99943.007
18 


99943.008
19 


99943.009
20 


99943.010
21 


99943.011
22 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. We appreciate your good 

work and your testimony this morning. 

We now go to Mr. David Furth, the deputy chief, Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. 

Good morning and welcome. We look forward to your comments, 

sir. Is that on? Yes. It is push-to-talk technology. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FURTH 

Mr. FURTH. Oh, yes. We are going to move past that sometime. 

Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo and 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the FCC’s role in supporting 

FirstNet. 

Let me emphasize at the outset that the FCC is fully committed 

to the success of FirstNet’s mission. My testimony today will focus 

on our actions to support FirstNet and to implement the tasks that 

the act has assigned to the Commission. Since the act’s passage, we 

have taken significant and timely steps in this regard and have 

met each of the act’s deadlines to date. 

For example, one of the FCC’s first tasks was to establish the 

Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability, or 

Interoperability Board. The Commission established the board as 

directed, reviewed and approved the board’s recommendations and 

provided those recommendations to FirstNet in 2012. The Commission also took prompt action in 2012 as directed by the act to designate 22 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band for 

FirstNet’s use and issued FirstNet’s spectrum license. 

Beyond these tasks, the Commission has worked to meet its statutory obligation to take all actions necessary to facilitate FirstNet’s 

spectrum use. In 2013, the Commission adopted a Report and 

Order establishing basic technical rules for the FirstNet spectrum, 

providing regulatory certainty, and enabling prompt certification of 

equipment for the band. 

A current example of our work to facilitate FirstNet’s spectrum 

use concerns the need to relocate a limited number of public safety 

narrowband incumbents that have been operating in FirstNet’s 

portion of the band since before the Commission reorganized the 

spectrum in 2007. In October 2015, FirstNet informed the Commission that it intends to provide funding later this year to relocate 

these incumbents and requested that we condition the incumbent 

licenses to require their relocation from the FirstNet spectrum by 

mid-2017. 

We have sought public comment on this proposal and are currently considering those comments. We recognize that a prompt 

resolution of this issue will promote certainty for all interested parties. 

Another important responsibility that the Act assigns to the 

Commission is the initial review of state opt-out requests. Section 

6302(e) of the act—and let me pause here. My written testimony 

inadvertently had a typo. It should read 6302(e) not 6502(e). Section 6302(e) of the act provides that upon completion by FirstNet 

of the RFP process, FirstNet shall provide each state governor with 

a proposed plan for build-out of the radio access network, or RAN, 

23 

in that state. Within 90 days of receiving FirstNet’s proposed state 

plan, each governor must elect whether to accept the FirstNet proposal or to opt out. 

A state that opts out will then have 180 days to develop an alternative plan and submit it to the Commission. For any opt-out state, 

the act directs the Commission to apply a two-prong test in determining whether to approve or disapprove the alternative state 

plan. The act specifies that an alternative state plan must demonstrate, one, compliance with the minimum technical interoperability requirements developed by the Interoperability Board, and 

two, interoperability with the FirstNet network. 

We recognize the need to provide states and FirstNet with clear 

and timely guidance on the process that the Commission will use 

to receive, review and approve or disapprove alternative state plans 

as required by the act. Our goal is to have the details of this process finalized and in place in advance of the date that FirstNet delivers its proposed state plans to each of the state governors, which 

FirstNet estimates will occur in the second quarter of 2017. 

To that end and consistent with FirstNet’s anticipated timeline, 

we intend to seek public comment in the near term on how to 

structure the process to ensure that the Commission fully carries 

out its statutory obligation. Beyond these specific examples we 

have been and will continue to be in regular contact with our 

FirstNet counterparts to consult and coordinate on issues as needed. 

We have also been working with a number of stakeholders including FirstNet to help transition the nation’s 911 call center to 

Next Generation 911, so that NG911 and FirstNet can complement 

one another as integrated components of an end-to-end public safety broadband ecosystem. While this transition is still in its early 

stages, planning from the start is critical to achieving these 

synergies and benefits. 

In conclusion, we are committed to working with FirstNet as well 

as with our other federal, state, local and tribal partners to achieve 

Congress’s vision for a nationwide public safety broadband network. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to any 

questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Furth follows:] 

24 


99943.012
25 


99943.013
26 


99943.014
27 


99943.015
28 


99943.016
29 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Furth. We appreciate 

the FCC’s role in all of this as well. 

Mr. Kennedy, I will start off with the questions. The states are 

permitted to opt out and build their own radio access networks. 

Could you just very briefly explain how the statute treats revenue 

generated by an opt-out state on the state opt-out network? 

Mr. KENNEDY. When it comes to state opt-out networks, they 

have the ability to leverage the spectrum as part of the covered 

leasing agreement that was laid out in the act itself. And for each 

state, what they have the ability to do is to make sure that they 

can cover the cost of the radio access network as per the state plan. 

As part of our legal interpretations leading up to the RFP itself, 

we tried to make sure we added clarity to this. And one of the 

things that we have laid out is that there is additional revenue 

above and beyond what it costs to deploy the state plan in that 

state that will have to come back into the network. It will not be 

able to be kept in the state beyond what is required to deploy the 

radio access network. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. One of the most critical requirements of 

FirstNet is that it is nationwide in scope. My district is extremely 

rural. How does the RFP address the statutory requirement that 

the network cover rural America, and how do you envision the 

service being provided in the rural areas? 

Mr. KENNEDY. So a couple of things that we did on rural is we 

wanted to ensure that rural is part of each phase of build-out for 

the network. One of the things we heard during consultation is 

that in rural areas a lot of times they are left until the very end. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So as part of that we have put out in our draft 

RFP and in our final RFP that we expect rural milestones to be 

met at each phase of build-out. Because of the great feedback we 

received we actually increased that, and so actually by the end of 

phase 3 we are looking for 80 percent of those milestones to actually be met in rural America. So we believe we have taken that 

input from states and really tried to leverage the fact that we want 

that rural build-out during the entire build-out of the network. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. And central to the value proposition underlying your proposal is the ability of the contractor to monetize 

excess network capacity. I recall during the debate in the subcommittee over reallocation of the D Block that public safety’s position at that time was that it needed all 20 megahertz for public 

safety services. 

Despite the growth of the use of high bandwidth services by public safety, how do you conclude that there is so much excess capacity available now that it will generate sufficient revenue to entice 

wireless providers to build your network? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Twenty megahertz of a 700 megahertz spectrum 

is an extremely large swath and as you well know is quite valuable 

in the wireless industry here today. Just like Congressman Doyle 

mentioned during his opening statement, during big emergencies 

like 9/11, certainly leveraging all 20 megahertz of that spectrum to 

be able to handle all the police officers, firefighters, paramedics and 

the EMTs that are responding to a massive incident could certainly 

leverage every single bit of that. 

30 

But in most areas we really want to make sure that also we have 

a network that is built to the coverage and capacity to handle those 

huge emergencies and to do that that network has to be built to 

a significant size. As part of that the ongoing costs of operating 

that larger network are going to be more expensive, but we do believe that there will be a large swath of that spectrum available in 

the excess capacity on that radiating network to actually generate 

significant cash to both deploy and operate the network for public 

safety in a cost effective manner. 

Mr. WALDEN. Now the licenses have to be reauthorized every ten 

years or you have to come back, but your RFP calls for the contractors to put out a 25-year plan. Can you tell me how those two interact? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. As you well know in understanding the way 

the FCC works, every ten years those licenses have a certain number of rules to really be reallocated and re-upped every 10 years. 

We believe that a successful offerer who deploys on the schedule 

that we laid forward will certainly be meeting those particular requirements of the FCC for future renewals. 

Also on the 25-year time frame, we really wanted to make sure 

that we had a return on investment and certainty for the offerer. 

If we look at the wireless industry over the last 25 years, it has 

gone from 1G to 4G LTE where we are today and it is really the 

overall history of wireless in America. So the next 25 years will 

bring a lot of innovation and a lot of changes, but we also wanted 

to ensure that public safety has this network for the long haul. 

Mr. WALDEN. In one of our first oversight hearings, a witness 

from the Commonwealth of Virginia discussed the budgetary challenges faced by state public safety entities across the U.S. He 

pointed out that because of these constraints only a subset of first 

responders currently enjoy cell service, and noted that if FirstNet’s 

vision was premised on all first responders in the state having 

service there simply isn’t enough funding to achieve this level of 

penetration. I would think this fiscal challenge is especially problematic with volunteer firefighting services which are particularly 

prevalent in rural areas. 

Is FirstNet envisioning volunteer firefighters nationwide using 

FirstNet, and what level of penetration do you anticipate and how 

does that factor into your economic analysis? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We absolutely believe that volunteer firefighters, 

and for that matter volunteer EMS and other public safety professionals, will be on the network. We believe that they are excited 

to be able to leverage it going forward. Many of them today carry 

personal cell phones and other devices, but don’t have the ability 

to communicate with other public safety professionals. We have ensured every step of the way that FirstNet has built into our network policies and procedures so far that volunteers will always 

have access and have the same kind of access as their professional 

brother in the public safety. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, I think their issue is just affordability of what 

that will be, and it is an unknown right now, right? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is an unknown, but we also think it will be very 

competitive with the commercial services that are out there today 

and that we think that public safety having the volunteer ability 

31 

to get lower priced devices will also be something that will allow 

them to get access to it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. I turn now to the gentlelady from California. 

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

Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Furth for your testimony. I like hearing, Mr. 

Kennedy, that you can’t wait to get to work in the morning. That 

is a pretty good sign to be excited about what you are doing. 

I want to go back to some of the issues that I raised in my opening statement. Of course the 911 centers are a central part of 

FirstNet’s ecosystem and they are the nerve centers. And so I have 

four questions. I would like you to tell the subcommittee what 

steps you are taking to ensure that there will be full integration 

with the 911 centers and the benefits that come from that. 

To Mr. Furth, I would like you to address the issue of 

cybersecurity, because there is, I think it is part of the task force’s 

responsibility—I think I am correct on that—and how you are addressing that. My third question, and I think it would go back to 

Mr. Kennedy, is the whole issue of competition and how that is actually going to be addressed. And I think that is three. I can’t remember the fourth. 

Well, I think the security of the data that FirstNet is going to 

handle, it is not only public safety’s information but it is also citizen information at the same time, and the other issue I want to 

raise is the role of the states. I am getting some feedback that it 

is kind of all or nothing at all; that FirstNet controls all of the dollars. Where is the incentive with the states? 

This is delicate. I am a believer in you have a relationship that 

isn’t all that it should be in the beginning and then there is another layer that is added to it and another layer that is added to 

it and that can have an effect on the overall system. We are the 

United States. We have 50 states, and each state has different 

needs. And the chairman raised it, some issues about it. 

I think you need to unpack for the committee members exactly 

how it is going to work with the states. You control all the money. 

Are there any incentives that you offered to the states as you built 

this out with each one? And the whole issue of rural and urban is 

really very, very important, because the RFP has gone out to all 

of the major outfits and yet in broadband and in their own services 

they have trouble getting services to rural areas in our country. 

So is it all of a sudden because it is FirstNet that all of that goes 

away and all is going to be well? So if you could, between the two 

of you, comment on those four issues. Most of them are yours, Mr. 

Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I will take the first one and then I will defer to 

David on the second. So on integration with Next Generation 911, 

we have an amazing relationship and have been reaching out to all 

of the 911 associations such as APCO who is here in the room 

today, NENA, and other key associations that support the need of 

our dispatch communities around the country. 

Currently, what they do in 911 today and the ones who are already progressing to Next Gen 911 are very eager to make sure 

32 

that they have the ability to take videos, texts and other things 

that will be coming in from citizens and to share that across 

FirstNet with public safety. 

What is great about FirstNet being a data network is we will 

have the ability to take a video, to take a photo and make sure that 

that is put in the hands of police officers and firefighters in the 

field, and also from the field that we will have the ability to share 

with dispatch, to share with other public safety officials key data 

coming out of the field. 

Ms. ESHOO. But let me just interrupt. That is a wonderful description of exactly what many do right now, but we want to make 

sure everyone does that and that they have the equipment and the 

standards. What, FirstNet sets those standards, and where is the 

competition with the devices? I think there are many things that 

are woven into each one of these portions of the overall net. 

Mr. KENNEDY. There are. There is a number of elements. I am 

going to take the last element you mentioned on competition of devices. This is something squarely in FirstNet’s camp. We have really been driving the open standards. We have been driving it at an 

international level, making sure that we follow 3GPP and the open 

international standards. 

We have also been driving in different committees all of the 

things that need to be done to make sure that we have competition 

and that we have multiple devices that will be available from multiple sources that will have band 14 and spectrum available in 

those devices to be able to operate and to give low cost in different 

options across the board of both commercial devices and hardened 

public safety devices. So we have very much been only trying to 

drive that going forward. 

When it comes to your first question of the different standards 

on Next Gen 911, there is still more work to be done there. At the 

same point, we are working very closely with our 911 partners to 

make sure that all of the intersections of where 911 is going to 

intersect with FirstNet that that integration is built into what we 

do with the FirstNet network. And we are also leveraging our labs 

at PSCR in Boulder, our Public Safety Communication Research 

Labs, to make sure that we are looking at the different elements 

of 911 and where the intersections with FirstNet will occur. 

Ms. ESHOO. What about the states? 

Mr. KENNEDY. When it comes to the states, one of the things that 

we have done and we have learned to your point that multilayered 

approach, is we have gone out and met on consultations. We have 

realized that there are multiple layers of how we need to interact 

with states and interact with locals, through the state and along 

with the state, to make sure that they have lots of opportunity to 

your point local control. 

We have actually brought in our Public Safety Advisory Committee, the PSAC, which makes up 42 different state and local and 

public safety associations, to take on this exact issue of local control and to work with different associations across the country and 

come back with advice for FirstNet on how best to address the local 

control issue and meet the needs of each state. 

I want to defer to David on the cyber question. 

33 

Mr. FURTH. If we have time. I know I can answer it, but I will 

defer to you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Why don’t you go very quickly because I know it 

is a concern of other members on the committee. 

Mr. FURTH. If I could just very briefly address the cybersecurity 

question that you asked. You mentioned the task force that the 

FCC convened. We convened a task force about a year ago on PSAP 

optimization in the NG911 environment, and one of the working 

groups in that task force was specifically assigned to look at 

cybersecurity for PSAPs. We recognize that this a critical issue and 

we are concerned that many PSAPs particularly smaller ones 

around the country are not adequately prepared. 

That task force has just come back to us as of last week with a 

series of very detailed recommendations on how to move forward 

with cybersecurity for PSAPs in the NG world, and we are going 

to be working with FirstNet to make sure that those recommendations sync up with what FirstNet is doing so that both ends of the 

communications chain are secure from cyber attack. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, thank you. We will now turn to the 

gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 

Ms. Eshoo bringing up the cyber issue. She has focused on this repeatedly, and I want to pick up right there and kind of go to the 

next part of this question on cyber. 

We will start there, Mr. Kennedy, with you, and look at 

FirstNet’s system design and talk a little bit about where you are 

in that system design, just not the recommendations that you have 

just said you all now have a set of recommendations, but I want 

to know where you are and then kind of what you see as a timeline 

on this. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So, a couple of things. We actually have put out 

a public notice in some key RFI documents related to cyber. We received comments back from industry and from states and public 

safety this past fall. We have incorporated those into our final section in the RFP on cybersecurity. As part of that we have always 

envisioned that we are building in security from day one. We are 

not just tacking it on at the end. We also want to leverage the best 

practices from the private sector as well as within government to 

make sure that we are taking more—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, let us stop right there—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [continuing]. Because government networks, obviously, OPM breach, NASA, they are not secure. And whether it 

is an encryption issue, whatever, we know that there are some gaping holes, if you will, that are there. So I don’t think that is the 

standard that we want to hold up, so I will yield my time back to 

you to continue. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So on that front we are really looking for industry 

as part of the responses to this RFP to bring forward private sector 

best practices as part of their solution that will be judged against 

our standards that we have put forward in Section J of the RFP 

to be able to make sure that they meet the highest standards that 

public safety will need to meet, and make sure that we ensure the 

security of all the data related to emergency medical services, law 

34 

enforcement, and the fact that we are going to have all this data 

operating across the FirstNet network. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. We are going to be watching that very 

closely. We fully understand and appreciate the need for the data 

security. We also understand that you have data transfer that 

needs to be considered. All of these things are going to have to be 

taken one at a time. We appreciate that and we just work forward 

to working with you on it. 

Mr. Furth, I want to come back to you on this opt-out process. 

You talked about that in your testimony a little bit. In 2013, in response to a question for the record, the Public Safety Bureau stated, and I am going to quote, ‘‘the Commission will coordinate closely with FirstNet to ensure that the review process by the FCC of 

state alternative plans is conducted in a timely manner, consistent 

with FirstNet’s deployment plans and associated time frames.’’ 

OK, so here we are in 2016 and it sounds like you are going to 

do a rulemaking to establish a process; is that correct? 

Mr. FURTH. That is correct. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Now looking at timelines again, how long 

do these rulemakings generally take with the FCC, and do you 

think there is any validity to the concerns that many people have 

that the FCC is slow-walking, intentionally slow-walking this process in order to frustrate some of the state opt-outs? 

Mr. FURTH. Thank you for the question. We certainly have no intention to slow-walk this process. We think it is very important 

that the states, at the point where they are going to have to make 

that decision about whether to opt out, understand what the process will be that the Commission will use to review those requests. 

And we have, in fact, as we indicated in 2013, been working with 

FirstNet and consulting with them on their timeline. The critical 

point in their timeline is that they are saying at this point once the 

RFP process is completed that the state plans will be delivered to 

the states in the second quarter of 2017. 

So that is our target. We have to have our rules in place before 

then, and therefore we are not going to delay. We want to initiate 

a rulemaking in the near term to make sure that we have the flexibility that we need to get those rules done in a timely manner. 

And you asked about the speed with which the Commission conducts rulemakings. The Commission is capable of conducting rulemaking very quickly, and particularly on an issue like this we are 

really focused on one piece of the statute and the two-prong test 

that the statute gave us for how we are going to administer this 

review process of the opt-out requests. 

So our focus is going to be on that statute and how we implement 

it, and that is why we intend in the near term to get public comment so that we can reach a timely conclusion on that in time for 

the process that FirstNet will undertake in 2017. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Just bear in mind, to us it seems like it 

is taking you a mighty long time to get around to doing it. 

Mr. FURTH. Well, I would actually suggest that this is the right 

time to do it because now we have the RFP. It would have been 

difficult, I think, to initiate this rulemaking before the RFP had 

been released by FirstNet, because that is one of the things that 

those who look at our proposals are going to need to make refVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:10 May 31, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-112 CHRIS
35 

erence to, and we think it will actually build a better record to put 

this rulemaking out now that the RFP has been released by 

FirstNet. So we think the timing for starting this is right. Thank 

you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, yield back. 

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

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Furth, 

welcome. We appreciate you both being here. 

In my district, the city of Pittsburgh, as well as Philadelphia and 

11 other major cities around the country, first responders will need 

to give back spectrum located in the T-band that they currently use 

for communications. What assurances can you both provide me that 

the first responders in these affected cities that are losing access 

to this band that will not affect their ability to accomplish their 

mission? Do either of you see any potential problems with this 

transition? 

Mr. FURTH. Let me take that since that provision in the statute 

is really the Commission’s responsibility to implement. And the 

statute specifically gives us a long timeline to deal with the T-band 

issue, the initial deadline to reallocate spectrum and begin the auction process, which is not the relocation process but simply the beginning of the process for setting up an auction. That deadline is 

2021, so that is still 5 years away. 

Nonetheless, we are very cognizant of the situation that T-band 

licensees are in, and at the point where we look at how to implement the statute we want to make very sure that there is no loss 

of service, no loss of continuity in whatever transition mechanism 

there is to ensure that the citizens of those 11 markets, those 11 

communities, are not left without public safety services as a result 

of that transition. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, in creating a sustainable 

funding stream for FirstNet, the private partner you choose will 

need to monetize your 20 megahertz of spectrum in band 14. First, 

how soon will the spectrum be available once FirstNet chooses a 

private partner; second, what steps has FirstNet taken toward ensuring that consumer devices will include band 14 chipsets; and finally, based on the previous examples of this type of spectrum becoming available, how long do you think it would take for devices 

and services using this band to become available? 

Mr. KENNEDY. One of the things we have laid out is an aggressive plan to work with the incumbents that are on band 14 today 

to make sure that they are moved to other narrow band public 

safety spectrum. And we have been talking to all of them. A few 

of them have already moved off proactively. All of them have been 

under notice for a number of years that this was going to happen, 

and so they are very much prepared to go there. 

We are working with them to have all that spectrum cleared before we actually get through to the state plan process, and we are 

trying to move very quickly to make sure that that happens by the 

middle of 2017. This would allow a partner to be able to have encumbered spectrum shortly after contract award and be able to deploy the network knowing that that spectrum was immediately 

available, which we think is a very important piece. 

36 

When it comes to having devices, one of the things that we have 

written into the RFP is we are asking proposers to come forward 

with an entire ecosystem of band 14 devices that they are going to 

proffer as part of their solution. And because industry itself has the 

greatest amount of size and scope that will be able to drive device 

manufacturers to include band 14 in their devices, they can actually drive a bigger ecosystem than public safety can alone. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, some of the critics of 

FirstNet have repeatedly said that only the largest wireless telecommunication companies would be capable of taking on a project 

of this size. When you were crafting the RFP what steps did you 

take to broaden the group of entities capable of partnering with 

FirstNet, and do you believe that there are entities out there other 

than the large telcos interested and able to fulfill the terms of the 

RFP? 

Mr. KENNEDY. That is a great question. One of the things we did 

through all of the different RFIs and our consultation with states 

and with industry was try to come up with a way that was driven 

by objectives, the objective for public safety in a performance-based 

acquisition. This is different than the typical 10,000 lines of specific 

requirements that we often see in government procurements. The 

reasons we did that was to drive more competition and not less. We 

wanted to have an objective-based procurement that allowed everybody to address the procurement in a different way as long as they 

were meeting all of the objectives of public safety. We believe that 

this will actually drive greater competition and not less competition 

at the end of the day. 

We also did a number of notices on different sizes and scopes, 

whether we should look at this regionally or nationally and what 

was the best approach to that. After that we went forward with a 

nationwide objective-driven RFP that we believe through teaming 

will make sure that it brings the greatest amount of opportunity 

to the table for the different offerers that come together. 

We also believe that there are other folks outside of the major 

telco providers that could bid and win this opportunity and we believe there is interest out there. We believe that there are multiple 

ways that folks could come forward with the different assets that 

have been put forward in this partnership that could actually make 

this work in a way that will be very beneficial to public safety. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. I see I just have one second. With regards to the opt-out issue do you have any thoughts on how many 

states you think will opt out? 

Mr. FURTH. No. We will be prepared for any contingency in terms 

of the number of states that opt out. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are welcome. We will now go to the former 

chairman of the committee, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, have you ever 

heard of a radio talk show host in Texas named John Grady Wells? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I have not. 

Mr. BARTON. You sound exactly like him. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be Googling him right after this. 

37 

Mr. BARTON. If you close your eyes it sounds like I am on the 

John Grady Wells Show or I am listening to the John Grady Wells 

Show. That was not a trick question. 

Mr. WALDEN. It is how we are helping pay for FirstNet, moonlighting. 

Mr. BARTON. He is very, very conservative. Anyway, my first 

question to you Mr. Kennedy would be, and it was just asked in 

a different way. How many states have indicated that they want 

to opt out and create their own network? 

Mr. KENNEDY. So on this question, the timing of when the optin/opt-out decision actually occurs is post our acquisition and the 

contract award and post a state getting a state plan. 

The reality is having the ability to compare how good that state 

plan meets the needs of the state is one of the key considerations 

that will need to be looked by each and every state when they look 

at this consideration for opt-in and opt-out. We also believe that it 

is going to be incumbent on those offerers who are coming forward 

to bring a very compelling offering, because they will want to bring 

in as many states as possible to make this a very successful solution for public safety and to make it so that there is less integration or risk in the overall project. 

As part of that they are going to have to have a very compelling 

offering that goes into each of these state plans, and with that we 

will then have a feeling for who would consider opt-in, who would 

consider opt-out. We do believe though that it is important that we 

have been continuing to build through our consultation, open dialogue, open relationships, open discussions about the benefits of 

opt-in, about the benefits of the FirstNet network overall, and at 

the same point preserving the rights for states to go through that 

process and to work forward. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, my guess is, and it is purely a guess, is that 

there will be a number of states. Some of them are pretty obvious— 

Alaska, Hawaii—because they are almost self-contained by geography and conditions. And then there are some that have a history 

of independence. Just out of the blue, Texas, we have our own electric grid. 

So I would assume that there will be a number and that is something that I would hope that there is some planning, because even 

if you opt out to have your own state network it certainly has to 

be interoperable within the state with everyone, and it has to be 

interoperable with the other networks and the national network. 

Has there been any interaction with Texas so far about that? I 

know that Harris County has a local network that we tried to 

make sure was acceptable. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We actually just held our most recent board meeting down in Houston. And the FirstNet team and the board visited 

the Harris County project again and had great interaction with the 

team and the significant progress that they have made on that 

early builder project and the lessons learned, both key lessons 

learned that were in the spectrum lease agreement, but also the 

unofficial lessons learned from deploying that network so far and 

the growing pains as they work through continuing to grow that 

network. 

38 

On a lot of discussions with the State of Texas who are involved 

from the SMLA perspective but also with the consultations 

throughout Texas, as you know the thousands of public safety 

agencies in Texas, a huge amount of key constituents for Texas to 

visit with. Todd Early and his team, and Skylor Hearn from the 

Texas Department of Public Safety have been crisscrossing the 

State. They have a tremendous team. They have actually built an 

online web portal and key training for public safety responders 

throughout the state to make sure they are informing them about 

the network. 

We have been working very closely with them and even met with 

key officials in Austin to make sure that they understand both optin and opt-out and all the opportunities that will become available 

with having a public safety network for first responders in Texas. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, thank you. I guess my last question and kind of the $64 question which is hard to answer: what is your gut reaction when we will actually have FirstNet up and running? Not just 

talking about it and making significant progress and moving forward and all this, but actually have a network that is functional 

and that is usable? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is going to occur after the opt-in and opt-out decision. And after a key opt-out and opt-in decisions we will have 

the ability to move forward with deployments in states. Right now 

we are anticipating that those state plans, much of what was mentioned by David earlier today, will be occurring in mid-2017 and 

that they will be coming out after this contract award. We then 

have that 90-day period for opt-in and opt-out. 

So as early as late 2017, the network would start being deployed. 

Operations will depend on the size of a state, even the size of the 

region and so forth for how that will be deployed. In some cases 

that will take a number of years, but trying to make sure that we 

get the network up and running as quick as possible. 

Mr. BARTON. So in the reasonable future. We are not talking 10 

years, we are talking—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, no, very reasonable future. 

Mr. BARTON. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlemen, I appreciate your comments. We will 

now go to the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for questions. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I know that 

some of my questions have been asked but they haven’t been asked 

by everybody, but I am still not going to ask them. There was one 

topic I wanted to talk to you about though, and that is the topic, 

Mr. Kennedy, we talked about last year when you were here when 

we discussed NIST, which of course has facilities in Colorado. 

At that time you told the subcommittee that FirstNet had just 

started to work with NIST on a number of technical questions. I 

was wondering if you could give me an update on that work and 

let me know how that has helped inform the recent RFP. 

Mr. KENNEDY. The work being done by the Public Safety Communications Research Lab at NIST has been invaluable to 

FirstNet. We have a very close relationship, and actually our technical team is also headquartered in Boulder so that they can have 

close proximity to the NIST team. This team is working on key 

issues like priority and preemption. They have been literally testVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:10 May 31, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-112 CHRIS
39 

ing and loading networks to make sure that the priority features 

and these preemptive features that are going to be critical to this 

public safety network to always have the on-demand resources they 

need for big emergencies has come because of the tremendous work 

by PSCR. 

Another key element is looking at standards work. PSCR is part 

of all the third generation partnership project standards meetings. 

These are critical, because we need to not only build to a nationwide standard, but also to international standards to make sure 

that we keep open networks and open standards and also have a 

variety in ecosystem of devices and equipment that will be cost effective. That work is very much being driven by NIST. 

A third element really goes into cybersecurity and making sure 

that we look at the best practices and that they are also doing key 

testing. And so, tremendous amount of work being done by NIST 

and PSCR. 

Lastly, they are actually setting up right now task teams with 

our Public Safety Advisory Committee, who is going to be working 

on advising PSCR and NIST on leveraging the R&D money that is 

in our act to make sure that we look at key interfacing of LTE 

going forward and what we are doing in LMR systems and also 

making sure that we meet all the mission-critical needs for public 

safety. So it is a tremendous ongoing relationship and we couldn’t 

be more pleased with the work by the PSCR team. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thanks. I guess I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. We now turn to Mr. Latta, the vice chair of the 

subcommittee for questions. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again for 

having today’s hearing. And gentlemen, thanks very much for 

being with us today. We have had multiple hearings on this issue 

and it is very, very important. And I know that I was contacted 

early on in the process, and there is a question out there about 

making sure that the states were being heard. 

And so I think that what we are hearing today and also from 

your testimony, Mr. Kennedy, I see you stated that you received 

data from over 1,160 public safety entities representing 1.6 million 

public safety personnel from 54 states and territories and seven 

federal agencies. And that is important, because again, that is one 

of the things that the folks out there wanted to make sure that 

they were being heard as this was being put together, since it is 

vital not only to the folks back home for making sure that all their 

security needs are being taken care of, or when there is an emergency or ambulances are being called, but that is across the entire 

nation. And also it is important that as we go forward that we keep 

that up. 

And if I could, I would like to start, Mr. Kennedy, with a question. I appreciate again FirstNet’s inclusion of the partnerships 

with the rural telecom providers within the proposal evaluation criteria, thereby attempting to ensure small rural carriers are not left 

out of the FirstNet solution. And that is important to a lot of us 

because my district is very—like a lot of the people here, I have 

very, very, very rural areas in my district and a few go to urban. 

And so we want to make sure that everyone that is out there has 

that ability for those small FirstNet tests for that solution. 

40 

Can you tell me how FirstNet will define the rural telecom provider? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. The rural telecom providers actually includes all of those that are providing telecommunication services in 

rural areas. And we know that some of them do and don’t provide 

wireless service, for instance, today, others are providing key 

backhaul, and we want to make sure that they are all included as 

part of this infrastructure that has to be leveraged. 

We also believe it is important that we put some minimums in 

the RFP to help ensure that there is a good conversation that is 

going on between rural providers and others who are aggregating 

a team to bid on the nationwide network. 

Lastly, as I mentioned a little bit earlier in response to a question, we are also continuing to look at the minimums that are happening at each phase of deployment. And we have actually upped 

some of those from our initial draft RFP in the final RFP to ensure 

that rural deployment is first and foremost on folks’ minds and to 

be able to deploy quickly in the way that we have put forward in 

the RFP. The way that we think that that can best happen is 

leveraging the infrastructure that is out there today. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. You touched on it a little bit earlier, but I am 

also interested in hearing what FirstNet has to say regarding how 

you are going to manage the security on mobile devices so that 

other adjacent systems aren’t breached. Are you looking at technology solutions to ensure that mobile devices are authorized and 

that the access will be restricted? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We are. And we are also looking at really driving 

industry to be very innovative in their responses that are part of 

this. We know that identity and credentialing and access management and that human factors are often one of the weakest links 

when it comes to a network. And so understanding which device is 

tied to which first responder and also who is using it at that particular time is very critical. 

We actually set up an advisory committee within the Public Safety Advisory Committee for FirstNet to look specifically at this 

ICAM, the Identity Credentialing and Access Management. It is 

such a huge issue across major agencies today. And also making 

sure that we do it in an innovative way for public safety to still 

make sure that accessing these devices is very usable and that they 

can use it in the environment in which they operate. 

One of the unique things about public safety, firefighters, for instance, operate with heavy leather gloves and other things on, EMS 

personnel have latex gloves. And being able to interoperate and use 

devices in the harsh environment that public safety uses is critical. 

So it has to be very usable but it also has to be very secure, and 

we are looking at that all the way down to the device level. 

Mr. LATTA. When you are talking about that let us just follow up 

on the security end of it. What are you finding as you are going 

through all these meetings and with your group there? What are 

you finding? Because this is something that we talk about all the 

time, across the board here. 

When you are talking about cybersecurity how are we going to 

do that and make sure that we don’t have some kind of a massive 

41 

emergency and all of a sudden find that they are getting hacked 

or that there is a cyber attack at the exact same time? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think we are all finding that cyber is a very active process. It is not a one and done solution. We know that we 

have to build it in from the very beginning, but we also know that 

we have to have an ongoing process to deal to the evolving threat. 

And to do that we are maintaining a number of key issues as we 

talked about earlier, leveraging what is being done with NIST and 

PSCR, but also from industry. And I think it is critical that we 

really leverage what is coming out of industry, and there is more 

to be done. There is no one silver bullet. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time 

is expired and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlemen yields back. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Chair, for holding this hearing. I 

just want to say my district includes Contra Costa County, part of 

the San Francisco Bay area, and back when we had earmarks I got 

involved with interoperability efforts in that county and they were 

successful. But I have to say I was pretty surprised at how difficult 

it was, how expensive it was to get this done, so I am glad you 

have done all the work that you have been able to do. Are you able 

to learn much from those early attempts at interoperability? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, we have been. We have been very much trying to take the lessons learned on both the land mobile radio side 

of interoperability and now on the LTE side looking at both voice 

and data interoperability. Voice interoperability has been a longstanding issue. I personally have had a lot of experience in 

leveraging how do we get these disparate systems to work together. 

Our country has spent a lot of money trying to make sure that that 

occurs. 

One of the unique things about FirstNet and something that 

Congress did as part of this act is making sure that we will all be 

operating on the same spectrum and on the same key standards, 

international standards related to LTE, and I think that is really 

a huge part of making this a success. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, it is clear that consultations with the 

states is an important part of the process. Are you done with that 

phase or are you still in the consultation process? 

Mr. KENNEDY. So we have gone out as part of the consultation 

process and met with 55 states and territories so far. Many of these 

states we have had more than one engagement with and we are 

going to continue to engage in 2016 and beyond. We don’t believe 

that consultation just has a magic end to it. We believe that we 

will need to continue to consult up until state plans and then even 

during the deployment of the network. 

That consultation is going to get much more specific this year in 

that we are actually going to have consultation task teams, and we 

are also looking to have key executive meetings with each state to 

make sure that key decision makers are informed before we get to 

the state plan process. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So were the states pretty engaged and enthusiastic about this? 

42 

Mr. KENNEDY. They were very engaged. And every state has a 

different way of how they approach their different key public safety 

stakeholders, but we were amazed at the amazing turnout. Some 

states had well over 100 and 150-plus people who were engaged in 

an all day consultation session. Many of the states even involved 

neighboring states to make sure that they had good cross-communication across states. So a terrific turnout. 

And one of the great things about these state consultation efforts 

was that we learned so much about the unique differences that 

occur in each state. We learned what is very important to them. 

And they also presented use cases, and each and every state actually came out and presented use cases on major disasters that have 

either occurred in their state—take the state of Minnesota, talked 

about the I35 bridge collapse—and what kind of communications 

could have happened and occur if they would have had a 

broadband public safety network that they could have utilized during that kind of a disaster. 

That kind of real-world thought process and discussion that was 

an ongoing discussion throughout that consultation just shows you 

briefly what we had at each and every state, and really being able 

to understand how they operate to make sure that the state plan 

that we can bring forward for that state understands their unique 

needs. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So how much interest did you see from small 

businesses and carriers in this outreach process? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have seen a lot of interest from both small 

business and carriers. Many of them showed up at different consultations in different states. More importantly, huge turnouts for 

our industry days. 

When we released the RFP recently, we actually held a call with 

over 600 participants from industry, both big and small, who actually came to that call for a briefing on the RFP release. As a part 

of that process we have actually set up on our Web site and on the 

FedBizOpps Web site, which actually has the opportunity for the 

FirstNet RFP, a teaming portal so that small businesses can put 

themselves out there and their key capabilities so that they can 

help join with teams and make sure that they are being seen for 

what kinds of things they could bring to the table. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Furth, clearly one of the controversial issues is state opt-out. 

What information would be helpful for the FCC to have in order 

to do the best job in producing opt-out rules? 

Mr. FURTH. Well, primarily it will be information that relates to 

the test that is set forth in the statute. But that is one of the reasons that we feel it is important to do a rulemaking on this process, 

because that way we can seek comment from all interested parties 

to determine what is the information that we will require states to 

provide us. 

The two-prong test in the statute is simply phrased, but we need 

to make sure that we have a full understanding of what is behind 

those phrases so that states know, if they are making the choice 

whether to opt out or not, what the choices are both in terms of 

what FirstNet has presented them and what they would need to 

present to the Commission if they were to elect opt-out. 

43 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, sir. We will now turn to the gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just follow up 

a little bit with Chairman Walden on the 25-year RFP issue. It was 

8 years ago that the first iPhone rolled out. And I remember, other 

than Courtney and Darrell Issa, they were like the first adopters, 

now we have not just Apple, but Nexus, Samsung, LG, Motorola, 

HTC. Who does not have one? And I think that is the concern of 

a 25-year RFP locking folks in when the tech community can go 

crazy in a short amount of time. So I just wanted to weigh in on 

that. 

And staying on the RFP questions, we also are concerned about 

we had challenges in 2007 with the D block because—the argument 

was it was encumbered by other issues that cause it not to be valued by people who would bid. Some people are raising that concern 

with the RFP. Have you looked at that, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have. We have looked at encumberance and 

we have also looked at how this compares to other auctions both 

past and present that are occurring. The encumberance of many of 

the recent auctions, even theAWS–3 auction and others, many of 

them have some encumberance related to either military personnel 

or other agencies that are still on some of that spectrum. We also 

know that with the broadcast incentive option a certain amount of 

time, 39 months, to be able to be moved off of that and some of 

those key considerations. 

In the public safety case we are talking about 5 million to 10 million to 13 million first responders and key personnel that will be 

leveraging the network depending on really trying to make sure 

that we meet all the needs of public safety. And we know today 

that the major networks that already exist have a huge number of 

customers. We are talking about hundreds of millions of folks out 

there today. And if we look at similar spectrum, similar spectrum 

that is being leveraged by commercial carriers today, 20 megahertz 

of 700 megahertz spectrum is going to be leveraged for capacity, we 

believe, in ways that are still quite valuable and are not over encumbered to be able to get great value out of that. 

We have also done a lot of market research and a lot of discussions with industry leading up to this and we have seen great interest in that spectrum and that they think there is value there. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Let me talk about the penalty mechanism real quick. There is a penalty for failing to hit these targets. 

It is our understanding that the targets are set by the contractor. 

If that is the case, do you think that they kind of lowball the targets to make sure they meet their contractual obligations? 

Mr. KENNEDY. There is always the chance that that can occur. 

One of the things that we have tried to do is to balance the needs 

of public safety in making sure that we can ensure great adoption 

by public safety. We put public safety first and foremost in both 

these penalties and also in the objectives that are driving the RFP. 

At the same point we want to make sure that they are achievable, 

and we believe through competition and in competition in the RFP 

that different offerers will provide and have to step up to the plate 

44 

with good adoption targets that we are going to compare against 

each other, and I think that is important. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I missed the discussion a little bit on PSAPs. 

I was walking in from another hearing. But we know that one of 

the board members opined about the changing role for PSAPs. Does 

that mean that there is actually discussions by you all about 

functionalities provided by PSAPs or you all providing guidance to 

PSAPs? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I certainly think that the enhanced functionality 

of FirstNet is going to provide new and different ways of communicating for PSAPs to and from the field to police officers, firefighters and EMTs. I do believe that that is an opportunity for 911 

centers to continue to grow and leverage that new technology. 

I will defer some time to David to answer this though from the 

PSAP perceptive in the FCC. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That would be great. Thank you. 

Mr. FURTH. And in fact we have encouraged 911 authorities and 

PSAPs to get involved with the FirstNet state consultation process 

for precisely that reason that both these elements are very interconnected. And we are also very focused on our efforts with our 

PSAP task force and with some of our efforts at the Commission 

to advance Next Generation 911 in making sure that the PSAPs 

evolve in parallel with the intended deployment of the FirstNet 

network so that there will be, in fact, true interoperability all 

across. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, thank you. Because as you know, Ranking 

Member Eshoo and I, we have been really focused on the PSAPs’ 

evolution over the time and I am sure we will be looking at it closely to make sure that we are not stumbling over each other but 

were very helpful in providing the network that we are all looking 

for. 

Mr. FURTH. And if I might add, we have also—I don’t know if 

T.J. mentioned it—but they have actually hired a Next Generation 

911, a 911 specialist that will be working with us. We were going 

to have a meeting, but I think it was postponed by the snowstorm. 

But we are looking forward to starting that relationship very shortly. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. We will turn now to the gentlelady from New 

York, Ms. Clarke, for five minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 

our ranking member. Good to see you again, Mr. Kennedy. I have 

a couple of questions and it has to do with the whole opt-out piece, 

because you mentioned that this construct is geared towards a 

state opting out. 

Have you taken into consideration perhaps a part of a jurisdiction of a state, and have you also taken into consideration maybe 

a grouping of states so that there is a tri-state opt-out? And what 

would be the tipping point for a national system network if the optout provision is utilized by 50 percent of the jurisdictions in the nation, right. How have you envisioned managing cybersecurity given 

the variability of systems that can be established, and what would 

be the sort of management maintenance standards that could be 

45 

put in place to make sure that we have a standard across the board 

for robust and impenetrable network, if you will? 

Mr. KENNEDY. A number of very good questions. First off, I think 

on the opt-out question the act is fairly prescriptive on what it says 

on the opt-in/opt-out decision related to the radio access network 

portion of the network. The good news is the core network and the 

nationwide backbone of this network are nationwide, and they are 

something that everyone will need to connect into and leverage 

both the integration, the network policies that we put forward, and 

in an opt-out scenario they would work both through the FCC and 

the NITA process and FirstNet to make sure that they will be 

interoperable. And I think that that is absolutely critical to make 

sure that we have a successful network. 

As far as different sizes and scopes, the act did not anticipate either a substate or multi-state way of doing that. And so the process 

we have to go through is very much state driven by each governor 

having that opportunity to make that decision about that radio access network. 

Ms. CLARKE. So where you may have a tri-state authority that 

has the infrastructure already in place for whatever they do in 

terms of deployment of emergency, they may see it necessary to 

make sure that their interoperability is at a certain standard. 

Couldn’t they come in with an opt-out plan from a tri-state perspective? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Right now the plans are very much driven at a 

state-by-state level based upon that governor decision. We have 

seen states certainly being very open in talking to each other and 

sharing best practices and talking about future solutions. The good 

news, because we will be operating all under the same network 

policies, not only will those three states be interoperable, but all 50 

states, five territories and the District of Columbia have to be 

interoperable. So we all will be operating on the same standards. 

We will all be operating off the same core network for public safety 

users. This is a critical baseline to make sure that we maintain 

that interoperability. 

Ms. CLARKE. So it may be just a matter of utility then what type 

of instruments are being used, and that is where the vulnerabilities 

could ultimately lie when you are talking about cybersecurity. So 

what, are we looking at a standard in terms of—you are not going 

to govern what companies they decide to go with if they opt out, 

but not all companies are equal either. So how do we get to that 

floor where—because anyone who is vulnerable in the system, 

whether it is an instrument or something else, makes the entire 

system vulnerable, right? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely. And your point is valid that the weakest link is always the issue, and often we see that as even a human 

link. To your point about being impenetrable, I think most impenetrable networks are also not very useable, and so we also have to 

have both pieces of that to make sure that we are having great security and also good use for public safety needs. 

One of the things we have done is set forward a number of key 

elements within our cybersecurity part of the RFP to make sure 

that we are driving those cyber best practices. And we are really 

leveraging industry to respond to that RFP and anything that 

46 

would come in from an opt-out perspective would have to meet or 

exceed those same standards. So we believe that this is going to ensure that we have ongoing cybersecurity, and also that we have as 

part of our partner a key security operations center. Security is dynamic. It is not something that is static and doesn’t change. 

Ms. CLARKE. Absolutely. And any company that has a weak link 

within them, so, right, could be human, could make the infrastructure vulnerable. So I just want to try to look at maintenance as 

well and how we build that standard out. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields it 

back. And the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the witnesses for being here. And Mr. Furth, in your testimony you mentioned that the public notice regarding relocation of current users 

of FirstNet spectrum. When can the committee expect to see a resolution? 

Mr. FURTH. We released that public notice in November. We obtained comments from interested parties in December. FirstNet 

submitted an ex parte to us a couple of weeks ago, so we are working very actively on that again cognizant of FirstNet’s timeline because they are setting up a funding program and they have given 

us a requested date for when they would like to see the spectrum 

cleared. So with all of those elements in place I think that we can 

move forward quite quickly to reach a resolution on that. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. That sort of answered my second question. I was 

going to ask Mr. Kennedy if your timeline is, if FirstNet is able to 

move forward with the timeline that you offer. But I guess you all 

have agreed upon a date, and you are going to meet the date they 

have agreed upon? I guess that is the question. 

Mr. FURTH. I wouldn’t say we have agreed upon a date. They 

have given us a date. Their request is that the licenses be modified 

so that any incumbent could not stay on the band past July of 2017 

without FirstNet’s consent. But they have also set up a funding 

program and a relocation program consistent with that timeline. 

And as T.J. said, I think their intent is to try to move as many of 

those incumbents as they can off the band well in advance of that 

date. 

So what they are asking us to do is simply to make the necessary 

licensing changes that would commemorate the fact, licensees are 

no longer entitled to operate on the FirstNet spectrum. There is 

other spectrum in the 700 megahertz band that is available for 

them in the narrow band spectrum and so that is where they would 

be reassigned to. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. So my question was how will this timeline impact your ability to move forward, but since you are working that 

out so—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, our suggestions and requests that have been 

made to the FCC are still working through the final NPRM process, but so far we believe that we are in sync in what we have discussed with them and look forward to that happening. 

47 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Are there any other FCC proceedings or FCC actions that FirstNet needs to be resolved before you can move forward? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Not related to spectrum relocation in the 700 

megahertz band. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, thanks. And also Mr. Kennedy, this is a different topic. The crux of the RFP is the ability of the winner to 

monetize the spectrum. Can you elaborate on the quality of service, 

priority and preemptive parameters for public safety traffic on the 

network and how this is factored into your valuation of the spectrum? 

Mr. KENNEDY. For us the key quality of service parameters that 

are required by public safety to be able to operate are something 

that both our technical team in Boulder as well as the Public Safety Communications Research Lab have been testing of equipment 

for years. It is something that we consider to be table stakes for 

what must occur to be able to have public safety and commercial 

users operating on the same spectrum. 

And so having that ability to have preemption and to have priority and provide that mission critical quality of service that we are 

looking for public safety is something we are requiring of all 

offerers. Our technical team will be greatly involved in the evaluation of those proposals. It is a key thing that we have to have to 

make sure that this network will provide that priority and preemption whenever it is needed. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So you have to make sure the winner is financially 

successful. That is what its base stability to move forward is. But 

also, so how does FirstNet plan to ensure that the winning bidder 

only gains access to the market at competitive rates? I know part 

of the previous question was the winning bidder and they have to 

be financially viable to monetize the system. What about FirstNet’s 

ability to make sure they maximize financial ability? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, as far as maximizing the bids that come in 

and that we receive, we believe by having an objectives based procurement that allows innovative solutions and industry to come together with the best solutions. And through competition we believe 

that we will make sure that public safety gets the ultimate best 

deal that can come forward. Competition is by far the best thing 

that we can have to ensure that there is not value being left on 

the table that is not being leveraged by public safety to get the best 

network possible. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. And I am meeting with some of my 

public safety people today. So I know it is important in Kentucky, 

it is important everywhere, and I appreciate the work you guys are 

doing. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, 

and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair, and welcome Mr. Kennedy and 

Mr. Furth. I am from the greater Houston area. We have seen our 

fair share of natural disasters, the worst disasters in American history. For example, the worst hurricane. Galveston 1900, over 6,000 

48 

people, the low end, maybe 8,000 were killed in 24 hours. The 

worst industrial accident, Texas City 1947. A ship exploded, almost 

600 people were killed. Every firefighter except for one died trying 

to put out that fire. 

A mere tropical storm, Claudette, set the American record for 

rainfall in a 24-hour period in 1979 in the city of Alvin, Texas. 

Forty three inches of rain fell within one day. I was living 10 miles 

away from Alvin, Texas when that happened, staying up all night 

with my dad preparing for our first floor becoming the wading pool 

we never dreamed of having down below. 

But those problems we face in Texas are much different than 

problems they face in California, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania, 

for example. FirstNet must be able to adapt to those challenges, 

different challenges. It can’t fail, especially in a time of crisis. In 

Houston we say failure is not an option. 

My first question to Mr. Kennedy is, in the worst case scenario 

how should we measure failure with regard to the RFP? What is 

failure? When does it fail? How do you measure that? 

Mr. KENNEDY. As far as the network or the RFP itself? 

Mr. OLSON. RFP itself and the network. Throw them all in there. 

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. From the network perspective, and I am just 

going to go off of your explanation on being mission critical and 

public safety grade. I think it is very important that everything we 

do is trying to focus on making sure that we can meet that public 

safety grade capability. What we have done with the objectives you 

will see that public safety grade and that reliability and resiliency 

are key objectives that are part of the RFP and we will be measuring what is coming in in those RFP responses. 

Also, it is absolutely critical as we go forward that we know that 

just terrestrial networks and just hardening won’t solve every problem, so the network design is going to be looked at for what kind 

of reliability and redundancy by having capacity that will allow us 

to have ongoing network capability after a disaster hits. 

Also, we have leveraged our Public Safety Advisory Committee to 

look at public safety grade and make recommendations. Your point 

about different parts of the country, the kinds of hardening that 

they need in Florida are sometimes different than what they need 

in Texas versus Alaska, different kinds of issues. Some parts of the 

country have issues with earthquakes, other parts have issues with 

hurricanes and flooding. And so those kind of issues really demand 

a different type of network infrastructure in different parts of the 

country. 

Also, it requires other ways to reconstitute a network. There are 

some things when we look at a tornado and a direct hit that there 

is no building of a cell tower that necessarily will—— 

Mr. OLSON. Joplin, like Mr. Long’s district. Joplin, Missouri, direct hit. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Joplin is a great example of that. And so you have 

to have other things that can reconstitute a network during that 

kind of very focused disaster, and that comes down to leveraging 

deployables. Deployable networks have been something that we 

have looked at both for major events, but also for response during 

that kind of reconstitution of a network. 

49 

There are aerial platforms and other things that are now having 

the ability to bring networks to where networks have been decimated very quickly, and also having the ability like we have seen 

with the New Jersey project to be able to look at how do we have 

deployable networks after a storm like a Hurricane Sandy, and 

how can that go ahead and reconstitute a network where a network 

has been wiped out. 

So it is not just the permanent physical infrastructure, it is also 

having a network and a network operations center and that design 

built in, so that we are able to prepare for and respond to those 

emergencies in every state and have assets that could actually 

move between states when needed to make sure that they are responding to those big events. 

Mr. OLSON. You get all these RFPs, you look at them and you 

go, man, these don’t hit these targets. They are short, they are falling short, doesn’t handle the needs, it is a failure. What is Plan B? 

How do you move forward from that? Like Apollo 13, how did you 

bring those guys home? What is Plan B if there is a failure, proposed or viable, any plan for that or you just going to wing it after 

that happens? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, no. We certainly have considered that there 

can always be issues with RFPs. There could be amendments that 

are issued to deal with a deficiency or something that will not 

work. Part of the thing we are doing right now is we are waiting 

for questions to come in from potential offerers. Questions will 

often drive to make sure whether we have hit the right targets or 

whether there are things or issues that would require changes. 

We are very open to knowing that we need to be agile and be 

able to respond to what comes back, and so we have left those options open. At the same point, we are trying to move with urgency 

to make sure that this network gets built and gets in the hands 

of public safety. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the chair 

recognizes the gentleman from southeast Ohio for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to 

thank the panel for being with us today. I serve an area of the nation that struggles with network access and availability, rural Appalachia, so these are topics that are very much a concern to me. 

Mr. Kennedy, this subcommittee is working on a bill to help 

streamline access to rights of way so that communities will see 

both better broadband services and more competitors. We know the 

more competition the lower the cost, the quality goes up, we know 

how that works. Is it safe to say that the winner of the contract 

is likely to need to deploy new infrastructure to satisfy the objectives of the RFP? 

Mr. KENNEDY. First off, I encourage the efforts that you are 

doing because I think that will help both FirstNet and wireless providers nationwide to provide better broadband service to the entire 

country. I think specifically we believe that the majority of this network will be initially deployed on existing infrastructure, but there 

will be a need to fill in some holes which could mean some additional sites that have to be made. So it is a mixture, but a lot of 

it will be leveraging existing infrastructure where it already takes 

50 

place with only building when there is no existing infrastructure 

that can serve that need. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. So do you believe that streamlining access to 

rights of way could facilitate the deployment of the network especially in rural areas either directly or indirectly? Do you think that 

will help? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, great. Great. Also, Mr. Kennedy, FirstNet has 

established 16 key objectives which the offerers must meet in its 

RFP. Among the set of 16 what are some of the most important objectives FirstNet will be considering when reviewing the submitted 

proposals, and can you give us any idea as to how the winning bidder will be decided? In other words, pull back the cover and give 

us the secret formula. 

Mr. KENNEDY. As you know, with all open and competitive procurements there are rules and regulations in the evaluation thereof. And so from that I think it is really important that every offerer 

look at all 16 objectives. 

As you have mentioned, there are some objectives that we have 

talked a lot about here today, cybersecurity, looking at the public 

safety grade, looking at coverage, all those kinds of things that are 

so obvious, looking at applications and devices, but they are all important. We really want to see how each and every offerer can provide the best solution competitively across that entire gamut of the 

16 objectives. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. One of the things that we think we have done 

very well is those same 16 objectives have remained the same since 

April of 2015, and have remained virtually unchanged since September of 2014 when we put out the first 15 objectives. And it has 

given industry a lot of time to ask questions. It has given public 

safety and states a lot of time to discuss are those the right objectives and will they help meet the network that they really want to 

see? 

So we believe that we have the right 16 objectives. We believe 

that industry understands what those objectives really mean. And 

at the same point we are not telling them how to respond individually. We are telling them to do the best that they can to meet 

those objectives in a cost effective and sustainable way. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Have you communicated to the offerers any idea 

of the weighting? I mean, are any of the objectives weighted more 

than others? For example, accelerated speed to market versus financial stability, or device ecosystem versus life cycle innovation? 

Have you got any weights in there and do they know what they 

are? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. There is a specific writeup in Section M of 

the RFP under the evaluation factors, and we really drive any 

offerer to read that very carefully. It is specifically written and approved by our contracting officer which tells which elements are 

more important than other elements. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right, based on the input that you have 

received from all of the various stakeholders, have any of the objectives emerged as the main target? Is there one objective that you 

51 

are focused on more than any of the others? You have probably 

pretty much answered that. They are all 16 pretty important. 

Mr. KENNEDY. All 16 are very, very important to public safety. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. Well, thank you. And with that I 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this interesting, 

a couple things, and I am going to look for a little input here only 

because it seems like the train has already left the station here. 

But I was the county executive of Erie County back from 2008 

through 2011. The first thing I found when I came to office in New 

York State, in my county, Erie County, the largest upstate county, 

we had 22 PSAPs, 22 PSAPs in one county. Pretty much all our 

first responders are volunteer fire and the like. They were on using 

radio’s low band. We pretty much had standardized on 400 megahertz. 

And the first thing I walked into was SWN, the state wireless 

network in New York. What a debacle. I was the one that killed 

it, because they were going to move everyone from 400 to 800 

megahertz. And I met with all the first responders and they said 

we don’t have any money. Hey, we are still on low band. We are 

hanging our radios out the door as we are driving up and down 

hills. And we had moved to 400. They said, hey, show me the dollars. Where are the dollars to go from 400 to 800 if it would even 

work? 

They weren’t there so I pulled our county out, the largest upstate 

county in New York, and a month later SWN was dead in New 

York, because if Erie County at the far western part wouldn’t participate it wasn’t going to go. And I felt very good about that. 

So now here we are. It is 5, 6, 7 years later talking about 

FirstNet, and I can’t disagree with the thought process. But I 

would say again, maybe thank God we pulled out of the 800 megahertz they gave in New York because that would be obsolete. And, 

but the billions, and I do use that, weren’t there. Because again, 

New York, especially who are all volunteer fire people, 22 PSAPs 

in one county. That is the way New York is. In fact, the crazy thing 

is the land lines go to the PSAPs and the cell phones go to a centralized one. It is insanity but that is what it is. 

So I guess I just kind of ask the question. Dollars and cents matter a lot. Property taxes in New York actually pay for the volunteer 

fire companies. We have a tax cap because we are the highest 

taxed and most regulated, least business-friendly state in the nation and we keep losing people, and we are now the fourth largest 

state, no longer the first, second, or third. 

Tell me about the dollars and cents. If I am bidding on this I 

don’t know that I am going to have any customers in New York because no one has got any money. The state doesn’t have any 

money. The counties don’t have any money, so is that a concern? 

Is it a worry? Are we just charging down the road? But talk to me 

a little bit about if I am a bidder aren’t I worried about am I going 

to have any customers? 

Mr. KENNEDY. So I will answer that and then I will defer the 

PSAP question to David to follow up on that. Specifically, I do beVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:10 May 31, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-112 CHRIS
52 

lieve based upon our consultation across 55 states and territories 

over the past year that volunteer fire and volunteer emergency 

medical services are eager to leverage the FirstNet network. A couple of things in the model that we have laid forward is there is not 

capital expenditure. There is not the hundreds of millions of dollars 

to lay out for infrastructure in an opt-in scenario where that is 

being provided. The network would be provided. 

They would make an individual decision by each agency, and 

even by a volunteer firefighter as an individual, if they would like 

to buy that particular cellular service at a competitive rate that 

would allow them and enable them to have inoperable voice, video 

and data communications across their own fire department and 

also with neighboring and other agencies, both police, fire and 

EMS, and even across state lines. And having that interoperability 

is something that we have heard even from volunteers is a critical 

issue in having the ability to be able to communicate with others. 

One of the things when we go out to rural parts of the country 

we often ask: how many of you carry a cell phone today, either personal or for work? How many of you would leverage a FirstNet device if you had the ability to leverage that either paid for by your 

agency or not? And we have received a very favorable response. 

We also believe that the lower cost commercial like devices or 

hardened commercial devices that have the right case or other 

things around them will provide some very cost effective opportunities for volunteer firefighters and others to leverage in addition to 

the radio systems that they already have. We know that there has 

been a lot of investment in maintaining systems. We are a true believer that you should maintain your land mobile radio systems. 

They are key components of the public safety ecosystem. But at the 

same point we think this brings a different and new opportunity. 

And with time running out, I want to turn it over to David on 

the PSAP part of the question. 

Mr. FURTH. Well, I was struck by what you said about 22 PSAPs 

in the county, and that is something that we see around the country. There are many different arrangements in terms of how PSAPs 

are structured from state to state and county to county, and that 

is a state and a county decision. 

What we are trying to do as we all face the challenge of moving 

to Next Generation 911 is to provide a set of tools and options for 

Erie County and for every other state and county in the country 

for how to configure those PSAPs with Next Generation technology 

and with protection for cybersecurity. It makes no sense to try to 

individually defend each of those 22 PSAPs. 

Mr. COLLINS. You can’t defend them. You can’t. 

Mr. FURTH. Not only can you not afford it, even if you could, it 

wouldn’t be the most effective way to do it. So in fact, the recommendations that our task force has come up—— 

Mr. COLLINS. My time has run out, but just remember there are 

people who work in each of those 22 PSAPs. Hence, you understand the pressure of not eliminating those 22 PSAPs which I tried 

to do as county executive. 

I am going to watch this with a lot of interest. I thank you for 

your testimony, and you have also given me a reason to sit down 

with my first responders in Erie County and get some input from 

53 

them, which I have not done prior to today’s hearing. So thank you 

for bringing this up. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman’s time has expired, and the chair now 

recognizes for five minutes the gentleman from Missouri. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, when explaining the payment of funds by FirstNet, or to FirstNet by the 

contractor, you state the minimum payments reflected in the request for proposal may be higher if driven by competition, or if the 

partner wants FirstNet to take on more responsibility for key functions. Could you explain that statement? And does that mean that 

after the contract is awarded the contractor could change the terms 

of its performance, do less by paying FirstNet more? 

Mr. KENNEDY. That particular element is geared to make sure 

that competition could drive payments that are above the minimum, first of all, all by itself. Number two, we have laid out in 

the objectives what are the roles of FirstNet and what are the roles 

of the proposers that are offering the service. 

If as part of that they would like to make assumptions that 

FirstNet take on additional roles, they should calculate into the 

fact that their payment would need to be higher to cover the cost 

of that role. So at the end of the day it is sustainability of the overall network. There is not additional funding mechanisms from Congress that would pay for that in a change-order process, and there 

is also not a way to shift those responsibilities from the contractor 

to FirstNet without taking that into account when they look at 

their overall economic offering. 

Mr. LONG. So that has all been done up front before the contract 

is awarded. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Correct. 

Mr. LONG. They can’t change later. 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, the goal is to have that all as part of that 

process before award. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. How did FirstNet arrive at the 15 percent target for partnerships with rural telecommunications companies, and 

does the 15 percent refer to geographic or population coverage? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. There are actually two elements with the 

coverage versus the 15 percent of rural infrastructure providers. So 

I will go through currently in the RFP at IOC2 there would be 20 

percent of rural coverage, IOC3 60 percent, IOC4 80 percent, IOC5 

95 percent. That particular percentage is of the rural build-out 

milestones. So it is not necessarily just geographic, it is what milestones will actually be in that state plan to be very state specific 

to each part of that. 

The other element is we added, based upon consultation and the 

responses we received to the draft RFP, an additional requirement. 

There was no requirement in the draft RFP for a minimum percentage to be from rural telecom or rural infrastructure as part of 

that build-out. We added a 15 percent minimum, to your 15 percent 

question, to ensure that—— 

Mr. LONG. Fifteen percent of what though? I am still a little confused on what—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. The 15 percent is that they are leveraging 

rural infrastructure for that rural build-out versus, for instance, 

other infrastructure or commercially available infrastructure. They 

54 

are leveraging that from rural telecoms or rural infrastructure providers. 

Mr. LONG. OK. And I understand FirstNet’s excess capacity is a 

key to the financial sustainability of the network. How does 

FirstNet plan to ensure that the winning bidder only gains access 

to the spectrum at a competitive rate? FirstNet shouldn’t accept a 

lowball offering for its spectrum under any circumstances even if 

the proposals of other elements are strong, I wouldn’t think. In 

other words, for the sake of FirstNet’s financial stability and solvency, how do you plan to ensure that FirstNet fully monetizes its 

spectrum? 

Mr. KENNEDY. The absolute best way is through competition. 

And in part of having that objectives based procurement is we expect to have more competition than if it was overly specific. One 

of the other things is that we think by driving industry to be able 

to leverage how they would best deploy and leverage partners and 

bring together the best assets to deploy this overall network that 

they will have the most synergy to give public safety more of what 

they deserve in a broader network that will really give public safety the best deal. 

We believe that competition is absolutely critical to make that 

happen, and we also believe that going down a best value approach 

just looking at what is being provided as the network in addition 

to the financial side of the equation. 

Mr. LONG. So how do you plan to ensure that the winning bidder 

only gains access to the spectrum at a competitive rate, coming 

back to my original question. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So part of that is really trying to drive that we 

have multiple bidders, and we believe that the approach that we 

have taken should drive multiple bidders that will come to the 

table to compete with each other. 

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

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it very 

much. And I want to thank both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Furth for 

their testimony. 

As a former chairman of the Emergency Preparedness, Response, 

and Communications Subcommittee under Homeland Security, this 

issue I follow very closely. I have reached out to our friends at Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, or the state point of contact for FirstNet, termed FloridaNet, in our state. They are excited 

with the current direction of the working relationship between the 

state and the federal entities. 

Mr. Kennedy, first question. It seems that with the deployment 

of FirstNet and the ever-growing dependency of public safety on 

wireless broadband, the need for interference protection and remediation will increase in importance. Chairman Wheeler recently reduced the size of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau’s field presence, 

the function of the FCC that handles interference to public safety 

communications. Did the FCC or its consultants approach FirstNet 

to discuss the threat, if any, of downsized FCC field operations to 

FirstNet’s operation today as well as going forward as the network 

expands? Again, for Mr. Kennedy. 

55 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have not had recent discussions that I am 

aware of about specific changes in the size of the workforce that 

is focused on that. I will be more than happy to have—I don’t know 

if David has any follow-up. 

Mr. FURTH. I am not aware of whether there were contacts with 

FirstNet. I can certainly find out. We can check with the Enforcement Bureau. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Please do so, yes. We would like to see if there 

were any notes or many meetings, what have you, with regard to 

that. I think it is so very important. 

Mr. Kennedy, how would you ensure that the spectrum is used 

primarily for public safety and not at the expense of public safety? 

Again, please clear this up, again the unique RFP. Clear that up 

for me. Are there safeguards or mechanisms in place to guide the 

use of the spectrum? How can we ensure that the spectrum we 

have set aside is used to its fullest capability, of course, knowing 

that this 25-year relationship will evolve over time with technology 

and advancements? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We believe the incentives are aligned both for 

public safety and the offerer to build a network that is very robust 

in both coverage and in capacity. We believe that these networks 

are not static, that they will continue to add capacity over time. It 

is something we are seeing very common today with networks, is 

they want to leverage that very valuable spectrum as much as possible to continue to add capacity, sometimes in rural areas, certainly in highly populated areas. So we believe that the capacity 

needs for public safety will be met. 

We do believe that having the ability to have priority and preemption across the entire network is one way to ensure during not 

just every day operations, but during major disasters like we discussed earlier in the hearing that those things will certainly be 

able to be addressed in those big emergencies due to that capacity 

to have priority and preemption across the entire spectrum of the 

network. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Very good. Third question for Mr. Kennedy. As you know, Florida is a large, flat state with major ports 

and unique public safety challenges. Can you describe how my 

rural constituents will benefit to the same extent as my constituents that live in the Tampa Bay area, metropolitan areas, from this 

public safety broadband network? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think rural constituents in public safety will 

benefit from that enhanced coverage in having the capability to 

have coverage where they need it and where they respond on a regular basis. One of the things we very much focused on during our 

data collection process and during our state consultation efforts is 

trying to make sure we understand where 911 responses are, 

where the calls are coming in from, where the public safety stations are and how they respond to those calls. 

So if we are looking at everywhere from where public safety sits 

before a call, where they respond on highways, freeways, county 

roads and other locations and also where the incidents are, every 

state responded to that differently based upon different data that 

they could present and put forward. 

56 

But we have actually placed all of that data into a reading room 

that you can access through the FirstNet Web site to make sure 

that all potential offerers understand the needs of rural constituents and understand where those calls are so that they have the 

ability to really plan for those needs. We also believe that having 

a very competitive option to be able to provide service and have 

that known capability for priority and preemption will ensure that 

public safety will want to leverage this in rural areas as well. But 

that additional coverage is really a huge part of that in having the 

public safety application ecosystem. 

Many rural departments are very small. If we go to very large 

departments that have 30- or 40,000 members, they certainly have 

access to unique public safety applications and tools and wireless 

tools today. But one of the great things about having a nationwide 

ecosystem is those same tools can be made available to very small 

rural departments and allowing them to leverage that application 

innovation that is occurring. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Sir, do you have anything else to add? 

Mr. Furth? 

Mr. FURTH. No, thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK, very good. Thank you very much. I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And seeing 

no other members to ask questions, I would just like to say on behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee the gentleman from Oregon, and the ranking member the gentlelady from California, and 

myself, we appreciate your testimony today and for the answers 

you provided the subcommittee. And if there is no other business 

to come before the subcommittee today, we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

57 


99943.017
58 


99943.018
59 


99943.019
60 


99943.020
61 


99943.021
62 


99943.022
63 


99943.023
64 

Æ 


99943.024