U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–424PDF 2003

THE SPECTRUM NEEDS OF OUR

NATION’S FIRST RESPONDERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

THE INTERNET

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 11, 2003

Serial No. 108–34

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

Vice Chairman

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

Ranking Member

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

DAN R. BROUILLETTE, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

Vice Chairman

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

Ranking Member

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JIM DAVIS, Florida

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Adamczyk, Gene, Michigan State Police ........................................................ 36

Brown, Gregory Q., Executive Vice President, Motorola, Inc., President

and Chief Executive Officer, Commercial Government, and Industrial

Solutions Sector ............................................................................................ 40

Carrico, Stephen L., Director, Communications and Business Development, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation .............................................. 56

Donahue, Timothy M., President and Chief Executive Officer, Nextel

Communications, Inc .................................................................................... 50

Harman, Hon. Jane, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 10

Haynie, Jim, President, American Radio Relay League ............................... 61

Jacknis, Norman J., Chief Information Officer, Department of Information Technology, Westchester County ......................................................... 32

Stile, Vincent R., President, Association of Public Safety, Communications

Officials International, Incorporated, Suffolk County Police, Communications Bureau ........................................................................................... 46

Tamlyn, James E., Chairman, Charlevoix-Cheboygan-Emmet Central Dispatch Authority ............................................................................................. 28

Thomas, Edmond J., Chief Engineer, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission ........................................... 23

Weldon, Hon. Curt, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ................................................................................ 13

Material submitted for the record by:

Brown, Gregory Q., Executive Vice President, Motorola, Inc., President

and Chief Executive Officer, Commercial Government, and Industrial

Solutions Sector, letter dated August 20, 2003, enclosing response for

the record ....................................................................................................... 88

Cangemi, Agostino, Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel, New

York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 90

Donahue, Timothy M., President and Chief Executive Officer, Nextel

Communications, Inc.:

Letter dated June 23, 2003, enclosing material for the record ............. 92

Letter dated September 2, 2003, enclosing material for the record ...... 99

Federal Communications Commission, response for the record ................... 96

(III)

(1)

THE SPECTRUM NEEDS OF OUR NATION’S

FIRST RESPONDERS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m. in room

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton, (chairman)

presiding.

Members present: Representatives Upton, Bilirakis, Gillmor,

Cox, Whitfield, Shimkus, Bass, Walden, Terry, Tauzin (ex officio),

Markey, McCarthy, Stupak, Engel, Wynn, and Green.

Staff present: Dan Brouillette, staff director; Will Nordwind, policy coordinator; Howard Waltzman, majority counsel, Will Carty,

legislative clerk; Peter Filon, minority counsel; and Jessica

McNiece, minority research assistant.

Mr. UPTON. Good morning. Today’s hearing is entitled ‘‘The Spectrum Needs of our Nation’s First Responders.’’

When you boil it all down, public safety relies on radios to communicate. As I recall from my history lessons, Federal regulations

of our radio frequency spectrum began in 1912 as a reaction to the

failure of the Titanic’s help signals. Since that time, public safety

communication has become infinitely more sophisticated, and our

spectrum has become infinitely more crowded, making spectrums

suitable for public safety communication and free from interference

all the more scare.

In the wake of September 11, the critical question I have is: Does

pubic safety have adequate spectrum free from interference suitable for interoperability? This hearing is designed to help us answer that answer. I am prepared to work with members like Mr.

Fossella, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Engel to find bipartisan legislation

solutions to see if help is there.

I am proud to have First Lieutenant Gene Adamczyk of the

Michigan State Police with us here today. Welcome. As you can see

by his uniform and his badge, he represents those first responders

who are on the front lines, selflessly putting themselves in harm’s

way every day to protect the citizens of our communities.

The State of Michigan has a state-of-the-art 800 megahertz interoperable public safety communication network. First Lieutenant

Adamczyk will describe to us how that system works, the benefits

of the system, and the ongoing challenges which the localities in

2

our State face in making a full interoperability public safety communications system a reality.

In addition, we will hear from a number of witnesses about interference between public safety and commercial mobile services in

the 800 megahertz band. Interference is reaching unacceptable levels for public safety. The FCC must help resolve that crisis. The

FCC has a pending proceeding on the matter. I look forward to

hearing from some of the witnesses about their proposals to resolve

these interference problems. I also want to learn about how the

FCC plans to resolve interference between public safety and the

Great State of Michigan and Canada.

Finally, I look forward to discussing public safety’s demonstrable

need for more spectrum, particularly in the 700 megahertz band.

On Monday, 2 days ago, a number of our subcommittee members

and I joined the city of Chicago’s Public Safety Communications

Command Center. While there we discussed the test of a terrific

demonstration project which Motorola and the City are engaged in

which provides interoperable data and video between first responders on the street to the command center. This was just a small test.

Realistically speaking, such systems could not actually be deployed

on a city-wide basis, or for that matter in any other large metropolitan area due to the current spectrum crunch in the 700 megahertz band.

As we know, 24 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 megahertz

band has been dedicated to public safety once the transition to digital is complete. Such an allocation would enable full-scale deployment nationwide of systems like the one that we saw being tested

in Chicago. That is what makes this subcommittee’s work on completing the digital transition relevant.

As many of you are aware, a provision in the staff discussion

draft of the DTV transition bill circulated last year, set December

31, is the hard date for all broadcasters to give up their analog

spectrum, a significant portion of which was for public safety.

As you may recall, that provision was not without controversy.

A number of members expressed concerns about flipping the analog

switch off before a significant percentage of their constituents who

rely on free, over-the-air television were ready to embrace the digital transition in their living rooms.

Today we will hear from our colleagues, the Honorable Jan Harman, and the Honorable Curt Weldon, on their Hero Act, which in

effect, would require broadcasters on Channels 62 to 69 to move to

another channel or be forced off by air by December 31, 2006.

While it may sound simple in many cases, there is no place to move

those channels.

The bill, if enacted, would force the early termination of approximately 75 stations, including 11 DTV stations nationwide, impacting millions of viewers including those who watch WWJ, a CBCaffiliate in Detroit, or WLLA, a WBM affiliate in Kalamazoo.

As such, the Hero Act is not without controversy. Nevertheless,

I believe the intent of the Hero Act is noble. I commend my two

colleagues for their leadership and their commitment to public safety. I will continue to carefully consider this proposal, particularly

as the subcommittee addresses both a comprehensive DTV transiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
3

tion solution, and proposals to ensure public safety has adequate

spectrum.

Having said that, I am committed to moving the DTV transition

along, and I will continue to aggressively push all stakeholders in

the DTV transition to clear those obstacles which are thwarting a

timely digital transition. If they cannot clear away those obstacles,

we are prepared to legislate. I would urge all of my colleagues to

join Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, and me in that effort. Public safety needs spectrum, and in the wake of September

11, the need is mounting.

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. At this point

I will yield to my good friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, whose Boston Red

Sox and my Chicago Cubs share first place.

Mr. Markey. It is a grand day.

Mr. MARKEY. It is a grand day. Think about it. Mr. Weldon and

Ms. Harman are at the same table, too. It is only June though,

Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Cardinal fans, look out.

Mr. MARKEY. You know the old joke, the mother brings the two

children into the zoo. In the cage is the lion and the lamb, lying

together. The mother says to the two children, ‘‘Look, it is the biblical fulfillment of the prophesy that the lion and the lamb will lie

together peacefully.’’

The zookeeper walks by and he hears the mother telling that to

the children. The mother now has the zookeeper move over next to

her. He says, ‘‘Hey, lady, do not get too excited. We have to put a

new lamb in every day.’’

If you have been a Red Sox fan or a Cubs fan for 100 years, we

are the lambs in the story. It feels good for awhile.

This hearing will give the subcommittee an opportunity to focus

on a number of public safety related issues. First, the most common complaint from public safety entities is their inability to communicate with each other across jurisdictions and command authorities.

Not only do we often see the struggle of public safety entities to

communicate effectively with neighboring towns and States, but

also the inability of police, fire, emergency medical personnel, ambulance services, and others, to communicate within the same jurisdiction. Time and again, we hear requests from public safety entities back home in our districts for greater interoperability to safeguard homeland security.

Second, we hear from our first responders that we need to provide them with greater financial resources, especially at a time

when we expect them to do more for homeland security, and most

especially at a time when many States and municipalities are

struggling with budget shortfalls and are cutting funding for public

safety.

It does little good to point out possible equipment upgrades or

new frequencies that will assist law enforcement entities to more

fully meet the current challenges if they simply cannot afford to

move to new frequencies or the equipment modifications.

I offered an amendment earlier this spring to legislation that we

just considered on the House floor this morning, that would rediVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
4

rect surplus spectrum option revenue into a trust fund. When we

auction off licenses for new digital wireless technologies, I believe

that we should reinvest the proceeds in a way that will pay digital

dividends back to the public. My amendment proposed putting excess option funds into a trust fund and to use the interest off of

that fund as grants to public safety for interoperability, for teacher

training related to the education rate program for children, and

other public interest telecommunications needs.

We need to be creative about finding funding sources for these

needs. I am pleased that we will have an opportunity to explore

these ideas when the subcommittee has a hearing on my digital

dividends legislation later this summer. We could not have a more

important hearing than the one that we are having today.

I also think that it is important that we review efforts that Congress has made in the past to assist in meeting public safety needs.

In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress allocated 24 megahertz of spectrum for public safety use in the area of frequencies

currently occupied by television channels 63, 64, 68, and 69. Public

safety utilization of these frequencies in the very jurisdictions

where frequencies are often crowded, is often where citizens have

television stations which continue to occupy these channels.

Clearing out these frequencies has been thwarted by the lack of

progress on the digital television transition. We cannot turn off

these channels without a more comprehensive plan for the digital

transition. I look forward to the renewal of the DTV round-table

discussions that Chairman Tauzin has announced.

I also believe that if those negotiations do not result in an

agreed-upon settlement by those companies, that this committee

must legislate so that we ensure that there is a digital transition

and that the public safety sector and others gain access to these

important spectrum areas.

I look forward to exploring other proposals to advance public

safety including the so-called Nextel proposal and other policy initiatives. I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses this

morning. I think that the two witnesses which you have opening

our hearing today are the two best that we could have to brief our

committee on these subjects. I very much look forward to hearing

from them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Jim. The gentleman’s time has expired.

I would remind my colleagues that if they defer their opening

statement from this point on, they will get an additional 3 minutes.

Since we have two panels, they can use that extra 3 minutes on

either Panel I or Panel II.

Mr. Whitfield?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am going to waive my opening

statement.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Shimkus?

Mr. SHIMKUS. I will do the same, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Cox?

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make a brief opening

statement.

I want to thank you for scheduling this important hearing because it is of such critical importance to our Nation’s first respondVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
5

ers. Our witnesses today are colleagues with whom we have

worked on this issue and are an excellent way to kick this off.

Let me say at the outset: Whatever this committee decides to do

regarding the best technologies for first responders, and the most

appropriate spectrum to devote to public safety, it is a good idea

to require the commercial television broadcasters to return to the

taxpayers the old analog spectrum by the end of 2006.

Certainly this spectrum should be turned to more productive

uses as soon as possible since the broadcast stations have all been

given ample new slices of the airwaves. The central question we

seek to answer today is how to ensure that the tragic communications problems that plagued the heroic emergency crews of September 11, particularly in New York, are never repeated.

First responders at all levels of government must be able to

share vital information in real time. That was not possible on September 11. It is one of the most bitter ironies of that tragedy. We

have all been touched by the stories of those trapped inside the

Twin Towers or within the rubble making one last cell phone call

to say good-bye to a loved one—a child, a spouse, a friend. In a remarkable number of cases, those calls went through.

Meanwhile, the systems devoted exclusively to public safety too

often failed. Many of the calls of the heroes who ran into the fire

and the smoke in search of survivors did not go through. In fact,

both in New York and in Washington, many public safety officials

came to rely on conventional commercial wireless phones, supplied

in many cases by some of the witnesses on later panels today.

Unfortunately, September 11 was not unique in this respect.

There appears to be a consistent record of failure by public safety

communications systems to adequately serve our first responders.

We witnessed similar problems in the immediate aftermath of the

Oklahoma City bombing.

Therefore, I hope that this committee will both learn from and

act upon the lessons and the information that is provided to us

today from our commercial networks. I hope that we learn that

some of these networks might be appropriate for first responders

if given priority access in times of crisis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Cox.

Mr. Stupak?

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding

this hearing and for your commitment to addressing our concerns

on the communications needs of public safety. I want to specifically

welcome Jim Tamlyn, Chairman of the Emmet County Board of

Commissioners, and Chairman of the CCE, Charlevoix-CheboyganEmmet, Central Dispatch Authority from my Congressional district. CCE is truly a model of regional and interagency cooperation,

which is even more impressive given the challenges posed by the

rural area that CCE serves.

I would also like to acknowledge Lyn Johnson, the Emmet Country Controller, who is in the audience today. It is also good to see

Gene Adamczyk. We go back some 20 years when I was in the

Michigan State Police.

Mr. Chairman, often much of our focus is given to the more

urban and populated areas. However, we must recognize that rural

6

and less populated areas of our country are also critical to our Nation’s security, and cannot be overlooked.

My district is home to the Soo Locks which allow for 1,000-foot

lake carriers to transit between the Great Lakes and permit shipping of vital cargo from the Western States and the Great Plains

through the Great Lakes to the Eastern ports for export. The

unimpeded functioning of the Soo Locks is essential to the steel industry, the Great Lakes trade, and commerce throughout the Nation. My district is also home to the Mackinac Bridge which connects the upper and lower peninsulas of Michigan. As the largest

suspension bridge in the Western hemisphere, and the third largest

bridge in the world, the Mackinac Bridge is considered one of the

Midwest’s most vulnerable points of infrastructure to terrorist activity.

These are just two examples of the critical landmarks in my district that demand the vigilance of public safety agencies in Northern Michigan to assure our Nation’s security. And there are countless landmarks like this across the country, our Nation’s security

goes beyond the urban populated cities.

Public safety agencies all across our Nation are charged with ensuring the security of critical infrastructures. September 11 served

to highlight how critical it is that our public safety agencies have

the funding, spectrum, and equipment that they need to communicate with each other if they are asked to fulfill their mission.

The Federal Government has called upon our States and localities to be ever more vigilant and prepared against possible threats

we may face. Besides the day-to-day burdens placed upon law enforcement, it seems like every few months we have a new heightened alert, Code Orange, where the States and localities must increase their caution even more. If we expect our law enforcement

agencies and public safety agencies to act with haste and urgency

to meet our homeland security goals, we must provide them with

the tools to do so.

I believe that is critical and that we follow today’s hearing with

action. We must work to identify spectrum that can be made available for public safety, to identify auctions that can provide proceeds

to public safety for their equipment and interoperability needs, and

to provide a grant problem to further address these funding needs.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the balance of my time.

Thank you again for holding this hearing.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Terry?

Mr. TERRY. I will waive my opening statement.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Gillmor?

Mr. GILLMOR. I will waive my opening statement.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank you all for coming Today to share your views with the Subcommittee on spectrum needs for America’s first responders.

The term ‘‘first responders’’ became part of the American vernacular after the

events of September 11, 2001. On that day, besides the thousands in the buildings

7

or traveling on the ill-fated planes, we lost the lives of hundreds of firefighters, police and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs)—those who put duty before safety

and ran into burning buildings where others would run out. Since then we have

heard about communications difficulties between emergency personnel at the World

Trade Center on that day which may have cost lives. Clearly, we have an opportunity to learn from those events and ensure our emergency response teams are

properly equipped with safety gear and communications equipment that will aid

them in carrying out their mission.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel about how we can ensure

timely, effective and reliable communications for our emergency personnel, while

eliminating the potential conflicts between the systems used by our first responders

and others in neighboring areas of spectrum. In fact, we have some experience in

this area based on a hearing from earlier this year on Chairman Upton’s bill for

spectrum reallocation. This bipartisan bill proposed mechanisms to move occupants

out of portions of spectrum and reimburse any costs incurred in that move. I would

imagine the principles of this bill will allow us to find ways to address any spectrum

migration that may be required to enhance the reliability of the public safety spectrum. Interoperability and interference-free communication for our first responders

is a worthy goal and I look forward to hearing testimony on where we are, how we

got here and what is the best path going forward to achieve this goal.

I’ve said before, and I continue to believe, that we must beware of the law of unintended consequences in Congress. That’s why any prospective legislation that comes

out of this hearing should not derail any progress made thus far or short-circuit deliberations that may solve the short-term interference problems, but allow the Congress to act broadly to ensure our spectrum is properly managed. It must also ensure that we not short change the Treasury, and in turn the American taxpayers,

with any allocation of spectrum that may not reflect the current market value.

I look forward to hearing your testimony and welcome you to the Subcommittee.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. VITO J. FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

I want to thank Chairman Upton for calling for this hearing today. I also want

to thank Mr. Engel and Mr. Stupak for their cooperation on this issue and look forward to working closely with them on possible legislation in the future.

Over the past two years most of us have come more knowledgeable to the critical

infrastructure that keeps our public safety entities running smoothly and able to

communicate during an emergency. Some of the things we’ve learned is that public

safety radios sometimes receive interference from a few commercial operators, that

there is not enough spectrum available for public safety to use all the tools they

would like to, and finally, that there is not enough money available at the state and

local level to fund the technology changes that may be necessary to address their

problems.

Since the time of the September 11th attacks, the Department of Homeland Security, OMB, the FCC, NTIA, and numerous other agencies and private corporations

have been working to solve some of these problems to the best of our ability with

the funding available. During this time, the FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task force

issued their report on spectrum management detailing numerous ideas that could

work to more efficiently use the limited amount of spectrum available.

As we will hear today during the past two years, some local, county and state

agencies have been successful in starting their own programs to provide additional

services with more efficient use of their available spectrum. In addition, some cases

have shown that through compromises and hard work, interoperability between police and firefighters can and has been achieved. However, through all of this, there

are still some instances where interference occurs due to their close proximity to a

few private corporations that use infrastructure non-conducive to public safety systems.

I have learned a lot about interoperability and spectrum interference in large part

from monitoring the 800MHz proceeding at the FCC. There has been a lot of debate

as to what should be done in the 800MHz band to try to minimize the interference

from commercial SMR and CMRS operators. I have come to believe that there are

three main points of the proceeding.

1. There is interference from commercial operators in the 800MHz band.

2. Nextel Communications is the largest interferer.

3. Completely eliminating interference at this time is not possible unless either Public Safety is removed from the band, or all other operators are removed from

the band.

8

Interference in the 800MHz band is caused primarily in two ways: intermodulation (IM) which is the mixing of two signals in the radio itself to produce a third

signal, and what is commonly referred to as the ‘‘near-far’’ effect. The more common

‘‘near-far’’ effect simply means that when a public safety officer is near a low-site,

high-power commercial tower and far from his or her own high-site, low-power ratio

tower, and the opposing signal blocks out the public safety signal. Although other

carriers have interfered with public safety operators, Nextel is the most common to

interfere due to they’re use of a combination of SMR technology which is what most

of us know as their ‘‘walkie-talkie’’ service, and CMRS technology which is what

many traditional cellular providers use. In order to provide the walkie-talkie service,

Nextel’s low-site towers must be on a high power level to be able to connect with

the phone instantaneously. This leads to problems when public safety is farther

away from one of their towers and closer to a Nextel low-site tower.

I want to be clear that I am not against the technology Nextel offers consumers;

it is used widely with public safety officers and in some cases on military bases.

What I want to emphasize is that public safety is the incumbent in this band and

I believe that a new entrant into a spectrum band should be responsible for their

actions and should be proactive to ensure they will not interfere, even before they

are allowed to begin providing service. One tool that I hope someone on our panel

will discuss today is if the TSB-88 algorithm would be a good tool to use to test

interference before a new cell site is put up.

Getting back to the big picture, there are essentially three fundamental plans

floating around in the filings at the FCC. One would require all public safety is

moved to the 700MHz band when the broadcasters move off the analog spectrum.

The date the broadcasters will vacate the spectrum is still questionable. However,

through the efforts of Chairmen Tauzin and Upton to expedite the transition to

HDTV, I am confident the broadcasters will put forth their best efforts to vacate

the spectrum on or before the 2006 deadline. In addition, some states, including the

Chairman’s home state of Michigan, have recently built new systems in the 800MHz

band and those states would not find it cost effective to retune to the 700MHz band.

Another option is the Nextel plan, which consists of a re-banding of the 800MHz

band. And finally the Balanced Plan that consists of new technology in the radio

handsets as well as a restructuring of best practices established by the FCC. All of

these plans have merit and all of them have timelines and levels of effectiveness.

Although I’m not sure what the right solution is at this time, I believe the final solution will probably be a combination of all three.

I want to thank everyone for coming in today to share your views on a wide array

of public safety spectrum issues and I look forward to working with you all in the

future to find the best possible solution to these very critical problems.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on the complex issue

of public safety spectrum. It is important for the Committee to hear and question

the various proposals under consideration at the FCC to improve public safety communications.

Our oversight in this area is critical for the public interest. This can be a life or

death issue for our first responders and all people they are trying to protect.

In the last couple of years, I have had a first hand experience with the difficulties

local public safety departments have with spectrum. Until May of this year, the

Houston Fire Department operated a fixed Microwave Alerting System (MAS) as the

primary method for HFD dispatchers to alert stations and dispatch emergency medical service and fire suppression personnel.

The Houston Fire Department was required to replace their existing microwave

system by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They were supposed to

re-channel their systems by June 11, 1996, but due to budget problems, a series of

temporary extensions of their license were needed to continue their utilization of the

microwave system for another seven years!

Only with their backs to the absolute wall, was the City able to cover the costs

to develop plans for an alternative station alerting system solution. I bring up this

example to first thank the FCC for their understanding of our local funding problems and second to make some suggestions for the future.

In talking to firefighters charged with managing this system, we hear several serious concerns. First, as usual, is funding. Some are estimating it will cost more

than $18 billion to modernize our public safety communications nationwide. Where

is the steady, reliable funding going to come from?

9

Local governments across the nation are cash-strapped. Like most cities, Houston

has folks demanding visible improvements, like new streets, more parks, and more

police on the beat. Communications equipment purchasing is complex and often unseen. The second major concern I hear is called the ‘‘sandbox’’ problem—meaning children fighting and throwing sand at each other. In the pursuit of a critical public

good, we have good people, not surprisingly, trying to protect their own self-interests.

Also, it is not clear that the alphabet soup of agencies involved in this issue—

the FCC, Justice, FEMA, NTIA, OMB, Treasury, and now Homeland Security—are

really bringing folks together yet.

There is also a number of working groups and task forces involving those agencies. Some point soon, I think we need to clearly define who is responsible for what

in public safety communications.

I made a similar point in our E911 hearing last week, but I am concerned about

moving telecom policy decision-making power to the Department of Homeland Security.

All the players involved in public safety: the different jurisdictions, the different

departments, the politicians, the equipment manufacturers, the broadcasters, private spectrum users, and anybody I’ve left out don’t seem to agree on a whole lot,

except that we have a problem.

The FCC’s proceeding on public safety spectrum began in February 2002 and is

still ongoing. I look forward to their testimony to see what, if any, conclusions they

have made that can help us sort through the various proposals before us.

I would like to congratulate my colleagues Jane Harman and Curt Weldon for

their work on their bill and their dedication to first responders. I look forward to

working with them on this issue as we move forward on public safety spectrum.

While I have no local channels in the 700 megahertz band back in Houston, there

are at least four broadcasters in Texas (PAX, WB, and UPN) who do broadcast in

this band that are affected by this legislation. I also understand that there are over

half a dozen Spanish language TV stations in this band.

I would note that broadcasters do provide their own public safety functions in this

band—Amber Alerts, emergency weather information, and the Emergency Alert System. Broadcasters, including public broadcasters, can be a resource for public safety

communications.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you Mr. Chairman: I truly appreciate that we are having this hearing.

These may not be the issues that get us on the front page of our local papers, but

these issue are vital. I also greatly appreciate the Chairman inviting Dr. Norman

Jacknis, who is the Chief Information Officer of Westchester County to testify. I

would like to note that the County Executive of Westchester, my good friend Andy

Spano, is in the audience. Also on the 2nd panel is Vincent Stile from Long Island,

New York.

For too long we have left public safety spectrum and funding for communications

equipment on the back burner. We no longer have this luxury. Less than two years

ago, terrorists who had been living, working, and training in our midst turned a

commercial airliner into a weapon of mass destruction. Emergency personnel from

numerous jurisdictions responded admirably. But there was a major impediment to

their working more efficiently together—the fact that there is not a contiguous,

large block of spectrum dedicated for their use.

Future plans to turn TV channels 63, 64, 68 and 69, after the digital transition,

are moving too slowly—nor are those channels enough. We must look into ways to

move the incumbent broadcasters more quickly off those frequencies. This is a public safety issue and must be addressed with all due haste.

We must also be honest that this equipment costs money. I am pleased that my

colleagues, Mr. Fossella and Mr. Stupak have joined forces with me to work on a

Public Safety Trust Fund that will provide dedicated funding to first responders.

The fact is new radio equipment that will be ‘‘interoperable’’—capable of having police, fire, medical personnel at the local, county, state, and federal level all communicating seamlessly—this equipment is expensive. It is also desperately needed.

We as a nation have come together to work to improve our homeland security.

Even our public broadcasters are giving back a bit of their digital spectrum for use

in homeland security. Each level of government has a role to play. The federal govVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
10

ernment’s role is manage this precious, scare resource called spectrum. It is also

uniquely able to assist our communities with the cost of radio equipment.

I look forward to our witness’ testimony and thank the Chairman for his support

of all our efforts.

Mr. UPTON. TAt this point, we will turn to our two distinguished

colleagues, Jane Harman, a former member of this committee. We

also have the ranking member of the important House Intelligence

Select Committee, Mr. Curt Weldon, a member of the 100th Class,

and very well respected, particularly as the founding co-member of

the Firefighters Caucus.

Ms. Harman, your remarks are made part of the record. If you

could limit your remarks to about 5 minutes, that would be terrific.

Welcome back to the subcommittee.

STATEMENTS OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND HON.

CURT WELDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My thanks to the ranking member and the chairman of the full committee for your efforts

to make this hearing happen. I also want to thank Mr. Cox for the

comments he just made in his role as Chairman of the Homeland

Security Committee. He knows full well how important interoperable communications are to an effective homeland security effort.

I want to thank the leader on this legislation, my friend Curt

Weldon, who is the founder of the House Firefighters Caucus, for

partnering with me yet again on an issue that is absolutely critical.

Imagine if you can a scene of unimaginable chaos and confusion.

Sirens wail, buildings burn and collapse. Parents become separated

from their children. Office workers search for exits. The elevators

are closed. The stairways are dark. There are police officers, fire

fighters, and emergency response personnel frantically attempting

to save those workers and communicate with each other. Yet, they

cannot.

That is the story of September 11, 2001. That scenario came

tragically to life. Hundreds of New York City firefighters perished

when police helicopters circling the World Trade Center were unable to warn firefighters inside that the Towers were glowing and

were dangerously close to collapse.

They could not talk because the firefighters and police officers

were using non-compatible radio systems that operated on different

frequencies. Unaware of the impending disaster, at least 121 firefighters, many who were believed to be within striking distance of

safety, died.

On the same day, just across the Potomac River from this hearing room hundreds of firefighters, police, military authorities, and

others who responded to the attack on the Pentagon, had to use

runners to communicate with one another. Let us think about that

for a moment. Runners passing hand written notes between command centers. It sounds like something out of Ancient Rome. It is

totally unacceptable because it reoccurs with chilling frequency.

We witnessed it, as Mr. Cox said, in 1995 in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Office

11

Building, and then again in 1999 when more than 46 public safety

agencies responded to the tragedy at Columbine High School.

I witnessed it in a demonstration in Los Angeles County when

two police cars from different cities in my district took 8 minutes

to connect by radio. Those cars were parked next to each other in

a parking lot.

The point of these anecdotes is the degree to which lives are at

stake—the lives of first responders and the lives of citizens. When

first responders from numerous jurisdictions and agencies converge

on the scene of a disaster, they cannot wait to organize their communications. They must be able, on the spot and in real time, to

communicate with each other.

First responders need interoperable communication systems so

that firefighters can communicate with colleagues in neighboring

jurisdictions, police officers can talk with each other and with firefighters, and all responders can instantly mesh their operations

with State or Federal authorities on the scene. This involves prescient planning, inter-jurisdictional cooperation, and the right

equipment and training. But all of that requires that sufficient

spectrum is provided.

Pending before this committee, as you have said, is a solution,

the Hero Act, which fulfills Congress’ promise made in 1997 to provide the spectrum needed by 2006. Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat

what the law does because you did that in your statement, but I

would just like to conclude with a couple of observations.

First, the Hero Act is endorsed by a number of public safety and

local government jurisdictions and organizations. In fact, all of the

key ones, including the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the

International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Association of

Public Safety Communications Officers, the National League of Cities, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the International

Union of Police Associations. I believe all of their letters of endorsement have been provided for the hearing. I know you are going to

hear from some of them later.

Let me just conclude by saying this. You said that the goal of

this legislation was noble. You then pointed out, too, that some

broadcasters who presently occupy the spectrum might be inconvenienced. I represent some of those broadcasters. I think those

broadcasters, just like you and me, have kids in schools in hometowns in America. They want to be darn sure that if there is another Columbine tragedy, first responders can save the lives of

their kids, and those kids’ classmates.

My point would be: Not only is the goal noble, but the goal is the

priority. I urge this subcommittee to act promptly on this very important legislation.

Thank you very much. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jane Harman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey and members of the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee, thank you for convening this hearing on the

spectrum needs of America’s first responders.

12

Imagine if you can a scene of unimaginable chaos and confusion. Sirens wail,

buildings bum and collapse, parents become separated from their children, office

workers search for exits in the elevators and darkened stairways, where police officers, firefighters and emergency response personnel frantically attempt to communicate with each other and cannot.

On September 11, 2001, such a scenario came tragically to life. Hundreds of New

York City firefighters perished when police helicopters circling the World Trade

Center were unable to warn firefighters inside that the towers were glowing and

were dangerously close to collapse. They couldn’t talk because the firefighters and

police officers were using non-compatible radio systems that operated on different

frequencies. Unaware of the impending disaster, at least 121 firefighters, many believed to be within striking distance of safety, died.

On the same day, just across the Potomac River from this hearing room, hundreds

of firefighters, police, military authorities and others who responded to the attack

on the Pentagon had to use runners to communicate with one another.

Let’s think about that for a moment: runners passing handwritten notes between

command centers. It sounds like something out of ancient Rome and is totally unacceptable—even as it occurs with chilling frequency.

We witnessed it, for example, in 1995 in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building—and then again in

1999 when more than 46 public safety agencies responded to the tragedy at Columbine High School.

Lastly, I witnessed it in Los Angeles County when two police cars, one from Torrance and another from the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, took 8 minutes to

connect by radio. The cars were parked next to each other.

The point of these anecdotes is the degree to which lives are at stake—the lives

of first responders and the lives of citizens. When first responders from numerous

jurisdictions and agencies converge on the scene of a disaster, they cannot wait to

organize their communications. They must be able to communicate on the spot and

in real time.

First responders need interoperable communications systems so that firefighters

can communicate with colleagues in neighboring jurisdictions, so police officers can

talk to each other and with firefighters, and all first responders can instantly mesh

their operations with state or federal authorities on the scene. This involves prescient planning, inter-jurisdiction cooperation, the right equipment and training—

all of which can work if the sufficient spectrum is provided.

Pending before this committee is a solution, the HERO Act, which fulfills the

promise Congress made back in 1997 to provide additional spectrum.

The 1997 Balanced Budget Act required the FCC to re-allocate 24 MHz of radio

spectrum for public safety—from a band that was scheduled to be vacated no later

than December 31, 2006 when the television stations on channels 60-69 converted

to digital television. Unfortunately, the same law allows those stations to continue

using channels 60-69 indefinitely if more than 15% of households are unable to receive digital television.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding the DTV transition, the practical effect

is to prevent state and local agencies from using those frequencies by a time certain

or being able to plan for their availability.

These needs have become even more acute in the post-September 11 environment.

Hardly a day goes by when we don’t read about some new possible attack on our

homeland. Congress and the Administration have invested tremendous resources to

assist local first responders in preparing for bioterror, chemical attacks, ‘‘dirty

bombs’’ and numerous other dangers. But the resource we have yet to provide is the

frequency with which first responders can communicate and coordinate a response.

The consequences of our failure to provide this resource could be exponentially

greater than 9/11—and this time we are alerted to the problem. In the vernacular,

this time the dots are connected.

The HERO Act is endorsed by a number of public safety and local government

organizations, including the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Association of Public-Safety

Communications Officers (APCO), the National League of Cities, the National Volunteer Fire Council and the International Union of Police Associations, all of whose

letters of endorsement are attached.

Mr. Chairman, by providing the frequencies Congress promised in 1997, we can

give our first responders the tools they need. I hope you will join me in accomplishing this important task and favorably reporting the HERO Act.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Weldon?

13

STATEMENT OF HON. CURT WELDON

Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here today, especially with my good friend and colleague, Jane Harman.

I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WELDON. I will make some anecdotal comments.

I could come before your committee as the Chairman of the Oversight Procurement Committee for the bulk of our military hardware where we have, in fact, put into place an inter-coordinated,

interoperable system for our military to coordinate their communications on any battlefield, any place in the world.

Or, I could come here as a member of the Homeland Security

Committee, where I fall under the leadership of Mr. Cox in doing

outstanding work to make sure that we prepare for the next incident.

But I am here as a former fire chief, a fire chief who in a small

town in 1975 was involved in the largest incident in America, the

collision of two tankers, the Agrim Cooney and the Crinthos. The

collision killed 29 people and burned out of control for 3 days. It

was handled entirely by volunteers. Our biggest problem for those

3 days was that we could not talk with each other. Some of us were

on low band, and some were on high band.

As the Chief Officer, I could not talk with my colleagues who

were arriving on the scene. I could not talk with the police officers,

the Coast Guard, or the corporate leaders who were there trying

to deal with public safety issues for their complexes.

Twenty-seven or 28 years later, things are no different, Mr.

Chairman. In fact, I did form the Fire and EMS Caucus 17 years

ago. In that capacity I have been on every major disaster we have

had in this country in the last 17 years. I was at Loma Prieta,

Northridge, Hurricane Alicia, Hurricane Hugo, the Midwestern

floods, the wildfires in California, Colorado, Oregon, and Oklahoma.

Mr. Chairman, I was at the Murrah Building bombing with Chief

Morris. Chief Morris was the fire chief there. I did a hearing 1 year

after the Murrah Building bombing. I said, ‘‘Chief, tell me what

lessons you learned. What was your biggest problem?’’ He said,

‘‘Congressman, when I arrived on the scene I had a multistory Federal office building blown away. I had exposed concrete. I knew I

had mass casualties and a day care on the first floor. I knew I had

to rescue casualties.’’

He said, ‘‘I went to our radio system and realized I could not talk

with the people responding. So I went to cellular phones. The cell

in our region became overtaxed within minutes.’’

So the fire chief of Oklahoma City, in America, with a welltrained and well-equipped fire department, had to use precious

firefighters and paramedics to hand carry messages to other colleagues of his to respond.

I was at the World Trade Center in 1993. In fact, I was taken

through the World Trade Center by a guy who became a good

friend of mine. When I went with the Fire Commissioner at the

time, Howard Safer, I said, ‘‘Commissioner, what is your biggest

problem?’’ He said, ‘‘Well, as you are hearing from the Battalion

14

Chief taking you around, Chief Ray Downey, our biggest problem

is we cannot communicate. The Port Authority people cannot communicate with the fire department. The fire department cannot

even communicate within its own capabilities because we do not

have interoperable capability. The police and other agencies cannot

as well.’’

Well, that was in 1993, Mr. Chairman. I went back to the World

Trade Center in 2001, a day after it occurred, at the invitation of

the Fire Department of New York. I spent the day at Ground Zero.

I went there because one of my good friends was killed, the same

guy who took me through the Trade Center in 1993, Ray Downey.

Ray Downey was the chief of all rescue operations on September

11. Ray Downey was on the Commission that we established in

Congress, the Gilmore Commission, that issued three reports before 9/11. Again, it reaffirmed what the Piswack Advisory Committee said in 1995, what the Congress said in 1997, but what the

dog-gone broadcasting industry has not done for the past 6, 7, 8,

or 9 years. They did not consider the safety of our police, fire, and

paramedics before their profits. I am so disgusted.

I am saying that it is time that Congress did something about

it, Mr. Chairman. I lost good friends in New York. As Jane said,

‘‘Good friends that could have been saved because the helicopters

above saw the buildings about to collapse, but could not communicate.’’

Is a TV show in my district in Pennsylvania more important

than saving Ray Downey’s life? I do not think so. Mr. Chairman,

I ask you to use the influence of your subcommittee. I do want not

to harm the public communications stations. But they have had

ample time to move away from their existing structure to allow us

to take that frequency spectrum that Congress committed to them

back in 1997. The Piswack Advisory Committee recommended that

it be done back in the mid-1990’s. I saw this first hand back in

1975. Your firefighters in Michigan, and the other members’ firefighters in their States, see this every day.

Mr. Chairman, the solution of this problem has unanimous support in our bill. The firefighters, the fire chiefs, the volunteers, the

paid, the police chiefs, the law enforcement, the mayors are all behind it. There is a problem that is No. 1 in homeland security, and

that is establishing interoperable capability so that emergency responders can interact quickly when they arrive on the scene of a

disaster. The first few minutes are so critically important in determining how many casualties we will have in that situation.

Mr. Chairman, you might hear during the testimony that there

is technology available, that Raytheon and other companies have

developed, so that at the scene you, in fact, can link together disparate frequencies and systems. That is true. But no department

in America can afford the price of that, Mr. Chairman. Emerging

technology does not solve the long-term problem. Setting aside public safety frequency spectrum will solve the problem.

I thank you for your consideration of H.R. 1425. I would urge you

and your colleagues to consider finding a way to help us deal with

this issue in this session. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Curt Weldon follows:]

15

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CURT WELDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

As Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces and Chairman of the former Procurement and Research Subcommittees, I know first-hand, the powerful enabling technologies enjoyed by the Department of Defense that provide for real-time and precise communications, positioning and command and control. As a former volunteer

fire chief and founder of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am completely

dismayed with the nationwide inability of our domestic responding agencies to

merely talk to each other. As evident by our recent military actions, advanced technology is available, but we continue to handicap ourselves and first responders

needlessly. The solution before us is very clear, we need adequate spectrum to be

reserved for public safety and a national plan to standardize and manage public

safety communications. The first step is the Homeland Emergency Response Operations (HERO) Act.

Interoperability is the ability for different jurisdictions to communicate with each

other. This nationwide problem arises due to the use of non-compatible radio systems, on various networks, using disparate spectrum frequencies. There are not only

different systems for different agencies within each community, but different jurisdictions maintain their own systems, as well. In fact, the larger the incident, the

greater the probability that different branches of the emergency services cannot

communicate with each other.

Cell phone use does not work when the system becomes gridlocked during emergencies, open communications such as CB Radio become chaotic and responders

often must hope for the good will of cellular companies to roll in mobile cell phone

towers and disperse new hardware connected to alternate networks. Most likely,

during an emergency, first responders resort to what they have done during Hurricane Andrew, the shooting at Littleton, Colorado, the Oklahoma City bombing and

both World Trade Center attacks in 1993 and 2001, which is wasting valuable firemen and emergency technicians by converting them into runners—passing handwritten notes between various command centers. In fact, during the Ohio River

flooding in Indiana in 1995, jurisdictions on each side of the river were reduced to

yelling across the river to communicate. This is unacceptable. This practice should

anger each and everyone of you and all of Congress, because when a crisis occurs,

American citizens are not able to be protected in a manner that our current technologies and abilities can provide.

This is not a new problem. Five years before 9/11, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) reported that ‘‘unless immediate measures are taken to

alleviate spectrum shortfall and promote interoperability, public safety will not be

able to adequately discharge their obligation to protect life and property in a safe,

efficient, and cost-effective manner.’’ Since that report, we have paid the price for

inaction with the loss of lives.

The 24 MHz of spectrum planned for emergency and public safety use is still occupied by commercial broadcasters and may not be available until sometime after

2006, when at least 85% of households use digital television. The probability that

less than 15% of homes use the current, cheaper televisions three years from now

is a pipe dream at best, given the high costs of digital televisions and the uncertainty with digital conversion. With this in mind, and considering the likelihood of

continued natural, accidental and terrorist attacks in the future, Congress has no

choice but to require this spectrum to be available no later than 2007, regardless

of the status of digital television.

The HERO Act sets aside the needed 24 MHz desired by all public safety associations. This spectrum is adequate for broadband use and should be sufficient to minimize congestion and interference. With this bill signed into law, we can begin a national plan with standardized equipment and an organized strategy that combines

wireless interoperability, common language, unified command, joint training, standard operation procedures and radio discipline.

Mr. Chairman, America’s heroes will continue to risk their lives by running into

hazardous situations without sufficient communications to direct their actions or

alert them of dangers. We must not remain dormant and fail to provide the minimal

tools necessary for our nation’s first responders to do their job effectively and safely.

Thank you for your leadership in recognizing the need for spectrum allocation and

addressing how important communication is for homeland security.

Mr. UPTON. Thank both of you very much for your testimony,

story and your personal experiences. I know it has had an impact

on all of us on the dais. One of the reasons why we are having this

16

hearing is to ask the very questions that you are asking of us. We

certainly will be getting into that with the second panel.

I just have one quick question. We will be talking with the FCC

on the second panel. I presume your districts or areas are impacted

by broadcasters using that very same frequency. As the question

goes forward, are you able to move that broadcasting from Channel

62, or whatever it might be in your particular district? Have you

asked those questions of your local broadcasters of where they

could go? How does that interfere with other stations in the vicinity.

Ms. HARMAN. I hear regularly from a broadcaster in my district

about how inconvenienced his company would be if we moved

ahead here and why do we not do the digital transition first.

My response to him is the one I just made in my testimony which

is that he has school kids in the same schools. They will be at risk

if we continue to fail to solve this problem. Now that the chairman

is here, I would say to him that I thank him for helping make this

hearing take place.

I would also urge this committee, which has a lot of good ideas,

and urge the full committee chairman, to find other solutions for

those broadcasters, and to speed the digital transition faster. I

know there is going to be a round-table discussion in the near future. You also need to do whatever else you can to move those folks

away from this spectrum, which was promised for emergency communications almost 6 years ago.

If we do not make clear that this will happen by the end of 2006,

then all the systems that have to be put in place to use the spectrum, will not be able to be developed. We will lose more time. I

do not think we have a day to lose, Mr. Chairman. There could be

a major attack on our homeland any minute. I know that Mr. Cox

and those of us who serve on the Homeland Security Committee

and the Intelligence Committee, are well aware of this. I am sure

you are, too.

I think that priority No. 1 has to be to make spectrum available

to first responders to protect our citizens. As a second priority, we

should help those broadcasters who are disadvantaged.

Mr. UPTON. I just want to point out that on Monday when a

number of us on this subcommittee were in Chicago, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we did have the opportunity to

visit the Chicago Command Center. We were all certainly impressed with what they have invested for any potential emergency.

But in terms of what they might be able to do on a day-to-day

basis, whether it is looking at a robbery or a traffic stop, they have

quite a bit of technology that they are not yet able to use that is

there, that they could use to protect themselves, and to protect the

communities that they live in. But they do not have the spectrum

where they can actually put it into applicable use.

Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, if I might, we developed significant

technology in the military when I chaired the Military R&D Subcommittee. We developed GPS technology, technology for sensor

and for transmitters so that we can tell where soldiers are on the

battlefield.

Today we can provide that same technology for every first responder in the country, to know where they are, what their health

17

condition is, their heart rate, their pulse. We avoid what happened

up in Boston where we had six firefighters killed in a building.

They were in a building and became lost and disoriented. Two ran

out of air. The other four went in to get them. No one knew where

they were. No one knew their health condition.

The technology is there. What we do not have is adequate frequency spectrum allocation to give our first responders the kind of

cutting edge technology to not just protect the public, but to protect

themselves. I cannot put a price tag on that.

We have 1.2 million firefighters in 32,000 departments. Eightyfive percent of them are volunteers. They are people who work fulltime jobs. What are we going to do? Are we ask them to work fulltime jobs, raise $400,000 to buy a fire truck, and then raise another $100,000 to buy some kind of updated equipment to make up

for the lack of frequency spectrum allocation? It is unfair.

It is sitting in every one of your districts. If you talk with any

one of your firefighters in any district in any one of your States in

America. They will tell you the same thing. I have been in all the

States. They all have the same problem. They are looking to us to

solve this problem.

I understand the problem of having the stations available to

transit their signals. But in my opinion there is no doubt about it.

This is the overriding priority that this Congress should address.

We should work with the broadcasters to help them. But this

should be our top priority.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you both.

At this point I yield to my friend from the great State of Michigan, Mr. Stupak.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really do not have any questions. It is more of a statement.

Besides the spectrum, we definitely need the resources. September 11 was mentioned as well as all these other great tragedies

we have suffered in this Nation, but every day it happens in law

enforcement.

Since 1973, when I was in law enforcement, this has always been

the problem. We cannot talk with each other. We cannot help each

other. In the rural areas it is even more difficult. Being one in public safety, while you are trying to help an officer who has been injured, traffic stops, domestic violence, accidents, fires—you cannot

talk with each other. Half the time we cannot find each other because our equipment will not allow us to talk with each other. So

you run around in circles trying to help someone who really needs

help.

Quite frankly, after 30 years of dealing with this, I am sure I

speak for most law enforcement officers and firefighters. They are

frustrated. They really do not believe that the goals and objectives

of the Hero Act will ever become a reality.

If you clear up the spectrum, great. But what about the resources

to pay for it? We have a lot of work to do in this area. I, for one,

after 30 years of dealing with this problem, would like to see it

come to an end. I commend Ms. Harman and Mr. Weldon for their

work in this area.

For all of us who have worked on it, we just cannot continue to

pay lip service. I think you let down the men and women who serve

18

us every day. We do not need a national tragedy. You see it every

day with officers out on the road, being shot and everything else.

They need the help. We need it now.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

At this point I recognize the chairman of the full committee, the

gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank Jane and Curt for coming to us and again highlighting this incredibly important need in our society. Thank you

for your work.

I want to not only give you a little encouragement, some news,

but also define the challenge we face if we are going to try to help

you in a way that I know you predict we are going to need desperately in this country.

One, it is not as easy for us to free up that analog spectrum for

these purposes as it might sound. As you know, the law says that

the spectrum comes back in 2006 if enough Americans have made

the transition from analog to digital. The reason that is in the law

is because there is a great concern about whether Americans will

have made that transition. They will have either bought new digital sets or bought the boxes that you are going to need to translate

a digital signal back to an analog format.

Frankly, Members of Congress are concerned. We are concerned

about putting a fixed date in the law when that might not happen.

Consumers are stuck with analog sets and there is no longer an

analog signal. You can see we have a real problem to resolve this.

We need everybody’s help in Congress to resolve it.

I would not feel comfortable setting a fixed date in 2006. We

need to settle some other issues. What are consumers going to get

if they buy another box? Are they going to get more signals? Are

they going to see the same old picture on the same set and just

have to spend a few hundred dollars more for a box? Are we going

to give them something of value in return?

We have some agreements to make among Members of Congress

on policy and with the industry before we get to that point. But we

have to get there. That is what the round-tables are for. We may

even sponsor legislation to move it along this year.

Second, there is good news. I was at CTI’s convention in New Orleans and witnessed technology out of a company that was born in

1998 that now is building home stations to cure the interoperability

problems between all the different spectrum systems and technologies that are designed now and being used by different departments—fire, police, ambulance. They are also moving to construct

portable stations that would create interoperabilities where none

existed.

So there are some new technologies that might help us solve this

in the interim. And that is good news. But most importantly I want

to point you to ultra broadband technologies. Ultra broadband technologies are being developed today. Unfortunately, they are being

restricted in their licensing by the FCC with exaggerated fears.

Some of it is coming from the incumbent industries, like EPS, who

are afraid of the competition, in my opinion.

Ultra broadband technologies operate without the need for a new

spectrum. They operate in the background noise, the way comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
19

puters do. They face the same opposition at the FCC that the computer industry faced when it first developed. The FCC feared: What

is going to happen when a thousand computers are in a building?

Are they going to interrupt communications in a town? You know

it did not. It was all unfounded fears.

When they went ahead and licensed computer technologies, we

saw an explosion of technological advance in this country. The FCC

needs to loosen up their tight controls on the advance of ultra

broadband technologies.

Let me tell you what that does. Ultra broadband technologies operating at low frequencies and background noise can locate not to

meter, but to the millimeter. They can locate through brick and

mortar. They can provide radar through brick and mortar. They

can provide identified location, not simply from line of sight but

from a satellite through collapsed buildings, the sites of destruction

of hurricanes, or tornadoes, or terrorist disasters, to locate people

who need rescue.

It can be an enormous source of help to fire companies, police,

and other rescue units around America. But the FCC is being overly cautious about allowing that development to move. I would urge

you to pay some attention to it. It might be the way we get some

assistance for you quicker.

Finally, on a personal note, Curt, I want to bring you greetings

from Brigadier General Hunt Banner.

Mr. WELDON. My good buddy.

Chairman TAUZIN. My candidate for Governor of Louisiana, who raised $1.5 million from the children of Louisiana to buy new fire

trucks for the city of New Orleans.

Mr. WELDON. The first one was delivered.

Chairman TAUZIN. You know of our commitment to work with

you for the firemen of America. We will stay on it.

Jane, thank you for all your work, too.

Mr. WELDON. The gentleman makes some excellent points. I take

his admonition that we need to look at this new technology.

I am familiar with the mobile technology that companies like

Raytheon and others have put forth. In fact, I demonstrated a mobile unit on the Hill 4 months ago. The problem with that technology is not its technical capability to integrate 14 different frequencies and system, it is the cost. I am trying to get one for my

region, for Philadelphia. It is $200,000 just for the technology, as

opposed to the vehicle.

So they buy that and then when they get frequency spectrum,

they still have to buy the new radios. You are paying a double expense, which for a volunteer fire company, let alone a paid department, is next to impossible. That is the big limitation. The technology is there, but the cost is really high.

Mr. UPTON. Ms. Harman?

Ms. HARMAN. If I could just add a few things. I really thank the

chairman for his interest in this and for making certain that this

hearing happened. I again thank you, too, Mr. Chairman, for that.

I support the digital transition. I think it is something we should

push harder on. I do understand the tough problems that lie in the

way. Resolving how to protect intellectual property is just one of

those tough challenges. I realize there will not be comment on the

20

spectrum until we resolve that. It is very hard to resolve. I am totally sympathetic.

On the other hand, I would just stress here, as you look at this

recent disasters that we have had, with more to come, as you look

at how many unnecessary lives were lost, I say that is not a fair

cost. That is just not a fair cost. These broadcasters, all of whom

are friends of our, have children in our public schools, and families

in our home towns, that could die in the next terrorist attack or

natural disaster where help is not adequate because there is not

interoperable communication.

Chairman TAUZIN. Jane, I do not deny that. I just want to point

out to you that it is not the broadcasters who are reluctant here.

They are the ones who have been mandated. They are putting out

the money for the equipment.

The problem is the consumers. If the consumers do not buy the

digital equipment, and all they have is analog equipment, and we

get rid of the analog signal, it will be on our neck.

Ms. HARMAN. Well, let me just make two more comments.

First, I think if you ask the average consumer—and I am not

sure I am the average consumer—if you could choose between having adequate interoperable communications to protect you, your

house, your home town, and your kids in school, or paying a few

hundred bucks for a new TV set, which would you choose?

Chairman TAUZIN. We will try that out in the Post.

When are you coming back to my committee?

Ms. HARMAN. Finally, I am familiar as well on the bridging technology that Curt was talking about. There is current technology

that puts a bunch of these frequency integrators on a flatbed truck,

which can drive to the scene of a disaster, and then can beam some

of that communication up to satellites and so forth.

But think of a catastrophic terrorist attack in three, five, or ten

locations in the United States, which is totally conceivable right

now. Whether or not that approach, which I would call a Band-Aid,

is adequate, my answer is absolutely not.

Chairman TAUZIN. It is a Band-Aid. I accept that. Thank you.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Actually, I yield myself my time. I will just say two things. I was

on active duty, an Army officer, during Granada. The same stories

that were heard about 9/11 were happening in the Granada conflict. It was overcome by a lot of work by the Armed Service Committee. I think those people who are harking back on that era,

there are some valid issues being addressed here.

I also want to use this opportunity to talk about enhanced 911.

In the issues that we are going to bring to this committee, are

things that you would be interested in. We want to be able to identify the location of people. That would not only help on the emergency call placed by the person who is in trouble, but it will also

help on the reverse aspects of getting information out to the public

domain.

There is a public debate here on local number portability or enhanced 911. The courts have ruled to move on local number portability. I think it is bad policy that we ought to have criteria of

what is important first. This is the same debate you are having.

I think public safety ought to rise above the need.

21

Chairman Bilirakis, would you like the rest of my time?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I appreciate that. I just wanted to ask a very

quick question of Mr. Weldon, particularly, because of his role with

firefighters over the years. I do not mean to slight you, Jane.

I am going to quote from a paragraph from the forthcoming testimony of Mr. Jacknis, Chief Information Officer, Westchester County, New York.

‘‘In the first hours following the attack of September 11, 2001,

the only way we could coordinate the sharing of firefighting, medical examiner, and health and information technology resources

with the New York city officials was through the highly trained

volunteer amateur radio ham operators. This was the result of the

fact that normal commercial communication services were unavailable. There was no other single common communications medium

except the amateur radio service. This irreplaceable resource must

be protected against insurgents by their interests.’’

What are your comments regarding that? Ought we be considering them first responders in the same sense as all the others?

Mr. WELDON. Well, the gentleman makes an excellent point. Our

ham radio operators nationwide, throughout the history of this

country and the history of the technology, have been there to support us in some of our most difficult disasters. We should not be

just looking at what we typically call the first responders—the firefighter, the paramedic, the police officer, the emergency worker—

but also those people who have the capability that can be brought

in.

Now, in some cases they, too, have been swamped. Their systems

have been overwhelmed when they have tried to help out. I remember the Ohio River floods in 1997. Imagine this. You have people

on both sides of the river. To communicate what they were doing,

they yelled across the river. Is this America in the 21st Century?

We have the Ohio River flooding. Who can watch TV when your

home is under ten feet of water? People are yelling across the river.

‘‘We are going to do this. We are going to bank this area. We are

going to take care of this.’’ Firefighters are trying to coordinate

paramedic responsibilities. This is not America in the 21st Century. It is not about taking away communications. Nobody wants

to do that. But when you are in a crisis and you have lives at risk,

we have to have a plan in place to assist them.

Ham radio operators are an important part of that, Mr. Bilirakis.

It should be an important part of this committee’s consideration. It

is a point that I did not raise and Jane did not raise. But it is a

point well taken.

Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I will be glad to yield whatever time I have.

Mr. WALDEN. I just want to follow up on that. I am one of only

two licensed amateur radio operators in the Congress. Just as the

whole issue of the spectrum transition is promised, so is the promise to the amateur radio community that they would have spectrum

to be the inventors on an amateur basis and to provide communication that is otherwise not provided at no cost, by the way, to any

level of government. They are there as volunteers.

Yet the erosion that has occurred in the spectrum that was made

available is astonishing. It needs to stop. I believe your bill would

22

put a stop to that. They are there. I am not that active. I know

my friends are. Time and again, when you find an emergency, you

find a ham radio operator. I think we need to be cognizant of that

encroachment on the spectrum.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I reclaim my time.

I am supportive of something the chairman said. I think one of

the biggest controversies that we have experienced is this. You remember a lot when you are in a parade route. What do people say

to you on a parade route? To me, that really hits the grassroots.

You remember the Direct TV satellite. ‘‘I want my local channels.’’

Where else in the world can you be in Pike County, Illinois, and

people are yelling at you on the parade route about their local

channels because of Direct TV and the whole issue we addressed

4 or 5 years ago. There will be a public push on local broadcast stations. Siding with the chairman, this will take a lot of work. I know

this committee is up to it.

I have 21⁄2 minutes left on my time, but I am going to yield back

and allow my colleague, Congressman Green from Texas.

Mr. GREEN. I have no questions of this panel.

Mr. SHIMKUS. He yields back.

Does anyone else seek time?

We want to thank our colleagues for joining us today. We appreciate your good work. I know you can work with Chairman Tauzin,

Chairman Upton, and Ranking Member Markey to move forward

on some legislation.

I would now like to ask the next panel if they would take their

seats. As everyone is getting organized to be seated, let me welcome the entire panel.

Chairman Upton had to leave for a vote. He will come back and

regain the gavel as soon as he can. I would like to grab the gavel

as often as I can. He will wrestle it away from me as soon as he

can get back.

Your full statements are accepted for the record. We will recognize you for 5 minutes. If you can summarize and do a synopsis,

that would be fine.

Mr. Thomas is Chief Engineer of the Office of Engineering and

Technology, Federal Communications Commission. Welcome.

23

STATEMENTS OF EDMOND J. THOMAS, CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; JAMES E. TAMLYN, CHAIRMAN,

CHARLEVOIX-CHEBOYGAN-EMMET CENTRAL DISPATCH AUTHORITY; NORMAN J. JACKNIS, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, WESTCHESTER COUNTY; GENE ADAMCZYK, MICHIGAN STATE POLICE; GREGORY Q. BROWN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

MOTOROLA, INC., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS SECTOR; VINCENT R. STILE, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY, COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS

INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE, COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU; TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE,

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; STEPHEN L. CARRICO, DIRECTOR, COMMUNICATIONS AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, WISCONSIN

PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION; AND JIM HAYNIE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE

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

subcommittee. It is a great pleasure to appear before you to discuss

the critical issues concerning public safety.

Public safety has been one of the Commission’s highest priorities

for years. In the last few years the Commission has taken significant steps to allocate new spectrum for public safety. The Commission recently made available 50 megahertz of spectrums at 4.9

gigahertz. The rules adopted for 4.9 gigahertz band are intended to

accommodate a variety of new broadband applications such as high

speed data, video, and wireless local area networks.

In addition, the Commission has also allocated 24 megahertz of

spectrum in the portion of the 700 megahertz band, but covered as

part of the digital TV transition. The band planned for this 24

megahertz was developed in conjunction with the public safety

community and among other things, it sets aside spectrums for intelligibility and future new uses.

Along with the allocation issue, the Commission also has been

actively addressing interference into the public safety band. Recently the most significant interference issue has arisen in the 800

megahertz band. In March 2002, the Commission began the process

of developing a public record for initiating a rulemaking proceeding. We sought comment as to additional steps we should take

to help resolve the interference problem. I think it is an understatement to say the response has been robust.

Parties have engaged in extensive discussions of the proposals,

and have submitted numerous different plans to reduce interference. For example, last year Nextel joined a group of public safety and private radio organizations to submit a relocation plan

which was called the Consensus Proposal.

Others joined together and filed an opposition to the Consensus

Proposal. In April of this year, I sent a letter to manufacturers asking for any additional technical information relevant to these critical interference issues. Last month, Motorola filed a response to

my letter. They reported the development of a new portable transVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
24

ceiver that they believe, when used in combination with best practices, solves the interference problem at 800 megahertz.

Presently, the Commission staff is diligently analyzing the proposal before it. The public record is comprehensive, contradictory,

and complex. We are committed to resolving this public safety interference problem as quickly as possible. We are also equally committed to taking full advantage of the thoughtful ideas, expert

analysis, and collective expertise of all of those concerned.

On another front, the Commission is moving forward to enable

and encourage the development of new technologies that hold great

promise for public safety use. Ultralente band technology is one example. The most relevant application of ultralente band technology

for public safety is imaging. For example, in hostage situations

through-the-wall imaging systems can be used to pinpoint the location and movement of persons within a building. Similarly, ground

penetrating radar systems can be used to locate buried objects or

underground faults.

The Commission is also actively pursing the public safety potential for cogitative radio technology which holds tremendous promise

in the area of intelligibility and interference rejection or avoidance.

For instance, during an emergency, these radios will have the capability to configure themselves for interoperable use and adjust

automatically to avoid interference. The Commission staff hosted a

Cognitive Radio Technologies Workshop last month as a preparatory step to beginning a rulemaking proceeding later this year

to facilitate the development and deployment of this exciting technology.

Before I conclude, I must not fail to mention the contribution of

the amateur radio operators to public safety. The ham radio community has offered invaluable service to first responders during

emergency situations. In a report released last month, the Commission modified its rules to provide access to additional amateur

channels in or near 5,250 to 5,400 kilohertz on a secondary basis,

and to upgrade the existing secondary allocation to primary status

in the 2,400 to 2,402 megahertz band.

Mr. Chairman and members, allow me to end as I began. The

Commission views its responsibility in public safety as one of its

highest priorities. The Commission has, and will continue to be

sensitive to the needs of that community by making spectrum

available, when necessary, by protecting it from interference and

by enabling new technology to facilitate the completion of its mission.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. I would

ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Edmond Thomas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDMOND THOMAS, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Good morning, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey and Members of the

Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss the critical issues related to

access to spectrum for public safety, particularly first responders. Public safety has

been one of the Commission’s highest priorities for many years and it has taken on

even greater importance with recent events. The FCC appreciates and shares this

Subcommittee’s longstanding commitment to assisting our public safety community.

25

Today, what I would like to do is to review for the Subcommittee the recent activities of the Commission in the area of public safety. My remarks will first address

Commission actions to ensure that first responders and other public safety users

have access to the spectrum necessary for completion of their missions. I will then

discuss recent Commission activities directed at protecting public safety communications from harmful interference. After that, I will describe Commission activities designed to enable new technologies that should provide important new capabilities

to first responders. Finally, I will briefly discuss additional Commission actions that

illustrate our continuing recognition of the critical importance of ensuring adequate

access for public safety purposes.

SPECTRUM FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

In the last few years, the Commission has taken significant steps to provide access to additional spectrum for public safety use. The Commission recently has

made available for public safety use 50 MHz of spectrum at 4.9 GHz, which promises to permit the use of new advanced wireless technologies by public safety users.

Part of a transfer of Federal Government spectrum to private sector use, the 4940-

4990 MHz band (4.9 GHz band) was originally proposed to be allocated to fixed and

non-aeronautical mobile services and to be auctioned to commercial users, with no

designation of the spectrum for public safety use. In response to requests from the

public safety community for additional spectrum for broadband data communication,

the Commission designated the 4.9 GHz band for public safety use in February 2002

and adopted service rules in April 2003.

The rules adopted for the 4.9 GHz band are intended to accommodate a variety

of new broadband applications such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless

local area networks, particularly for incident scene management. For example, before leaving the fire house, building plans and schematics could be almost instantly

downloaded to a fire vehicle. A local area network could be set up at the scene so

that this information could then be relayed to all public safety personnel on site.

These rules also foster interoperability, by providing a regulatory framework in

which traditional public safety entities can pursue strategic partnerships with others necessary for the completion of their mission.

Another important allocation made by the Commission of spectrum for public

safety use is the portion of the 700 MHz band that is being transitioned from broadcast as part of the digital television (DTV) transition. In 1997, the Commission proposed, consistent with a recommendation in a Final Report by its Public Safety

Wireless Advisory Committee, to allocate 24 MHz of this reclaimed broadcast spectrum for public safety uses. Later in 1997, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget

Act of 1997, which specifically directed that 24 MHz of the 60 MHz of spectrum

being reclaimed from Channels 60-69 be allocated for public safety purposes, with

the other 36 MHz to be auctioned for commercial uses. At the end of that year, the

Commission specifically identified and allocated the new 24 MHz of public safety

spectrum.

The Commission then moved quickly to take various additional steps needed to

enable the new public safety spectrum to be effectively utilized. In doing so, it crafted special provisions both to address the continuing interoperability issues among

various public safety systems and to provide flexibility to accommodate a wide variety of innovative uses. For instance, the Commission dedicated 2.6 MHz for interoperability. The Commission also chartered a federal advisory committee, the Public

Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC), to develop operational and technical recommendations for use of this spectrum.

In February 2000, the NCC issued its initial report to the Commission recommending how best, technically and operationally, to use these dedicated frequencies.

Many of these recommendations have served as the basis for Commission rules on

those issues. Since then, the Commission has continued to work with the NCC,

which has provided additional technical and operational recommendations regarding

use of these frequencies. The NCC expects to present to the Commission its final

recommendations in July, 2003, including a recommended standard for wideband

interoperability.

In this space, the Commission also adopted a band plan targeted to accommodate

all existing operational modes, including data, image, and video, and to accommodate future technologies. The band plan designated half of the spectrum for

narrowband voice channels, and half of the spectrum for wideband channel uses. Finally, the Commission also designated a significant portion of this spectrum as a

reserve—setting aside 22.5% of this spectrum (5.4 MHz) for future developments in

broadband technologies.

26

From the beginning the Commission has recognized that the utility of this spectrum for public safety depended on taking actions, consistent with the current statutory scheme, to minimize, and ultimately clear, the broadcast use of this spectrum.

For instance, during the digital television (‘‘DTV’’) planning, the Commission minimized the use of channels 60-69. As a result, the new public safety spectrum on TV

channels 63-64 and 68-69 is available now in many areas of the country.

The completion of the DTV transition, which will result in the nationwide clearing

of the band of broadcast stations, is a key element in freeing this 24 MHz for public

safety use. Within the current statutory scheme, the Commission, under FCC Chairman Michael Powell, has taken steps to help speed up the transition. For instance,

last summer the Commission adopted requirements for new television receivers to

include DTV reception capability. Almost 1,100 of our television stations are on the

air with DTV service. The Commission’s actions should have the effect of accelerating the availability of this important public safety spectrum.

Finally, the Commission has worked with Canadian authorities to clear public

safety channels 63 and 68. We first addressed this problem in response to concerns

raised by New York State’s public safety community, but quickly expanded our efforts to address channel usage all along the U.S.-Canada border. In the period since

September 11, 2001, the Canadians have re-evaluated their own public safety communications needs and decided to dedicate 24 MHz for public safety use and amend

their DTV Table of Allocations to permit channels 63 and 68 to be used for public

safety communications, instead of DTV, in Canada. They have indicated that they

will complete their internal actions to reallocate this spectrum for public safety in

the near future. We are working to develop similar arrangements with Mexico for

use of the 700 MHz public safety frequencies in the border areas with that country.

Thus the Commission has taken, and is continuing to take, those actions necessary to make 24 megahertz of this new spectrum available at 700 megahertz for

public safety use as soon as possible.

INTERFERENCE PROTECTION

Although providing access to sufficient spectrum for public safety entities has

been a significant step enhancing first responder capabilities, harmful interference

by commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to public safety communications also is of significant concern to the Commission. First responders can be seriously compromised in their ability to carry out their life-saving responsibilities when

they are unable to receive or transmit wireless communications. Accordingly, the

Commission has taken an active role in protecting against harmful interference to

public safety communications. Currently, the Commission is working to alleviate

significant interference issues related to the public safety spectrum in the 800 MHz

band.

To recap recent history, the Commission has been receiving reports that public

safety radio operators in the 800 MHz band were experiencing unexpected interference. Users have been reporting ‘‘dead spots’’ where their mobile radios could not

receive or transmit.

In April 2000, the Commission brought together representatives of CMRS providers, public safety communications officers and manufacturers to discuss the interference problem. The Commission emphasized that all parties affected by the interference—both commercial and public safety—needed to collaborate and jointly

work to identify the causes of interference, establish mitigation alternatives, and develop joint planning and technical solutions for preventing interference.

As a result of this meeting, numerous participants, including manufacturers, commercial wireless providers and public safety representatives, agreed to form a working group to pursue these issues. By November of 2000, this group had developed

a ‘‘Best Practices Guide.’’ The Guide describes the types and causes of interference

between 800 MHz systems and provides information and techniques useful to all affected parties to reduce or even eliminate interference, and to plan future system

deployments.

The remedies identified in the ‘‘Best Practices Guide’’ have provided significant

relief in many cases. Reports of interference have persisted, however. In late 2001,

Nextel presented to the Commission a ‘‘White Paper’’ that proposed a significant realignment of the 800 MHz band to reduce the incidence of public safety entities operating on spectrum immediately adjacent to commercial entities. Nextel’s plan

called for the modification of the current interleaved band plan to create two large

contiguous blocks of spectrum (one for public safety and one for commercial users),

relocation of many incumbent users to these new blocks, and relocation of Nextel

operations out of the 800 MHz band. The National Association of Manufacturers

also presented a plan for modifying the 800 MHz band plan.

27

In March 2002, the Commission began the process of developing a public record

by initiating a rulemaking proceeding. Our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought

comment on the proposals in front of us and asked for public comment on any additional steps we should take to help resolve the interference problem. The response

has been robust.

Parties have engaged in extensive discussions of the proposals, and have submitted numerous plans to reduce interference. For example, last August, Nextel

joined a group of public safety and private radio organizations to submit a relocation

plan that was styled by the parties as the ‘‘Consensus Proposal’’ designed to eliminate interference at 800 MHz. Given the significant nature of that proposal, the

Commission allowed additional time for the submission of comments on the proposal. On December 24, 2002, the Consensus Plan parties filed substantial Supplemental Comments, modifying their proposal. Others joined together and advanced

alternative solutions to the consensus plan. In light of the critical importance of

these issues, the Commission again provided a further opportunity for all parties

to provide comment.

In April, 2003, I sent a letter to five manufacturers asking for any additional technical information relevant to these critical interference issues to assist our staff in

formulating its recommendations to the Commission. Last month, Motorola, the

leading manufacturer of equipment for the 800 MHz band, filed a response. They

reported the development of new portable public safety transceivers, that when used

in combination with best practices, may resolve many of the interference problems

related to the 800 MHz band. Parties have since filed both in support of and in opposition to the Motorola proposal.

As I have indicated, the record generated by our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

is comprehensive, contradictory and complex. We are committed to working with all

parties to analyze and resolve the public safety interference issues as quickly as possible. We are equally committed to taking full advantage of the thoughtful ideas,

expert analysis, and collective expertise of all those involved. Only by doing so will

we be able to craft a solution that provides public safety entities with a lasting and

meaningful resolution.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR BETTER SERVICE

The Commission also is moving forward to enable and encourage the development

of new technologies that hold great promise for public safety use. Ultra-wideband

technology is one example. This technology uses the spectrum in a fundamentally

different way than most current radio systems. The Commission recently authorized

the use of ultra-wideband devices for imaging, vehicle radar, and communication

systems. Perhaps most relevant for public safety are ultra-wideband applications allowing for imaging. Law enforcement can use ultra-wideband ground penetrating

radar systems to detect or obtain images of buried objects. Similarly, through-wall

imaging applications can be used to pinpoint the location and movement of persons

on the other side of a structure such as a wall, and can be very useful in the successful resolution of hostage situations.

The Commission is actively pursuing the potential of cognitive radios. Under software control and in real time these radios have the capability to change their power

and/or frequency, sense their environment, know their location, and optimize their

communication path. This technology holds tremendous promise in the areas of

interoperability and interference rejection/avoidance for public safety applications.

We believe during an emergency these radios will have the capability to configure

themselves for interoperable use and automatically adjust in real time to avoid interference. The Commission staff hosted a Cognitive Radio Technologies Workshop

last month, as a preparatory step to beginning a rulemaking proceeding later this

year to facilitate the development and deployment of this exciting technology.

The availability of Priority Access Service (PAS) on public wireless networks gives

certain emergency personnel greater ability to access commercial cellular and PCS

systems in times of crisis. Under the Commission’s rules for this service, authorized

National Security and Emergency Preparedness personnel users in emergencies may

gain access to the next available wireless channel to originate a call. Following

grant of a limited waiver of these rules last March, T-Mobile has completed the commercial deployment of certain PAS capabilities in more than 15 metropolitan cities,

including Washington, DC, and New York City.

IMPORTANT HELP FOR AMATEURS

I must not fail to mention the contributions of amateur radio operators to public

safety. The Ham radio community has offered invaluable service to, and as, first responders in natural disasters, emergency situations, and other crisis events. AmaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
28

teur radio operates literally all across the radio spectrum, and these bands are allocated on both a primary and secondary basis. Ham operators even successfully

share some of these bands with important federal government operations. In a Report and Order released last month, the Commission modified its rules to provide

access to additional channels in or near the 5250-5400 kHz band on a secondary

basis, and to upgrade the existing secondary allocation to primary status in the

2400-2402 MHz band. The Commission recognizes the public service performed by

the Ham community in times of emergency and looks forward to working with them

in the future in this critical area.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and members allow me to end as I began. The Commission views

its responsibilities in the public safety community as one of its highest priorities.

The Commission has been and will continue to be sensitive to the needs of that community by making spectrum available for its use when necessary, by protecting it

from interference and by enabling new technologies to aid it in its mission. Thank

you again for permitting me to testify on this important and timely subject.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Tamlyn?

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. TAMLYN

Mr. TAMLYN. Chairman Upton, Michigan’s First Congressional

District representative, Bart Stupak, and other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity

to testify on behalf of CCE-911.

My name is Jim Tamlyn. I am Chairman of the Emmet County

Board of Commissioners in the great State of Michigan. I am also

Chairman of the Board for the Charlevoix-Cheboygan-Emmet Central Dispatch Authority, a three-country E-911 central dispatch

consortium.

In 1991, the three county boards of commissioners came to realize that they could deliver a far better, fully enhanced, 911 service

to the public and the first responders of the area by combining resources. This was not an easy task and involved many hurdles

along the way. The bringing together of three counties along with

62 individual units of government they represent and over 50 first

response agencies was monumental.

To deliver a far-reaching interoperable radio communications and

mobile data network to cover an area of just over 1,600 square

miles, which is larger than the State of Rhode Island, with 200

miles of coastline on the Great Lakes, was a major hurdle in itself.

The area that we have to cover includes the Mackinaw Bridge, one

of the largest suspension bridges in the world with its 5 million vehicle crossings per year and its great importance to interstate and

international commerce.

In the same vicinity of the Mackinaw Bridge are three large

pipelines carrying crude oil, natural gas, and refined petroleum

products across the straits of the Mackinaw at a rate of almost 2.5

million gallons per hour. Also sitting on the shores of Lake Michigan is the decommissioned Big Rock Power Plant with its spent

fuel still sitting onsite.

We are only 50 miles from Canada which brings a whole host of

problems such as frequency coordination and strength of signal.

CCE built a system where all police, fire, and EMS talk with each

other on common frequencies. Also in each patrol car we added an

in-card computer. This in-card computer hooks directly to the

State’s data base in Lansing 200 miles away. An officer may run

29

a file check on an individual or a car plate in under 60 seconds,

far quicker and more accurately than was ever done by voice communication.

Also added to patrol cars were automatic vehicle locators, which

allows dispatchers to constantly monitor car locations using the

Global Positioning Satellite system.

The plan is as effective as possible for the future. In 2002, CCE

retained a radio consulting firm to evaluate our existing systems

and current future needs of the responding agencies. The consultants projected our needs at $15 million. As we redesign our radio

systems, we will ultimately be using a mixture of different frequency ranges, microwave, UHF, and VHF, with VHF 150 to 155

megahertz ultimately being used to deliver the signal to first responders.

We are currently not using 800 megahertz because it does not

support voice paging for firefighters, and it does not support data

transmission in our area. The system was designed in our area for

mobile coverage, not portable coverage. We have multiple cost

issues with it.

Our decision has been based on several factors such as better signal propagation with our greatly varied topography, the ability to

efficiently deliver mobile data to on-board computers and response

vehicles, and the ability to simulcast paging signals to fire and

EMS personnel.

The development of our radio system will ultimately mean the

addition of more towers in order to get the desired level of coverage

needed. Our large rural area versus our tax based makes rural

communications very difficult and expensive to maintain. Since

1994, to date we have spent over $16 million in local funding. In

2001, we received a Congressional appropriation of $750,000 to replace our outdated computer software. We are Phase Two compliant for the delivery of E-911, and at this point are waiting for cellular providers to complete their work.

However, much more needs to be done to keep us moving forward to meet the needs of today. We need to provide better radio

signal coverage, secure encrypted radio channels, faster data bandwidth to the vehicles, and the ability to simulcast from multiple

towers in order to begin meeting the needs of today’s first responders.

The Coast Guard, FBI, border patrol, and Customs all have a

presence in our area. Although all local governments are partnered

together to provide state-of-the-art cost-effective communications to

meet public needs, true regionalization of central districts should

include partnering with Federal law enforcement agencies. The

closest backup to one of their officers is most likely one of ours. If

they cannot talk with each other, they cannot help each other.

In looking to the future, we are supportive of the development of

an enhanced E-911 office within the Homeland Security Department, and the development of a block grant program to assist State

and local governments whether it is through the Department of

Homeland Security or the FCC.

In closing, we are grateful to the dedication and commitment to

America’s first responders by our President and our Congress. We

30

would like to thank them for their concern, assistance, and dedication, and wish them Godspeed in these endeavors.

I would specifically like to thank Congressman Stupak for his

continuing commitment to public safety. I would like to say that

the needs that rural first responders face are similar to those of

our Nation’s urban areas regarding the limited amount of frequency spectrum available. These issues are compounded even

more so in rural areas, given the sheer size of the area that we

cover, the topography, and the limited amount of resources. We

must all work together to make radio frequency spectrum and

funding available for our Nation’s first line of defense, our first responders.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views. I

will be available for any questions. I would ask that my testimony

be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of James Tamlyn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES TAMLYN, CHARLEVOIX-CHEBOYGAN-EMMET CENTRAL

DISPATCH AUTHORITY

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey, Michigan’s First Congressional District Representative, Bart Stupak, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of CCE-911 on the

subject of need for interoperable communications systems and increased radio frequency spectrum availability.

To give you a little background on myself, my name is Jim Tamlyn, and I am the

Chairman of the Emmet County Board of Commissioners in the great State of

Michigan. I am also the Chairman of the Board for the Charlevoix-CheboyganEmmet (CCE) Central Dispatch Authority (a three county E-911 central dispatch

consortium). I have served time in the United States Army, serving thirteen months

as a medic in the DMZ of Korea. After my tour of duty, I have served my community in such capacities as firefighter, EMT basic, EMT Specialist, and EMT/Paramedic. In 1990 I was elected to the Emmet County Board of Commissioners, and

have served seven years as the Chairman of that Board. I have also served as the

Chairman of the Board of Directors of our three county regional E911/Central Dispatch since its’ inception, and was a driving force in developing this agency.

TESTIMONY

The Charlevoix-Cheboygan-Emmet (CCE) Central Dispatch Authority was born

out of the needs of our tri-county region to develop a method to deliver Enhanced

911 service to our citizens. The three County Boards of commissioners came to realize that they could deliver a far better fully enhanced 911 service to the public and

the first responders of the area by combining resources.

This was not an easy task and involved many hurdles along the way. The bringing together of three counties along with the 62 individual units of governments (cities, villages, and townships) they represent, and over 50 first response agencies

(which includes local, State, and Federal agencies) was monumental. To deliver a

far-reaching interoperable radio communications and mobile data network to cover

an area of just over 1,600 square miles (larger that the State of Rhode Island) with

200 miles of coastline on the Great Lakes was a major hurdle in itself. We were

also faced with the issues of helping to secure the southern end of the Mackinac

Bridge, one of the largest suspension bridges in the world, with its five million

(5,000,000) vehicle crossings per year, and its great importance to interstate and

international commerce. In the same vicinity as the Mackinac Bridge, are three

large pipelines carrying crude oil, natural gas, and refined petroleum products

across the Straits of Mackinac at a rate of almost two million five hundred thousand

gallons per hour. Beaver Island being a part of Charlevoix County, but lying approximately twenty (20) miles offshore in Lake Michigan presented a very unique

logistical situation as well. Also sitting on the shores of Lake Michigan is the decommissioned Big Rock Nuclear Plant with its spent fuel still on site.

31

With our geographic proximity to our good neighbor Canada being only 50 miles

to the north and east we were also presented with an added layer of issues such

as frequency coordination and clearance between our two countries, limits on broadcasting power (wattage), and tower heights to eliminate interference on similar frequencies.

In building our new dispatch center we pooled all available resources in our three

county area. All radio frequencies owned by all the individual agencies were moved

into a central pool. What came out of this pool is a system where all police agencies

(two state police posts, three sheriff departments, and eight local police agencies)

talk to each other on common frequencies. Also, in each patrol car we added in-car

LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network). This in-car computer hooks directly

to the state’s database in Lansing (200 miles away). An officer may run file checks

on individuals or car plates in under sixty seconds, far quicker and more accurately

than was ever done by voice communication. Also added to patrol cars were AVL

(automatic vehicle locators) which allows dispatchers to constantly monitor car locations using the GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) for officer safety. Our new software installed this spring is giving our AVL system fits and we are working to get

this resolved.

We have 28 fire departments (almost 1000 firefighters—both paid full time and

volunteer) and 8 emergency medical service agencies. The fire departments also

pooled their resources. Frequencies were set aside for dispatch, fire ground, and mutual aid. All 28 agencies can communicate with one another and EMS or go to individual fire ground frequencies. One frequency was set aside for police, fire, and EMS

to talk to each other.

To aid in the development of fully interoperable radio systems which will meet

the needs for additional secure-encrypted channels needed by first responders today,

additional radio spectrum is a priority no matter what range of frequencies (VHFUHF-Microwave) is utilized locally.

To plan as effectively as possible for the future, in 2002 CCE retained a radio consulting firm to evaluate our existing systems, the current and future needs of the

responding agencies, as well as those of our dispatch facility. The consultants projected our needs at $15 million. As we redesign our radio systems, we will ultimately be using a mixture of different frequency ranges (microwave, UHF, VHF),

with VHF (150-155 MHZ) ultimately being used to deliver the signal to first responders. We are currently not using 800 megahertz because it does not do voice

paging for fire fighters, it does not support data transmission in our area, the system was designed for mobile coverage not portable, and several cost issues; however,

we are still looking at 800 as an option.

This decision has been based upon several factors such as: better signal propagation with our greatly varied topography and foliage, the ability to efficiently deliver

mobile data to onboard computers in response vehicles, and the ability to simulcast

paging signals to fire and EMS personnel.

The development of our radio system will ultimately mean the addition of more

towers in order to get the desired level of coverage needed. This will be a pivotal

point in the rebuilding of our radio system as we cannot build towers as tall as

needed, or have as strong a signal output as could be delivered due our proximity

to Canada.

We have both an interoperable radio system that allows the first response agencies (law enforcement, fire, and EMS) to talk with one another during times of need,

but also a three county shared database of records which has been instrumental in

solving many crimes across jurisdictional boundaries since 1996. This has all been

accomplished with local funding of over sixteen million dollars ($16,000,0000) in expenditures since 1994 until recently when an appropriation of seven hundred fifty

thousand dollars ($750,000) was awarded to us through Congress in 2001 to replace

our outdated computer software and hardware backbone. These system upgrades

have been implemented recently, and we are beginning to see the benefits already.

More data than ever is being shared among the law enforcement agencies in our

area, with more to come in the future. This also has allowed us to become Phase

II compliant for the delivery of wireless phone calls, and at this point are waiting

for the cellular providers to complete their work.

This appropriation has allowed us to do even more for the units in the field, however much more remains to be done to keep us moving forward to meet the needs

of today. We need to provide better radio signal coverage, secure-encrypted radio

channels, faster data bandwidth to the vehicles, and the ability to simulcast from

multiple towers in order to begin meeting the needs of today’s first responders.

The three county Boards of Commissioners fund the operation and infrastructure

needs of CCE. Lately, supply is having a hard time keeping up with demand. And,

we will soon (early this summer) add a telephone surcharge. The funds raised will

32

be used over the next three years to improve AVL and Mobile Data Transmission

to police vehicles. We are also looking at the possibility of adding this technology

to lead fire and EMS vehicles. This will be in addition to our operational and capital

budgets which will also continue to increase.

Still we find ourselves falling further behind. Our large rural topography versus

our tax base makes rural communications very difficult to maintain. The responsibilities of local governments since 9/11 have also changed.

Local public safety has taken on an added dimension as we now think national

security in all of our planning.

Coast Guard, FBI, Border Patrol, and Customs all have a presence in our area.

All local governments partnered to provide state of the art, cost-effective communications to meet public safety needs. However, true regionalization of central dispatch should include partnering with federal law enforcement agencies. The closest

backup to one of their officers is most likely one of ours. If they can’t talk to each

other they can’t help each other.

On June 4th, Representative Upton called for the development of an Enhanced

E-911 office within the Homeland Security Department, and the development of a

block grant program to assist state and local governments.

We would support the development of a block grant program for such an effort,

whether it is through the Department of Homeland Security, or the FCC with funding from auction of radio spectrum, or whatever other avenue is deemed appropriate.

Additionally, On June 6th, President Bush issued a Presidential Memo regarding

the formation of the White House Interagency Task Force and the Spectrum Policy

Initiative to review and develop policies for the future of radio spectrum. This is a

monumental step forward in assisting all users of radio communications. This will

also be an incredible asset to rural first responders in assisting them with opening

up additional spectrum for their needs.

These two recent developments show a dedication and commitment to America’s

first responders by our President and Congress with the recognition for the need

to assist them. We would like to thank them for their concern, assistance, and dedication, and wish them Godspeed in these endeavors. I would specifically like to

thank Congressman Stupak for his continuing commitment to public safety.

The need of America’s first responders to be able to share communications and

data both locally and on a national level will continue to grow in the future. To not

allow for this ability because of issues such as limited radio spectrum and limited

data bandwidth will place the safety of the first responders and the public we serve

in jeopardy.

In closing, I would like to say that the needs rural first responders face are similar to those of our nations urban areas regarding the limited amount of frequency

spectrum available. But these issues are compounded even more so in rural areas

given sheer size of the area we cover, topography, and the limited amount of resources available in manpower and funding we face. We must all work together to

make more radio frequency spectrum and funding available for our nations first line

of defense: our first responders.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to share my views on the issue

of spectrum availability for our nations first responders. I would be happy to take

any questions that the committee may have.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much. That was very nice testimony.

Dr. Jacknis?

STATEMENT OF NORMAN J. JACKNIS

Mr. JACKNIS. Mr. Chairman, as well as Congressman Engel,

Westchester’s Congressman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me to testify today.

I am the Chief Information officer for Westchester County. That

means I am the Commissioner in charge of telecommunications and

technology. My responsibilities include the 911 system, radios,

other forms of wireless communications, our emergency dispatch

system, emergency management, fire dispatch, and bioterrorism

early warning.

We have a lot of activity in Westchester County. Basically we are

a large county just north of New York City with 150,000 people.

33

We have two active nuclear plants. We have corporate headquarters of a few of the Fortune 500 companies. We have New York

City’s water supply. We practice drills for emergencies and have

done so for years because of all of the situations. September 11

brought home to us how significant the practice was. Westchester

is as good a place as any to understand the impact of the deficit

in radio spectrum for first responders and emergency workers.

I am going to focus on those things that have not been said as

opposed to repeating everything.

One important point is that the county government in our case

plays a role in the communications system for first responders,

even though we are in a situation where we have four dozen fire

departments, dozens of EMS, dozens of police departments. Unfortunately, under the standard Federal definition, we do not qualify

for any funding because we are not the primary first responder on

the scene.

I would hope that Congress, as it looks forward to some of these

communications problems, broadens the definition of who would be

able to get money to include not just those who are physically appearing on the scene to respond to an incident, but those who are

helping those folks appearing on the scene to communicate with

each other.

I think we have already mentioned the point about the importance of ham radio. It seems a long time ago, 800 megahertz was

promised as the panacea, if you will, for first responders. I will not

repeat all of the other issues you will hear about in terms of interference, but I will just point out to you that when you deal with

a metropolitan area like New York, it is impossible for every individual department to get those licenses. As an example, Westchester Country has never had any 800 megahertz frequencies.

This cannot be the mechanism by which all of us can communicate on a common frequency. It has not worked out that way. 700

megahertz has come along. We thank the Commission for doing

that. But nevertheless, as you have already heard, a television station basically blocks out that possibility for us until 2007 at the

earliest. We are doing our best to work with the State of New York

on at least planning out that kind of common voice communication

system that we all need. But right now it is really more of a hope

than a realistic expectation. That is important to realize. We are

stuck.

Another important point I would make here is that we have

heard a lot of about voice communications. That is essential. It is

very important. In fact, we have taken a regional approach to use

the Raytheon-type device to establish voice intelligibility on the

scene.

That is very essential, but that is not all there is. As you address

these issues, I would appreciate it if you would look forward to the

future of some of the needs that we have seen we need for first responders, and especially in significant emergencies.

That really gets into the realm of data supported requirements,

everything from being able to point out to an emergency operations

center what the scene of an incident looks like, to be able to take

pictures to understand whether or not we have a serious bioterrorism outbreak. There are a variety of things that cannot be supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
34

ported in the spectrum that has been allocated for voice communications. Frankly, you would not want to use up that spectrum for

these kinds of things.

I will point out to you that I am not the only one talking about

this. This is popping up all over the country. Even in this area,

when the police and fire departments in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area, as a result of a number of incidents, realized they

had to have some intelligibility to be able to talk with each other.

What they chose, as opposed to just buying more voice radios,

was to startup a wireless data network called Capwin, which has

been very successful. It has allowed them to be able to deal with

some of the real communications issues. In fact, in a number of

ways it provides more accurate communications than was even possible just using voice.

Later today we have scheduled someone from Westchester County to show Congressman Engel some examples of some of the modern first responder communications that are possible, even in the

unlicensed 2.4 gigahertz range, which some of you know as Wi-fi.

Maybe some of you at home have some of these wireless networks.

It is a very efficient use of spectrum because it is using the protocols that were built for the internet. It is probably the most efficient use of spectrum. I do not know what the FCC says about

that. But it is certainly compared to a lot of the TV bandwidth that

is not used in any place.

The protocol allows for easy operability. What I want to do is encourage you to look forward to that, and the use of the 4.9

gigahertz area. I would encourage the FCC to take that kind of approach for public safety in the 4.9 gigahertz area.

None of this can happen without money. Everybody is stressed

at the State and local level. I am sure you have heard about this.

For that reason, we are very pleased that Mr. Engel, Mr. Stupak,

and Mr. Fossella is working with the chairman to find some mechanism so that we can actually put into place some of this infrastructure to take advantage of the 4.9 gigahertz area.

Thank you. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Norman J. Jacknis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN J. JACKNIS, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NY

Mr. Chairman, Fred Upton, Ranking Member, Edward J. Markey, Westchester’s

own Representative, Eliot Engel and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding these hearings on the radio spectrum needs of

first responders.

I am the Chief Information Officer for Westchester County—the commissioner in

charge of the County Government’s technology and telecommunications. This includes the 911 system, the systems for dispatching fire and EMS units, radios and

other forms of wireless communications, emergency management systems, emergency notification systems, the bioterrorism early warning system, and so on.

With a population of 950,000 people, two active nuclear reactors, New York City’s

water supply, corporate headquarters for several fortune 500 companies among

other possible locations of a disastrous incident, Westchester County is as good a

place as any to understand the potential impact of the radio spectrum deficit facing

public safety and emergency workers. As a suburban county, just north of New York

City, we demonstrate the kinds of communications issues that arise in the handling

of incidents—both large and small—that do not limit themselves neatly to one side

of a municipal border.

35

Westchester County also offers, in microcosm, the common picture of multiple first

response agencies. In addition to the County Government’s special services in

Hazmat, bomb squad, fire training and the like, Westchester has more than forty

other police departments, fifty-eight local fire departments (comprised of career, volunteer firefighters or a combination of the two), forty-two emergency medical service

agencies, and more than fifty public safety answering points in our 911 system.

Day-to-day, the County Government ensures that the communications network underlying these activities is working and we dispatch a majority of the fire departments in the county.

The County Government plays a critical role in coordinating these agencies, especially in the face of a major emergency. In the absence of true interoperability between all of these agencies, we are the only mechanism for these various units to

coordinate their activities.

However, by the standard Federal definition, we are not ‘‘first responders’’ and so

we are not eligible for funding to improve the communications for first responders.

I would suggest that Federal law needs to be amended to reflect the involvement

of agencies that handle communications (like the County) in addition to those that

physically respond to an everyday incident.

In the first hours following the attack of September 11, 2001, the only way we

could coordinate the sharing of firefighting, Medical Examiner, Health and Information Technology resources with New York City officials was through the highly

trained, volunteer Amateur Radio (ham) operators. This was a result of the fact that

normal commercial communications services were unavailable. There was no other

single, common communications medium, except the Amateur Radio Service. This

irreplaceable resource must be protected against incursion by other interests.

In the past, an answer to the needs of public safety, particularly police, was the

use of radios in the 800-Megahertz band. Indeed some of Westchester’s police departments use such frequencies in their local areas. However, the County never received an allocation of 800-Megahertz frequencies and is not able to get any because

it sits in a large metropolitan area where these frequencies are already licensed to

other jurisdictions, such as New York City.

More recently, there have been numerous complaints across the country of interference with these frequencies by commercial wireless services. In turn, there has

been extensive lobbying to have local public safety agencies exchange their 800-

Megahertz frequencies for others in the 700-Megahertz range. No matter what the

outcome of these efforts, it is clear that 800-Megahertz, in our area, has not fulfilled

its promise as the single frequency range for first responder coordination and communications.

So the 800-Megahertz strategy of the FCC has been replaced by a plan to allocate

spectrum in the 700-Megahertz range for public safety uses. This too is years away

in New York State and elsewhere. In New York, a large part of the northern part

of the state faces interference from Canadian uses of the same frequencies. In the

city metropolitan area, including the suburban counties of the lower Hudson Valley,

these frequencies are still used by television stations. It will be 2007 at the earliest

that we could get access to these frequencies.

There was some discussion about this bandwidth being able to carry more than

the traditional voice communications. However, the FCC’s plans for the 700-Megahertz range call for it to be split into voice channels in such a way that it will not

support the more advanced forms of communications that are increasingly needed

and that emerging technology is making possible.

As it tries to help, it is important for Congress to realize that the traditional solution does not reflect the future of communications and will not meet the more demanding needs of first responders. That traditional solution is to give them a nice

big radio that allows them to talk.

Voice communication is essential, but so is the ability to deliver data and video.

The first responders need information, like floor plans, on-demand video instructions

on how to recognize a contagious disease, details from a geographic information system, transmission of medical data from patients, a view from inside a school building, and the ability to show and discuss what is happening at an incident to an

emergency operations center miles away. These are only some examples of the extraordinary expansion of first responder communications capabilities that would be

possible if the spectrum for public safety were managed for the future and not the

past.

This is certainly not without precedent. When the suburban counties in metropolitan Washington, DC, realized their failure to properly coordinate in the face of a

plane crash into one bridge and then a ‘‘jumper’’ off another bridge, they organized

to create a data network (CapWIN)—not just buy the more traditional radios. This

36

has become an enormous success for them, even though they are dependent upon

a variety of commercial communications services.

Later today, we are scheduled to show Congressman Engel some examples of modern first responder communications that are possible even in the unlicensed 2.4

Gigahertz range. These are also examples of the efficient use of spectrum because

of their reliance on the communications protocols of the Internet. Moreover, these

same protocols allow for easy interoperability between agencies with all kinds of different radio, voice, video and other equipment. Commonly called Wi-Fi (a part of the

802.11 family of standards), this is the fastest growing, most competitive, least expensive and most innovative sector of the communications market.

These are impressive technologies, but the problem is they are dependent upon

unlicensed frequencies that are getting more crowded and commercialized. Public

safety, emergency managers and first responders must have reliable delivery of the

information required for proper decision-making and the protection of people’s lives.

They need sufficient and reliable spectrum to use these modern technologies—but

without worry about being crowded out.

In recognition of this need, a few weeks ago, the FCC took a first step by deciding

to allocate to public safety about 50 Megahertz of spectrum in the 4.9 Gigahertz

range. This is less than the 100 or 200 Megahertz originally anticipated for these

needs. It excludes communications to police surveillance helicopters. There is also

potential interference from powerful Navy radio equipment, especially in the more

populated coastal areas of the country. Nevertheless, this is a good first step forward.

Congress can help to ensure that this decision will achieve its potential to become

the basis for the first responder communications system that people deserve. There

are four necessary Congressional actions:

• First, urge the FCC to make this spectrum available soon. We cannot wait for a

years-long regulatory process.

• Second, make sure that commercial or other interests will not encroach or interfere with this allocation of spectrum, as has been the case with the previous

800-Megahertz and 700-Megahertz plans. This also means that the new spectrum allocation would be exclusively for public safety and emergency response

use of governments or their agents. In the case of my county, that definition

includes our public transportation system, which plays an essential role in evacuating the public from harm, especially schoolchildren.

• Third, encourage the FCC to adopt a more modern approach to allocating these

frequencies, in accordance with the more modern digital technologies they say

they want to support. Rather than slicing up the spectrum into less usable allocations to individual agencies, it would make sense to dedicate the whole swath

of this spectrum to encourage the deployment of a wireless, secure, Internet-like

data network modeled on the way that 2.4 Gigahertz works. Bearing in mind

the public safety purpose of 4.9 Gigahertz, the FCC would then permit only authorized agencies to send data over an infrastructure built out by regional (or

even Federal) organizations.

• Fourth, while modern communications technology is much cheaper to deploy than

traditional radio systems, it is not free. Like other local and state governments

around the country, Westchester has mostly footed the bill for homeland security on its own, but cannot afford to build out the communications infrastructure or continue to spend to keep up with the improvements in technology. The

absence of financial resources can stop progress cold. For this reason, it is good

to see that this problem has been addressed in the legislation introduced by

Congressmen Engel, Fossella and Stupak to create a trust fund for this purpose.

By the way, considering that Federal emergency management agencies will also

be part of the new spectrum allocation, the funding will help both the Federal

and local governments to protect the public in these ever more dangerous times.

Again, I thank you for your interest in this critical problem and I welcome any

questions.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

Lieutenant Adamczyk, welcome.

STATEMENT OF GENE ADAMCZYK

Mr. ADAMCZYK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

37

In Michigan, my responsibilities are to bring new local members

into the Statewide radio system, to provide to their training needs,

their customer service needs, and all their technological needs.

I heard earlier about the lack of intelligibility that other jurisdictions in other States face. Michigan happened to be at the right

spot at the right time. We have addressed this issue to some extent.

The State of Michigan has just implemented one of the most advanced and reliable public safety two-way radio communication

systems in the Nation, known as Michigan’s Public Safety Communications System, or the MPSCS. It utilizes state-of-the-art 800

megahertz trunk digital technology that allow member agencies to

communicate statewide. The 181 tower site infrastructure has been

designed to provide 97 percent all-weather mobile radio coverage

across every region of the State. Completion of this project is truly

significant as subscriber agencies now have radio communications

intelligibility across all 96,810 square miles of the State, from the

Ohio border to Michigan’s most northern tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula.

The building of MPSCS began nearly two decades ago. In 1984,

the Michigan Department of State Police had to evaluate its crumbling two-way radio system that had been in operation since the

1940’s. It was determined that the new terrestrial radio system

would not only serve the Michigan State Police, but would be open

to include all local, State, and Federal public safety agencies in

Michigan.

In June 1994, the Michigan legislature overwhelmingly approved

$187 million to fund the new system. Due to magnitude of the system, the State was divided into four geographic areas to complete

this project. In September 1995, the State broke ground on Phase

One construction. Phase One was built to APCO 16 standards. In

1998, during Phase Two, the vendor contract was amended to

APCO 25 standards. This created an open architecture for the system.

MPSCS is recognized internationally as one of the most technologically advanced two-way radio systems in the world. It is capable of meeting both the current and future communications needs

of Michigan’s public safety community. Recent visitors to view the

statewide system in hope of emulating Michigan’s lead in technology include the State of Montana, and the Dutch, German, and

Mexican governments.

MPSCS also provides statewide support to some of the recent

Michigan public safety operations, such as the 2002 Republican

Governors Conference, the Detroit G-8 Conference, the Gogebic

County flood, the Hooten County communications outage, the Marquette County flood disaster, and the recent Presidential visit to

Dearborn.

MPSCS also provides statewide support to first responders in

routine public safety operations such as fugitive pursuits, searches

for lost individuals, and other multi-agency critical events. Today,

MPSCS is more than 235 local, State, and Federal public safety

agencies with 10,400 radios on the system. Many local and county

agencies are currently considering joining MPSCS.

38

Based on current public safety interests, it is anticipated that the

system will host over 14,000 public safety radios by the end of this

year. Public safety radio spectrum is a finite resource, and in emergencies it is vital for public safety personnel to have clear communications available immediately. Without spectrum, public safety

communications is impossible. Dense urban areas, consisting of

many political subdivisions, create significant demands on available spectrum.

No two adjacent independent communication systems can use the

same frequencies. Efficient channel spacing and frequency reuse

allow for the maximum use of limited spectrum. However, only so

much is available. In addition, public safety communication systems face interference from other public safety communications

systems. Adding additional features to public safety radio communication, such as mobile data, still images, mug shots, and live feed

requires additional spectrum to operate.

The legislative intent in building Michigan’s statewide radio system is public safety communications intelligibility for all of Michigan’s public safety. For individual units of government to build disparate communications systems thwarts the legislative spirit of

this MPSCS. Intelligibility must also have a standard.

The standard Michigan has adopted is Project 25. Project 25

standards is supported by APCO, the Association of Public Communications Officials, the FCC, International Associations of Chiefs of

Police, International Sheriffs Association, International Associations of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of State Telecommunicators Directors, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The Michigan system is open to the entire public safety community, including police, fire, EMS, public works, and transportation,

hospital emergency rooms, and school districts. In Michigan, one of

the barriers to obtaining communications intelligibility is the lack

of funding, whether the community is large or the community is

small. Funding that is provided to public safety for homeland security and communications intelligibility should be directed to those

projects that meet Project 25 intelligibility standards, as does

MPSCS.

Thank you. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Gene Adamczyk follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF F/LT. GENE ADAMCZYK, MICHIGAN STATE POLICE

The State of Michigan has just implemented one of the most advanced and reliable public safety two-way radio communications systems in the nation. Michigan’s

Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS) utilizes state-of-the art 800 MHz

trunked digital technology that allows member agencies to communicate statewide.

The 181-tower site infrastructure has been designed to provide 97% all weather mobile radio coverage across every region of the state. The completion of this project

is truly significant as subscriber agencies now have radio communications interoperability across all 96,810 square miles of the state, from the Ohio border to Michigan’s most northern tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula.

The implementation process of MPSCS began nearly two decades ago. In 1984,

the Michigan Department of State Police formed a committee to evaluate its crumbling two-way radio system that had been in operation since the 1940s. The committee consisted of several state departments including State Police, Natural Resources, Transportation, Management and Budget, Military Affairs and representatives of the state House and Senate Fiscal Agencies. It was determined that the new

39

terrestrial radio system would not only serve the Michigan State Police, but also

would be opened to include all local, state and federal local public safety agencies

in Michigan. In 1992, after several years of completing various system design plans

and cost studies, specifications for a request for proposal were finalized and sent to

potential vendors.

In June 1994, the Michigan Legislature overwhelmingly approved approximately

$187 million dollars to fund the new system, awarding Motorola with the largest

single-vendor contract in the State of Michigan’s history. The state was divided into

four geographical areas (four phases) due to the magnitude of the project.

In September 1995, the state broke ground on Phase One construction. Phase One

was built to APCO 16 standards and encompassed all of southeast Michigan, including the Detroit, Jackson and Lansing areas. The phase was officially completed in

1997. In 1998, Phase Two, which included all of southwest lower Michigan, was

brought online to the new APCO 25 standard. Phase One was also upgraded to the

APCO 25 standard. The completion of Phase Three followed in 2000 and consisted

of the northern Lower Peninsula. Phase Four, the entire Upper Peninsula, was competed and brought online in November 2002.

On November 6, 2001, the State Administrative Board approved $20.3 million dollars to modify the contract between the State of Michigan and Motorola. This allowed for an upgrade from the current Motorola ASTRO  5.0 Platform to Motorola’s

latest two-way radio platform—ASTRO  6.0 IP Voice System. Phase Four (Upper

Peninsula) was brought online on the 6.0 platform. In November 2002, the entire

infrastructure in the Lower Peninsula was upgraded to the 6.0 platform creating a

true statewide communications system. Some of the more visible benefits of the upgrade included increased user capacity to 64,000 user IDs, 16,000 talk groups and

simulcast capabilities at local sites added to the state infrastructure.

MPSCS is recognized internationally as one of the most technologically advanced

two-way radio systems. It is capable of meeting both the current and future communications needs of Michigan’s public safety community. Recent visitors to view the

statewide system include representatives from the State of Montana and the Dutch,

German, and Mexican governments.

MPSCS has provided support to recent Michigan public safety operations such as

the 2002 Republican Governor’s Conference, the Detroit G-8 Conference, the Gogebic

County Flood, the Houghton County Communications Outage, the Marquette County Flood Disaster and the Presidential Visit to Dearborn. MPSCS also provides

statewide support in routine public safety operations such as fugitive pursuits,

searches for lost individuals and other multi-agency critical events.

Today the MPSCS has more than 235 local, state and federal public safety agencies with 10,400 radios on the system. Many local and county agencies are currently

considering joining the MPSCS. Based on public safety interest, it is anticipated

that the system will host over 14,000 public safety radios by the end of next year.

Public safety radio spectrum is a finite resource. In an emergency, it is vital for

public safety personnel to have clear channels available immediately. Without spectrum public safety radio communications is impossible. Dense urban areas consisting of many political subdivisions create significant demands on available spectrum. No two adjacent independent communications systems can use the same frequencies. Efficient channel spacing and frequency reuse allow for maximum use of

limited spectrum; however, only so much is available. In addition, public safety faces

interference from other public safety communications systems and commercial communications systems. Adding additional features to public safety radio communications such as mobile data, still images (mug shots), and live feed video requires additional spectrum to operate.

The FCC is in the process of making available 24 MHz of the 700 MHz frequency

band to all public safety nationwide. However, its availability for public safety use

in Michigan and other states is contingent on the fact that commercial broadcasters

have the right to continue using this band until December 31, 2006 or longer.

Equipment manufacturers see little incentive to manufacture equipment capable of

operating within this frequency range without this spectrum being available.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

You might have heard those buzzers and bells. I apologize, too,

for my quick departures back and forth, but I have a markup in

the Education Committee, you have to be present to vote. We have

a series of votes on the House floor.

I will propose that we will adjourn temporarily. We will reconvene with Mr. Brown’s testimony at 1:15 p.m.

40

[Brief recess.]

Mr. UPTON. The subcommittee will come to order.

We will continue with our panel discussion.

Mr. Brown?

STATEMENT OF GREGORY Q. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Good afternoon, Chairman Upton, Congressman

Markey, and members of the subcommittee. It is good to see you

again since Chicago.

My name is Greg Brown. I am President and CEO of Motorola’s

Commercial Government and Industry Solutions Sector, or what

we affectionately call, CGISS. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing and for taking the time to visit

our real-time data communications project which we call Greenhouse. It is obvious that meeting public safety needs is a high priority for you.

I also want to thank the members of this committee who have

been exploring ways to clear TV channels 60 to 69 in the 700 megahertz band, and to find additional public safety funds. I am pleased

to be with you today to support your efforts to achieve our shared

goals.

As you know, Motorola is a leading provider of communications

and information solutions. Since installing the first police car radio

over 65 years ago, we have been dedicated to serving the mission

critical needs of public safety customers, with an extensive range

of technology options.

Wireless communications is a critical tool for our Nation’s public

safety agencies underscored and reinforced by today’s heightened

homeland security concerns. It is the mechanism for providing our

first responders with the right information at the right time and

in the right place, whether that information is voice, data, or pictures.

First responders must obtain accurate information at the point

of decision. They must have improved intelligibility among multiple

agencies and levels of government. Today the technology exists, as

we heard some commentary before, to improve the quality and effectiveness of public safety operations. But clearly there are obstacles to deploying these new technologies.

I am here this morning to ask for your help in two areas. First,

public safety needs additional Federal funding to purchase the radios and systems necessary to do its job, including improving intelligibility. Second, public safety must have access—the 700 megahertz spectrum by December 2006 to fully achieve intelligibility

and deploy the advanced state of technology.

Only when these steps are taken can wireless technology fully

support our first responders. We can do things like improving the

quality of information to our frontline responders. An officer or

agent can transmit video of a potential bomb or a biological weapon

and get real-time counsel from an expert in another remote location. Local or State police could instantly send or receive a photograph of a missing or abducted child. Firefighters can access building blueprints, hydrant locations, hazardous material data, and

other critical important information.

41

We have heard a great deal about the need for improved intelligibility among first responder organizations. Some Federal funds

have been made available for this purpose, but they are wholly inadequate to reach an acceptable level of intelligibility in a reasonable time. We need your leadership in committing to and enforcing

a sustained funded multi-year Federal program that guarantees

this communications problem will be fixed once and for all.

Turning to the need for spectrum, Congress recognized its importance in 1997 when 24 megahertz in the 700 megahertz band was

reallocated to support mission critical public safety communications. TV channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 currently use this spectrum.

These stations are slated to clear this spectrum as part of the DTV

transition.

It is critical to public safety operations for two reasons. First, 700

megahertz provides additional capacity for interoperable voice communications. Second, 700 megahertz is the only dedicated spectrum

allocation where public safety can have high speed wide-area access in the field data bases—the intranet, imaging, and video. In

other words, critical information.

Unfortunately, most metropolitan area public safety operations

cannot use the spectrum today, nor can they predict with any certainty when they might have access to these frequencies. This uncertainty is due to the way the current law is written. In reality,

there is no hard date for ending the transition, leaving public safety and deployment of vital technology in limbo.

Until this problem is addressed, 5 percent of this country’s TV

stations will prevent improved public safety communications for

over 50 percent of our Nation’s population. We are mindful of the

other considerations that are involved in clearing these channels.

It will not be easy. But we believe it can be done. We believe the

adverse effects can be mitigated. Clearing television operations will

not happen without your commitment and help. The first step is

to agree today to set a hard date of December 2006.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, there is no more sound investment

than ensuring that our Nation’s public safety officials have the necessary tools to protect our citizens in the years ahead. We urge this

committee to clear spectrum and to invest in intelligibility for all

public safety radio users. Motorola pledges its supports to our customers and to you, this committee, to ensure making that happen.

Thank you. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Gregory Q. Brown follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREG BROWN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MOTOROLA,

PRESIDENT & CEO, COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS SECTOR

Good morning, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey and Members of the

Subcommittee.

My name is Greg Brown, and I am the President and CEO of Motorola’s Commercial Government and Industrial Solutions Sector. I want to express my appreciation

to you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing, and for taking time to visit our

high-speed date project, the Greenhouse Project. It is obvious that you have put a

high priority on identifying and meeting public safety needs. I also want to thank

other members of this committee who were able to visit the project earlier this

week, including Congressmen Rush, Bass and Terry.

42

This committee understands the challenges facing public safety and has taken the

lead in exploring ways to address these needs, including the 700 MHz proposals of

Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell, Congresswoman Harman, and Congressman Weldon and the funding proposals by Congressmen Markey, Stupak,

Fossella and Engel, among others. I am pleased to be with you today to support

your efforts to achieve our shared goal of meeting public safety needs.

Motorola’s Commercial, Government and Industrial Solutions Sector (CGISS) is a

leading provider of communications and information solutions, with more than 65

years of experience in meeting the mission-critical needs of our public safety customers. We offer an extensive portfolio of solutions specifically designed to meet the

rapidly evolving safety and security needs of these customers. Our solutions include

interoperable mission-critical radio systems; command and control solutions; identification and tracking solutions; information management for criminal justice and

civil needs; and physical security and monitoring solutions. In 2002, CGISS received

the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, the nation’s premier award for performance excellence and quality achievement, and Motorola was pleased to be here

in Washington last month to receive the award from Vice President Cheney and

Commerce Secretary Evans.

Motorola works very closely with our customers to ensure their ability to effectively respond to both every-day mission critical needs and catastrophic events. Our

goal is to help them provide superior information at the point of decision and to improve interoperability among multiple agencies and levels of government. Interoperable wireless communication capability allows two or more parties to exchange information directly. In every disaster scenario, emergency responders recognize wireless system interoperability as a key factor in effective response and regional coordination. With interoperability, on-scene personnel can quickly access each other to

coordinate needed rescue and emergency activities.

Motorola has installed or upgraded hundreds of digital systems for local and state

jurisdictions. For example, Motorola supplied the leading edge interoperable digital

system for the State of Michigan, as well as the Integration Framework technology

in Kalamazoo County that will connect the multiple justice information systems for

new efficiencies in criminal enforcement and homeland security. In addition, the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts is operating an interoperable, multi-agency statewide network that serves as a platform for interoperability among many State and

local agencies and is planning for future expansion.

Our experience has confirmed that interoperability is an important priority, and

in achieving this capability, like meeting other mission imperatives, the approach

must fit the system in question and the customer’s needs and circumstances. There

is no one-size-fits-all because of the wide differences among existing systems and operations.

We believe that nationwide interoperability can be achieved by the end of this

decade if we set that goal as a national priority. Despite the differences among systems, we have learned that the common, and key, requirements to achieving interoperability include spectrum, standards and money.

To that end Congress has taken many steps to make spectrum available to public

safety, including setting aside 24 MHz in the 700 MHz band. Congress now should

clear this spectrum by the end of 2006 so public safety can begin to use it for wide

area high-speed data communications as well as expanded voice communications.

Interoperability standards that meet public safety needs and are open to all manufacturers have been established for voice and data communication and soon will be

affirmed for wideband services. And finally, the Administration and the Congress

have begun to fund the various grant programs administered by the Departments

of Justice and Homeland Security and to set interoperability as a high priority for

these funds. However, the level of funding in general and the amounts set aside for

interoperable equipment purchases must be increased significantly.

ACCESS TO SPECTRUM ALLOCATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY IS CRITICAL.

Wireless communications is a critical tool for our nation’s public safety agencies,

especially given today’s heightened homeland security concerns. It is the mechanism

for providing our first responders with the right information at the right time and

in the right place, whether that information is transferred via voice, data, or images. Spectrum designated for exclusive use by public safety is the lifeline to their

emergency response, detection and prevention capabilities. Simply put, without access to adequate spectrum, wireless communications cannot take place, effectively

and ubiquitously.

Recognizing the urgent and rapidly growing need for additional spectrum, especially in our metropolitan population centers, the public safety community through

43

the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC), issued a report on September 11, 1996 that identified the need for almost 100 MHz of additional spectrum

to meet its communications needs through 2010. The greatest amount of spectrum

is needed for emerging wireless wide area and broadband technologies, adapted for

mission critical public safety applications. These applications include high-speed

data, intranet access, imaging and video transfers and on-scene multi-media mobile

command communications.

In 1997 Congress reallocated 24 MHz in the 746-806 MHz band (700 MHz band)

to support mission critical public safety communications. The FCC has implemented

this directive and issued authorizations and technical rules for public safety use.

However, this spectrum is currently used by television channels 63, 64, 68 and 69,

and they are expected to vacate this spectrum as part of the HDTV transition.

These channels are critical to public safety for two reasons:

(1) Together, the new 700 MHz and current 800 MHz bands provide the best opportunity to integrate interoperable communications. The 700 MHz band’s proximity to the 800 MHz band allows public safety agencies to expand their current

800 MHz narrowband voice and data systems for interoperability and regional

coordination on an ‘‘intra’’ as well as ‘‘inter’’ agency basis. Equipment operating

in these combined frequency bands on the FCC endorsed Project 25 interoperability standard is commercially available today. Further, the FCC last year

granted each state a license to operate such narrowband communications in the

700 MHz band.

(2) 700 MHz is the only dedicated spectrum allocation where public safety can implement advanced mobile wide area systems that bring high-speed access to

databases, the intranet, imaging and video to first responders in the field.

This technology offers a whole new level of mobile communications capabilities,

which is far beyond today’s voice and low speed data applications. For example:

1. An officer or agent could transmit video of a potential bomb, or biological weapon

and get real time counsel from an expert in another location.

2. Local or state police could instantly send or receive a photograph of a missing

or abducted child.

3. Crime scene investigators can transmit live video of footprints, fingerprints and

evidence to speed analysis and apprehension of perpetrators.

4. Firefighters can access building blueprints, hydrant locations hazardous material

data and other critical information.

5. Paramedics can transmit live video of the patient to doctors at the hospital that

would help save lives.

Motorola and Pinellas County, Florida, conducted a successful trial of technology

that can provide all of the above capabilities as part of what we refer to as the

Greenhouse Project. Operating under an experimental license from the FCC, we are

conducting trials in the City of Chicago. The capabilities being demonstrated are the

emerging powerful multi-media applications that will bring public safety communications into the Twenty-First Century. Public safety users are currently finalizing

the wideband interoperability standard through the Telecommunications Industry

Association (TIA). Right now, actual product development could proceed as soon as

we know with certainty that this spectrum will be available nationwide to the public

safety community.

Unfortunately, most metropolitan area public safety operations cannot use this

spectrum today, nor can they predict with any certainty when they might have access to these frequencies. Therefore, they cannot deploy, or plan for the deployment

of, the interoperability and advanced technology that will improve their effectiveness and safety. Under current law, while TV incumbents are required to vacate

this spectrum at the end of 2006, they can receive an unlimited extension of this

deadline based on the state of the transition in their particular market. Many experts seem to accept that the 2006 date is not likely to be met in any television

market. Nor is there any effort to prioritize clearing the stations that impede use

of the public safety allocation. So, in reality, there is no ‘‘hard date’’ when the transition will end for public safety users, a situation which leaves the public safety

community and those who support its efforts and needs in a terrible situation. We

commend and encourage this committee’s efforts on legislation to set this hard date.

In order for any public safety agency to use the spectrum it has been assigned

in the 700 MHz band, any TV stations operating on those transmit and receive frequencies (referred to as the co-TV channels) must have ceased operations. In addition, any TV stations in that market that are operating one TV channel up or down

from the co-TV channel (referred to as the adjacent TV channels) also must have

ceased operations. In effect, as many as seven TV channels (62-65 and 67-69) must

44

be cleared before first responders in that market will be able to access the 24 MHz

of new spectrum and deploy the equipment that uses this spectrum.

Based on current FCC licenses, we have developed maps that identify the locations of the TV broadcasters that are operating today on the public safety co-channels and adjacent channels throughout the country. The maps include Canadian TV

broadcasters that are bordering the U.S and that would impact public safety operations in the bands. Because public safety systems operate in a pairing of transmit

and receive channels, they will operate in previous TV channels 63 and 68, and 64

and 69. In addition adjacent channels would impact their operations. Each of the

two maps below shows the implications of existing operations on one of the two pairings. The shaded circles indicate current areas blocked by TV incumbents on the cochannels and on the adjacent channels and they include the Canadian TV stations

operations.

It is no surprise that these blocked areas are in our nation’s densest population

centers, where public safety urgently needs access to the spectrum. The reality is

that 5% of this country’s TV stations are blocking improved public safety communications for 84% of the population in the largest cities, those over 200,000. Of that

84%, more than two-thirds have no access to the spectrum, while the remaining

third have only limited access. When we look at all areas of the country, rural as

well as urban, 54% of our country’s population is totally blocked by this small number of TV stations from receiving any benefits of public safety communications in

this new band.

To allow public safety agencies to implement this vitally needed new wideband

technology, as well as expand and interoperate with their existing 800 MHz systems, public safety must be allowed to access the 700 MHz spectrum throughout the

country.

Congressional action is required to mandate a date certain by which all TV incumbents must vacate this critically needed spectrum, without exceptions. This firm date

must be no later than 2006.

We are not unmindful of the other considerations that are involved in making this

date a reality. It will not be an easy task, but we believe it can be achieved while

mitigating the adverse effects. We urge the Committee not to be deterred from setting this goal because it may be hard to achieve. Rather, once it has been set, the

affected parties, including the public safety community, the FCC and NTIA, the involved broadcasters and other affected parties, including our company, should be

called upon to devote our energies to making it happen.

INCREASED RECOGNITION OF INTEROPERABILITY IS IMPERATIVE.

Motorola was the first company to put radio equipment in a police car. This landmark event took place approximately 65 years ago. From that day forward to the

present, technology to meet first responder needs has steadily evolved. As the technology made it possible to move into higher and higher frequency bands, and as the

lower frequencies reached user capacity, the FCC allocated additional spectrum to

public safety users on an incremental basis, going from the VHF Low Band, located

in the area of 30 MHz, to the VHF High Band in the area of 150 MHZ, and the

UHF Band at 450 MHZ, and then going to the 800 MHz Band and now to the 700

MHz spectrum.

As this Committee appreciates, public safety equipment must be capable of many

years of use, because local municipal budgets need to squeeze as much use out of

equipment as is possible. Thus, there has been no set order in which municipalities

expanded into new spectrum bands. A city would buy new equipment, perhaps in

a new band, when they needed new or expanded communications, a replacement for

their existing equipment, or as existing channels hit capacity usage levels.

This patchwork quilt approach to spectrum allocation and adoption by users for

public safety by myriad independent political entities resulted in the interoperability

challenges we are facing today. Regional coordination to enable interoperability was

not considered to be a high priority, at least not until a local disaster exposed a

problem. For example, more than 20 years ago, the public safety community in metropolitan Washington, D.C., learned firsthand how a lack of interoperability among

agencies can contribute to the chaos of a disaster and may impede effective response.

On January 13, 1982, the crash of Air Florida flight 90 into the 14th Street

Bridge revealed that many of the police, fire and rescue agencies from all levels of

government, who responded to this large disaster, could not talk to one another.

From this experience emerged a consensus that something had to be done. And action was taken, including years of planning and collaboration by the Washington

Metropolitan Area Council of Governments to design proactively an interoperable

45

radio communications solution and mutual aid agreement among the area jurisdictions and response agencies.

On September 11, 2001, the local public safety organizations in the Washington,

D.C. area were prepared, and with the flip of a switch, they were able to communicate seamlessly at the site of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. There were still

some coordination issues with the federal responders who also arrived on the scene,

because they had not chosen to be part of the planning efforts of the local jurisdictions, and their radios operated on separate federal frequency bands. But both the

benefits of interoperability and some ways in which it can be achieved were aptly

demonstrated that day. This experience demonstrated that while meeting day to day

operational requirements, interoperability can be achieved when there is a willingness to cooperate, sufficient compatible spectrum, funding, common technology and

equally important, adequate training and planning.

PROJECT 25 IS THE U.S. INTEROPERABILITY STANDARD

In addition to spectrum access, standards are critically important to achieving

interoperability. Fortunately, the standards for interoperability have been developed, and they have been accepted around the world, with systems now operating

in 49 countries. The standards were developed by the public safety users in the

United States, with cooperation from multiple equipment manufacturers. Public

safety users adopted the Project 25 (or ‘‘P25’’) standard in order to implement an

open standard that promotes interoperability and system migration, and enables

more competitive procurements for digital radio systems, thereby eliminating their

dependence on vendor proprietary systems.

P25 is actually a full suite of standards that, when built into communications

equipment, provides the basis for interoperable digital radio voice and low-speed

data communications among multiple public safety users, departments and agencies. These standards were developed under the auspices of, and are published by,

the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and accredited by the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI). Public safety users have the option to choose

Project 25 products from multiple vendors. The Project 25 web page lists 15 manufacturers serving the public safety and defense markets, who offer P25 compliant

radios and/or P25 radio system products (http://www.project25.org/pages/manufacturers.htm).

Unlike many other communications standards and technologies in the broader

wireless industry, the unique mission critical requirements of public safety users

drove the development of the P25 suite of standards. High priority was given to

public safety’s operational and tactical requirements. For reasons of cost effectiveness, the Project 25 standards permit a graceful migration path from aging analog

to new digital systems. These standards promote improved spectral efficiency, and,

as intended, allow for multi-vendor equipment offerings. Radios that meet the P25

standards incorporate backward compatibility with conventional analog systems.

Project 25 radios communicate in analog mode to analog radios, and either digital

or analog modes with other P25 radios.

Public safety users at all levels of government have embraced Project 25. For example, Project 25 has received the endorsement of the National Association of State

Telecommunications Directors (NASTD), the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials—International (APCO), the International Association of Chiefs of

Police (IACP), the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the Major Cities

Chiefs (MCC), the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), and the Major County Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA).

Project 25 has received broad support at the federal level as well. Based on public

safety user recommendations, the FCC endorsed the Project 25 suite of standards

for voice and low-speed data interoperability in the new nation-wide 700 MHz frequency band. Every 700 MHz radio must include Project 25 compatibility defined

by this TIA/ANSI standard. The U.S. Department of Defense mandated P25 for new

land mobile radio systems. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security specified

P25 as the standard for obtaining federal funding for interoperability grants.

INTEROPERABILITY FUNDING SHOULD BE A NATIONAL PRIORITY

Full public safety communications interoperability by the end of this decade

should be a national goal. This is an ambitious goal, but a very worthy and doable

one. Our nation has the necessary technology, the standards and equipment . What

is lacking is the money to buy the equipment and deploy the systems, particularly

at the state and local level, and we will not achieve this goal at the present pace

of system upgrades. Instead, it will require a commitment lead by determined champions. Mr. Chairman, I urge this Committee to assume this important role.

46

There are several reasons why the federal government must take the lead. As we

all know, homeland security is a federal, state and local responsibility, but national

planning begins at the federal level. This is one of the reasons why the Congress

and the President created the new Department of Homeland Security.

While we cannot predict future terrorist attacks, we must prepare for the real

possibility and threat. Also, we do know that we will face natural disasters such as

hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, and earthquakes and other threats such as hostage

takings, hazardous materials spills, and train wrecks. Interoperable public safety

communications is critical to effective response in all these cases.

With the states facing a staggering $80 billion aggregated deficit in 2004 alone,

they cannot be expected to accomplish this goal without substantial federal support.

Accordingly, we need a well-funded, multi-year federal program that guarantees

that this communication problem is fixed, once and for all.

Consequently, we must work aggressively to increase the funds devoted to interoperable communications now and until the job is done. Nothing should be allowed

to delay or impede this funding effort. At the present time, combining fiscal year

‘‘03 base and supplemental appropriations, about $5B has been appropriated for various grant programs for state and local first responders. While wireless communications is one of a number of allowed uses for these funds, only about $154M or 3%

of the total was designated in the legislation specifically for wireless communications enhancements. We would ask for your help to increase the sums designated

for wireless communications in light of the broad consensus that exists for improving the status of wireless communications interoperability among government entities.

We certainly cannot afford the human costs associated with delaying achievement

of full interoperability.

Mr. Chairman, ensuring that our nation’s public safety officials have the tools

they need to protect our citizens in the years ahead is a sound investment for the

entire country. We urge this Committee to clear spectrum for public safety and to

invest in interoperability for all public safety radio users. Motorola pledges its support to our public safety customers and to this Committee to help you make this

happen.

Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Stile?

STATEMENT OF VINCENT R. STILE

Mr. STILE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Vincent Stile.

I am appearing before you as President of the Association of Public

Safety Communications Officials. The International Association of

Chiefs of Police and Major Cities Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National League of Cities, and the National

Association of Counties have also asked that I speak on their behalf.

My paying job is with the Suffolk County Police Department in

New York as Communications Systems Director. I am also a retired police officer. I am also Frequency Advisor for Southern New

York State for APCO.

I would like to discuss the spectrum needs of this Nation’s first

responders and in particular the need for a firm date to make

available the 700 megahertz spectrum for public safety communications.

Today in much of the Nation there is simply not enough radio

spectrum for public safety requirements. As the New York City

area frequency advisor, I can truly say no channels are available

for expanding public safety radio systems which has four major

consequences.

One, an agency must operate on dangerously overcrowded radio

systems. Two, agencies must share channels with other agencies

and face the potential of interference. Three, agencies are unable

47

to deploy state-of-the-art capabilities such as mobile data or

trunking technology. Four, agencies are forced to operate radio systems on diverse incompatible radio frequency bands.

In my written testimony I cited a few examples of spectrum

shortages that have long been a major problem facing public safety

communications across the Nation. The spectrum problems that I

have described are not new. In 1996, the Public Safety Wireless

Advisory Committee concluded that public safety users would need

97.5 megahertz of spectrum by the year 2010.

Among the specific requirements of that report, 24 megahertz of

that spectrum from TV channels 60 to 69, are to be made available

for public safety within 5 years. Unfortunately, that spectrum is

still not available nationwide. In 1997, Congress required that the

FCC allocate an additional 24 megahertz of radio spectrum for public safety services. However, the 1997 law allowed those television

stations to remain on the air until December 31, 2006, or until 85

percent of the households in the relevant market areas have the

ability to receive digital television which is likely to occur no later

than 2006.

Speeding up digital television deployment to meet the 85 percent

benchmark is not enough to solve the dilemma. Public safety needs

the firm date of the new spectrum to be available for planning and

funding purposes. Therefore, we urge Congress to establish December 31, 2006, as a firm and final date for television services to vacate specific channels that block public safety use of the 700 megahertz band. That will give State and local governments the ability

to proceed with new radio systems and for expansion of overburdened systems operating on the adjacent 800 megahertz band.

800 megahertz is among the frequency bands in which public

safety channels are no longer available in most of the Nation. Unfortunately, the 800 band is also subject to severe interference

caused by Nextel and other wireless carriers. APCO has joined,

along with public safety and private wireless organizations, to create a consensus plan to address these problems.

A consensus plan eliminates most of the interference problems

and creates additional public safety spectrum channels for the 800

megahertz band. These additional channels are especially important right now where 700 megahertz remains blocked by the TV

channels.

With additional public safety spectrum, an important benefit of

the consensus plan is its principal goal to address serious interference problems. We have carefully studied the causes of interference of the 800 band. We are convinced that the problem is severe, widespread, and gets worse as commercial radio systems proliferate.

Therefore, APCO and others continue to support the consensus

plan as its separate public safety users from Nextel and other cellular systems which we believe is necessary to address the interference problem.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for conducting these

hearings and for allowing me to appear before you. APCO looks forward to working with you and your colleagues to ensure that public

safety agencies have the access to the spectrum they need to protect the safety of life and property.

48

Thank you. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Vincent R. Stile follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VINCENT R. STILE, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC- SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS-INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Vincent Stile, and I appear before you

today in my capacity as President of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (‘‘APCO’’), the nation’s oldest and largest public

safety communications organization. The International Association of Chiefs of Police and Major Cities Chiefs Association have also asked that I speak on their behalf

today.

I am also the Police Radio Communications Systems Director for the Suffolk

County Police Department, Long Island, New York and serve as chair of the New

York Metropolitan Advisory Committee (NYMAC) dealing with the concerns of radio

spectrum as it affects first responders in New York City and its surrounding areas.

I also serve as APCO’s local frequency advisor for southern New York State.

I would like to discuss the spectrum needs of our nation’s first responders and,

in particular, the need for Congress to adopt a firm date for the availability of the

700 MHz spectrum that has already been allocated for public safety communications.

APCO has over 16,000 members, most of whom are state or local government officials who manage and operate police, fire, emergency medical, disaster relief and

other public safety communications systems. As an FCC-certified frequency coordinator, APCO works closely with public safety agencies and the Commission to identify the most effective and efficient use of the scarce radio spectrum currently allocated and available for public safety use. APCO is also an advocate for the public

safety community on communications issues, involving both spectrum and E9-1-1

issues. In that regard, APCO works closely with organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Association of Fire Chiefs, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and, on E9-1-1 matters,

the National Emergency Number Association.

Police, fire, EMS and other first responders face many challenges as they strive

daily to protect the safety of life, health, and property, especially in today’s uncertain world. They cannot begin to tackle those responsibilities without effective radio

communications capabilities. Public safety agencies must have reliable communications among their own personnel in the field and, increasingly, with personnel from

other agencies and jurisdictions responding to the same emergencies. To do so, they

need the financial resources to build and maintain state-of-the-art radio systems,

and they need sufficient and appropriate radio spectrum on which those systems can

operate. This latter problem, regarding radio spectrum, will be the focus of my testimony today.

Unfortunately, in much of the nation there is simply not enough radio spectrum

allocated to accommodate public safety requirements. For example, in the New York

City area, where I have long-served as APCO’s local frequency advisor, there are

no channels available for new or expanded public safety radio communications operations in any of the three main frequency bands in which public safety mobile radio

systems operate: VHF (150-170 MHz), UHF (450-470, 470-512 MHz), or 800 MHz.

Thus, many agencies are forced to (a) operate dangerously overcrowded radio systems; (b) share channels with other agencies and face the potential for interference,

(c) forgo deployment of state-of-the-art communications tools such as mobile data or

trunking technology, and (d) operate their radio systems on diverse, incompatible

radio frequency bands.

As a current example, the Court System for New York State presently needs a

pair of VHF frequencies for their law enforcement officers to operate in the Criminal

and Superior Court Buildings within New York City. Right now, they are forced to

share radio frequencies utilized by the City of New York. While those agencies cooperate in the sharing of the frequency, the arrangement place significant constraints on their operations.

This lack of radio spectrum has existed for many years in the New York area.

For example, over ten years ago, the Garden City, New Jersey, Police Department

was unable to find a public safety channel, but I was able to secure their use of

a VHF business radio frequency. While that worked for awhile, business users are

now creating interference problems for the Police Department’s radio system. Similarly, the City of Newark, New Jersey, just across the Hudson River from ManhatVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
49

tan, is in dire need of a single radio frequency to be used as an input frequency

to a citywide radio system. The frequency presently in use is subject to constant interference, but no alternative channels are available.

As president of a nationwide organization of public safety communications professionals, I can assure that similar problems exist across the country.

One of the many consequences of insufficient radio spectrum is the lack of effective interoperability among first responders in the field. Often, the police, fire, EMS

and other public safety personnel responding to an emergency are from different

agencies or jurisdictions. All too often, these first responders cannot communicate

with each other. This lack of ‘‘interoperability’’ has many causes, but is often the

result of agencies being forced by spectrum shortages to use a variety of incompatible public safety frequency bands.

For example, the Suffolk County Police Department operates on 800 MHz frequencies while fire, EMS, and some police departments within the County operate

on either VHF or UHF frequencies. Similar variations occur in neighboring Nassau

County, and within New York City. This mix of incompatible frequency operations

is a function of spectrum shortages, and leads to serious interoperability challenges.

The agencies in question are working hard to find ways to interoperate as best they

can, but the lack of radio spectrum is a major hindrance. There are not even enough

channels to create a cross-band patch, let alone sufficient spectrum for a wide-area,

multi-agency system in a single frequency band. Again, this is a common problem

in many areas of the country.

Commercial radio systems are not the answer to our problems, though commercial

operations can be helpful for certain types of ‘‘non-mission-critical’’ state and local

government communications. ‘‘Mission-critical’’ public safety communications require dedicated public safety radio systems and spectrum to provide an extremely

high level of reliability, ubiquitous coverage throughout the relevant jurisdiction

(i.e., no ‘‘dead-zones’’), immediate access (i.e., no waiting for clear channels), unfettered control during emergencies, continuity without regard to the whims of the

marketplace, and ironclad security. Few if any commercial systems satisfy those requirements.

The spectrum problems that I have described are not new. In 1996, the Public

Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) concluded that public safety users

would need an additional 97.5 MHz of spectrum by 2010. Among the specific recommendations of the PSWAC Report is that 24 MHz of spectrum from the 746-806

MHz band (TV channels 60-69) be made available within five years of the Report.

Ironically, the PSWAC Report was adopted on September 11, 1996. Exactly five

years later, on September 11, 2001, that spectrum was still not available nationwide.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 did require the FCC to allocate an additional

24 MHz of radio spectrum for public safety services, and the FCC subsequently did

its part and reallocated to public safety 24 MHz of spectrum from TV channels 63,

64, 68, and 69 (764-776/794-806 MHz). However, the 1997 Act allows television stations on those and other relevant channels to remain on-the-air until December 31,

2006, OR until 85% of households in the relevant markets have the ability to receive

digital television (DTV) signals, whichever is later.

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that the 85% benchmark will be met until long

after 2006. As a result, police, fire, EMS and other public safety personnel must

wait indefinitely for the additional radio spectrum and communications capabilities

that they need today, not at some future, undefined date.

I want to emphasize that merely speeding up DTV deployment to meet the 85%

benchmark is not enough. Public safety needs a firm date for the new spectrum to

be available, so that state and local governments can proceed with the planning, design, funding, and construction of new radio systems.

Therefore, we urge Congress to establish December 31, 2006, as a firm and final

date for television stations to vacate the specific channels that block public safety

use of the 700 MHz band spectrum allocated as a result 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

That will give state and local governments the ability to proceed with new interoperable, state-of-the-art public safety radio systems to provide new capabilities

and/or allow for expansion of overburdened systems operating in the adjacent 800

MHz band.

As I mentioned earlier, 800 MHz is among the frequency bands in which public

safety channels are no longer available in much of the nation. Unfortunately, the

800 MHz band is also subject to severe interference problems caused by the commercial cellular operations of Nextel and other wireless carriers. APCO has joined

with other public safety and private wireless organizations (including the Industrial

Telecommunications Association and PCIA), and Nextel, to create the ‘‘Consensus

Plan’’ to address both of these problems. Not only would the Consensus Plan elimiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
50

nate most of the interference problems, it would also create additional public safety

channels in the 800 MHz band. Those additional channels are especially important

right now, insofar as they would provide badly needed spectrum capacity in markets

where the 700 MHz band spectrum remains blocked by TV station operations.

While additional public safety spectrum is an important benefit of the Consensus

Plan, its principal goal is to address serious interference problems. APCO and other

public safety organizations, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police

and International Association of Fire Chiefs, continue to support FCC adoption of

the Consensus Plan as the most effective approach to deal with interference, without imposing costs upon state and local governments. This Plan would not require

any legislative action.

We have carefully studied the causes of interference in the 800 MHz band, and

we are convinced that the problem is severe, wide-spread, and will get worse as

commercial radio systems proliferate. Some have advocated case-by-case approaches

to correct interference problems once they occur, and equipment improvements that

will address some forms of interference. While helpful, such ‘‘reactive’’ approaches

are not sufficient. The critical nature of public safety communications demands a

comprehensive, proactive set of solutions to prevent interference from occurring in

the first place. We believe that such a solution must include a restructuring of the

800 MHz band, as proposed in the Consensus Plan.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our nation’s first responders, I want to thank you once

again for conducting this hearing and for allowing me to appear before you today.

APCO looks forward to working with you and your colleagues to ensure that public

safety agencies have access to the spectrum they need to protect the safety of life,

health, and property.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Donahue, welcome back.

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE

Mr. DONAHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tim

Donahue. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Nextel

Communications.

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify on the critical problems facing public safety communications in the United States. I

am here today primarily because at Nextel we believe our Nation’s

police officers and firefighters and those they serve are at risk. Our

Nation’s first responders are local police, firefighters and other

emergency officials who rely on mobile communications to ensure

their own safety, as well as the safety of the American public.

Their mobile communications system should be reliable, robust,

seamless, and interoperable. Unfortunately, they often are not.

Nextel serves more than 1 million government customers today,

many with public safety responsibilities. Our experience in public

safety communications has made us keenly aware of two serious

problems confronting the public safety community.

First, public safety has insufficient spectrum to develop the robust radio networks necessary to protect the public. Second, there

has been unanticipated rise in interference to public safety communications in the 800 megahertz band where many local, State, and

public safety radio systems operate.

Unfortunately, the problem is increasing day-by-day, month-bymonth. It has been such a serious issue, that as Mr. Stile has

pointed out, a consensus group has been formed and put a plan on

the table to alleviate a lot of that interference.

The consensus plan is a proactive, detailed, practical, and sustainable solution to the problems, not some general philosophy that

will not protect the cop on the beat. It provides additional spectrum

for public safety.

51

If the consensus plan were approved, there would be 25 percent

more spectrum at 800 megahertz than there is today because of the

spectrum that Nextel would turn back in. There would be 4 megahertz, or 16 percent more spectrum at 700 megahertz, and is immediately adjacent to the 700 megahertz spectrum that has recently

been allocated to public safety. So not only does the plan eliminate

the interference that is being caused today, but it also gives public

safety significantly more spectrum.

The consensus plan separates fundamentally incompatible spectrum neighbors and groups together compatible neighbors in line

with the FCC’s 2002 Spectrum Policy Task Force Report. Nextel,

the cellular carriers, and public safety communication systems, currently operate as incompatible neighbors. If you take a look at the

chart to my left, you can see on the top how the 800 megahertz

band is structured. If you take a look at the yellow across to the

purple, we are all operating in and around that band, which is

what causing enormous interference in the networks.

The varying types of communications were located almost randomly throughout the 800 megahertz. As a result, interference occurs. While the channel mixture made sense 30 years ago when the

FCC adopted it, today it is the fundamental cause of public safety

interference.

Realigning the 800 megahertz band to relocate commercial mobile providers and public safety into separate spectrum blocks will

essentially eliminate the problem. If you take a look at the top box,

which is what is happening currently, and then you take a look at

the bottom box when we have been realigned, you eliminate all interference because there are separate blocks of spectrum that each

of us would use.

The FCC is considering other plans for resolving interference at

800 megahertz. These reactive plans merely seek to continue the

status quo providing neither a real solution to remedy the fundamental cause of interference, nor additional spectrum for public

safety.

The consensus plan is the only plan that provides additional

spectrum at both 800 megahertz and 700 megahertz for first responders while also addressing interference issues at 800 megahertz and 900 megahertz. This is due to Nextel’s exchanging spectrum in these bands for which it paid $2 billion for an equal 10

megahertz in the 1.9 gigahertz band where there are no public

safety operations. Nextel has also committed $850 million to pay

for retuning of 800 megahertz public safety and other incumbents

as necessary under the plan.

Our prospective, Mr. Chairman, is that we must act now. The

loss of even one first responder to a preventable communications

failure is unacceptable. A comprehensive solution must be adopted

now. The sooner we begin, the sooner we can eliminate this risk

to our first responders and the American people.

I urge this subcommittee to request that the FCC expeditiously

resolve the issues facing public safety communications and adopts

the consensus plan in full.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

52

[The prepared statement of Timothy M. Donahue follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, NEXTEL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the critical problems facing public safety communications in the United

States. I commend the Committee for giving attention to these issues, and I am

grateful for this opportunity to present my views on a topic so vital to the security

and welfare of this Nation.

As President and Chief Executive Officer of Nextel, I am well acquainted with the

problems confronting public safety radio networks all across the United States.

Many local and state public safety radio systems today operate in a portion of the

800 MHz radio spectrum band that is also home to a substantial proportion of

Nextel’s commercial mobile operations. In fact, a wide variety of other commercial

mobile carriers and internal company and business radio systems also operate in

this part of the 800 MHz band. As I discuss further below, this volatile radio mix

has resulted in an increasing level of harmful interference to public safety communications all over the country. At the same time, the public safety community is still

grappling with a long-term spectrum shortage that the FCC has been attempting

to address, with mixed results, for the better part of the last decade.

An obvious question to ask is, ‘‘How could this interference develop in a radio

band that is home to the most important, safety-of-life communications in the

United States?’’ As I discuss further below, the short answer is that this mix of uses

made sense thirty years ago during a dramatically different era of wireless communications. An much more important question, though, is what is the FCC going to

do now to resolve these problems and give the first responders of this country the

radio systems they need and deserve.

As one of the largest commercial wireless provider in this portion of the spectrum,

Nextel has an important stake in any effort to resolve these public safety communications issues. Nextel and a broad cross-section of private radio and public safety

licensees (including the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials,

International; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major Cities Chiefs Association; the National Sheriffs

Association; and the Major County Sheriff’s Association) have developed a fundamental, long-term solution to these problems, in the form of the ‘‘Consensus Plan’’

for realigning the 800 MHz band. I urge this Committee to do whatever it can to

expedite the Federal Communication Commission’s (‘‘FCC’’) adoption of this Plan.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS IN THE U.S.

There are few challenges as complex and as important as protecting the Nation’s

Homeland Security. First responders such as local police, fire fighters, and other

emergency and safety-of-life personnel must have the best tools available to them.

This includes the most advanced, reliable and robust public safety communications

system possible.

Nextel is proud of its role in public safety communications. Nextel’s iDEN  network has for many years supplemented public safety communications networks

throughout the United States. Nextel has even developed an ‘‘Emergency Response

Team’’ to coordinate and manage its resources to meet the needs of public safety

organizations and personnel. In emergency situations, Nextel has provided and continues to offer technical expertise and rapid, reliable, and secure communications to

city, state, and federal emergency workers, disaster-relief agencies such as the

American Red Cross, utilities, and other first-responder organizations.

Through its iDEN  network, Nextel offers its public safety customers a unique

variety of cellular, short messaging, Internet access, data transmission, and Direct

Connect services. In particular, Nextel Direct Connect, Nextel’s two-way walkietalkie feature, has become an invaluable tool for local, state, and federal public safety officials. Enhanced features such as ‘‘Emergency Group Connect’’ and ‘‘Priority

Connect’’ have been integrated with Direct Connect  to meet disaster management

and law enforcement needs.

In the last couple of years, Nextel has provided critical services to public safety

agencies through a number of significant events and emergencies, including the following:

• September 11, 2001. Nextel provided more than 8,000 phones to emergency

workers in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. When other cellular and traditional phone networks became inoperable due to technological and congestion

53

problems, Nextel’s Direct Connect  service emerged as the single viable means

of communication for public safety responders.

• Sniper Task Force—October 2002. Nextel provided more than 550 handsets to

public safety officials—local, state and federal law enforcement, command centers, and community school systems—supporting the Joint Sniper Task Force

during its investigation.

• Arizona Rodeo-Chediski Wildfires—June 2002. Nextel provided 175 phones to

emergency workers battling the largest wildfire in Arizona history, including

the U.S. Forest Service, Arizona Fire Management Division, Gila (AZ) County

Sheriff’s Department and the Forest Service Law Enforcement Group.

• The 2002 Olympic Winter Games. The Utah Olympic Public Safety Command

partnered with Nextel to ensure reliable and interoperable communications

among 15,000 local, state, and federal public safety personnel from ninety agencies involved in the Games.

TWO PROBLEMS FACING PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS

Nextel’s experience in public safety communications has made us keenly aware

of two serious problems confronting the public safety community in the United

States.

Spectrum shortage. First, there is not enough spectrum available for public

safety use. Public safety agencies still lack sufficient spectrum to develop the robust,

redundant, and seamless radio networks necessary to protect the public. Too often,

first responders don’t have enough radio channels to have ‘‘interoperable’’ radios,

and in many cases they cannot communicate with each other in the first critical moments following a disaster. This problem has been particularly severe in large metropolitan areas. Public safety operators also need more spectrum to support the advanced video and multimedia services that are indispensable in today’s data-driven

world.

Not only is it critical that the FCC provide public safety agencies with more spectrum, it’s also important that such spectrum be in the right frequency band. With

much of today’s public safety communications falling in the 800 MHz band, the allocation of additional spectrum there will promote economies of scale and radio interoperability that can be used almost immediately, while equipment is developed and

spectrum cleared for public safety communications services in other spectrum bands,

such as 700 MHz.

As the Members of this Subcommittee no doubt know, the FCC has been working

in recent years to provide public safety with more spectrum, but these efforts have

been frustrated by a variety of factors. As I describe further below, the Consensus

Plan provides the FCC with a fresh opportunity to address the shortage of public

safety spectrum.

Interference. The second critical problem facing the public safety community is

the unanticipated and disruptive growth of interference to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band. In 1999, Nextel and public safety agencies first observed

significant interference in the 800 MHz band to public safety radios. This interference often occurs when public safety radios are used near towers operated by

Nextel and other commercial wireless operators such as Cingular, AT&T Wireless

and Verizon Wireless. Police, firefighters, and other first responders are experiencing garbled, fuzzy, or blocked calls, jeopardizing the lives of these emergency personnel as well as the public they serve.

This interference is occurring more and more frequently. Public safety interference in the 800 MHz band has been reported in nearly 800 locations and in more

than 25 major cities spread throughout the country, including in Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, and Seattle. Nextel’s data

shows that at least 10% of public safety radio systems in the 800 MHz band have

been affected by interference—many at numerous locations. This year, public safety

interference has reached its highest level, with 51 individual public safety agencies

reporting interference at 117 different locations through April 30. If this trend continues, public safety agencies will experience interference at more than 350 locations this year—the highest single-year total to date. In the face of this alarming

trend, the Subcommittee should bear in mind one key point: this interference is occurring despite the fact that all wireless carriers in this band are operating in full

compliance with the FCC’s rules.

Interference to public safety communications promises to get worse, as commercial

wireless and public safety traffic continues to grow. Without decisive action from the

FCC, the threat to first responders attempting to communicate in emergency situations will only become more acute.

54

THE CAUSE OF INTERFERENCE TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS

To figure out what to do about these public safety problems, it helps to take a

step back and explore a key spectrum management principle discussed by the FCC’s

Spectrum Policy Task Force in its November 2002 Report. The Spectrum Policy

Task Force Report is one of FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s leading initiatives, and

it sets forth several groundbreaking principles for spectrum management. In particular, the Task Force Report highlighted the principle that certain wireless systems and devices make ‘‘good neighbors’’ for each other in the radio spectrum; some

others do not. To illustrate this point, I rely on a simple analogy: just as it doesn’t

make sense for a zoning board to allow a skyscraper to be built in a quiet residential

neighborhood, it doesn’t make sense for the FCC to locate incompatible radio systems next to each other in the radio spectrum. In the skyscraper example, residents

may suffer from street congestion, excess noise, and a blocked view of the sky; in

the spectrum context, one or both of the radio systems may experience harmful interference.

Accordingly, to protect and improve public safety communications in the U.S., the

FCC must ensure that the public safety community has appropriate spectrum neighbors. Unfortunately, today’s commercial mobile systems operated by Nextel and the

other cellular carriers are fundamentally incompatible neighbors for public safety

systems. This incompatibility results from the different ‘‘architecture’’ of these systems. Most public safety radio networks cover large geographic areas with signals

from only one or a few transmitter towers. This design suits tight public safety

budgets and accommodates typically sporadic levels of public safety traffic, but

yields a relatively weak signal in areas distant from the transmitter or those areas

‘‘shaded’’ by buildings, terrain and other obstacles. In contrast, commercial cellular

carriers rely on numerous low-power, low-site transmitter towers throughout their

service areas. This architecture enables frequency reuse to achieve the capacity

needed to serve much larger numbers of users; it also generates locally stronger signals in the immediate vicinity of cellular transmitters than the signals from distant

public safety towers. In geographic areas where public safety systems and commercial mobile networks are licensed on neighboring spectrum, this difference in signal

strength makes public safety radios highly susceptible to interference.

Unfortunately, under the FCC’s thirty-year-old band plan, the 800 MHz radio environment nationwide is truly a terrible neighborhood. The stage was set in 1974,

when the FCC allocated this portion of the 800 MHz band to a broad mix of wireless

communications services, including public safety communications, private radio communications for internal use by businesses and industrial facilities, and the commercial mobile services that ultimately gave rise to Nextel’s iDEN  system and other

commercial wireless networks. These different services were spread and mixed almost randomly throughout this band. The result is a spectrum hodgepodge that

makes bad neighbors of everyone, with incompatible public safety and commercial

wireless networks assigned to adjacent radio channels throughout the band. This is

akin to a town in which skyscrapers and single-family homes alternate block-byblock, or even building-by-building.

The FCC’s hopelessly obsolete hodgepodge 800 MHz band plan is the fundamental

cause of public safety interference. As a result of this spectrum hodgepodge, public

safety operators are experiencing interference as a by-product of the fully FCC-compliant operations of Nextel and the nearby cellular A and B block carriers—Alltel,

AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and Verizon Wireless—as they provide ongoing service to

their own customers.

INITIAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS INTERFERENCE

Since interference first appeared in 1999, Nextel has been committed to mitigating this problem. In 2000, Nextel joined with representatives of public safety

agencies, cellular carriers, and wireless equipment manufacturers to examine different strategies for addressing this issue. These parties agreed to attempt to manage public safety interference on an interim case-by-case basis through a variety of

short-term measures, including coordinated channel usage, tower site adjustments,

and equipment modifications. For its part, Nextel has made extensive efforts to

mitigate interference by voluntarily reducing signal strength, reorienting its antennas, limiting channel usage at certain sites, and other measures. Nextel understands how important it is to safeguard the reliability of public safety communications, and thus the safety of emergency response personnel and the public they protect, even if the FCC’s rules don’t require these technical changes.

While case-by-case engineering has helped somewhat to manage the most acute

interference, it is not a permanent solution. Unfortunately, I understand that the

FCC is considering alternative plans for solving the 800 MHz public safety interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
55

ference problem that rely heavily on these case-by-case ‘‘best practices’’ to respond

to interference. The FCC should reject this inadequate approach. These makeshift

practices reduce the efficiency of both commercial mobile and public safety communications and chronically drain resources that could be devoted to product innovation and improved services. Case-by-case measures also require that significant

amounts of 800 MHz spectrum lie fallow or operate far below optimum efficiency,

contrary to basic spectrum management principles. These case-by-case measures are

‘‘band-aids;’’ they can only help so much before required operational constraints prevent the cellular carrier, the public safety system operator, or both from providing

reliable communications to their respective users. This is because case-by-case

‘‘fixes’’ cannot correct the mix of fundamentally incompatible neighbors that is the

proximate cause of this interference.

More importantly, these stopgap measures react to interference only after-thefact, an unacceptable approach for emergency communications. Any partial, piecemeal or reactive solution leaves first responders in constant jeopardy, since a single

case of interference to a policeman or firefighter’s radio can jeopardize the lives of

these first responders and the citizens they serve. The death of even one of them—

as a result of communications interference that could have been prevented—is unacceptable. At the very least, our nation’s first responders—who put their lives on the

line every day—deserve a comprehensive, long-term, proactive solution that eliminates this interference before it can cause further harm.

The fact is short-term measures have failed to stem and cannot stem the rising

tide of public safety interference; despite these patchwork efforts, the risk to first

responders continues to grow. In response to this threat, the FCC in March 2002

issued its Notice of Proposed Rule Making on these issues. The FCC identified three

main objectives: (1) to eliminate public safety interference, (2) to provide sufficient

spectrum for critical public safety needs, and (3) to minimize disruption to existing

services.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSENSUS PLAN

Given the demonstrated inadequacies of the case-by-case approach, the FCC must

adopt a fundamental, long-term solution that reorganizes the 800 MHz band to separate incompatible services while providing the public safety community with urgently needed spectrum. To this end, Nextel has worked closely with the public safety and private wireless communities to develop a consensus solution that realizes

these vital goals. The resulting Consensus Plan for realigning the 800 MHz band

was filed with the FCC on August 7, 2002, and the ‘‘Consensus Parties’’ have

worked further to refine this proposal over the last ten months.

The Consensus Plan strikes a balance among the broad cross-section of interests

and existing licensees in the 800 MHz band. The Consensus Plan enjoys extensive

backing, including support from the leading national public safety organizations and

most of the leading national private wireless associations. In total, the Consensus

Parties or their members represent every category of licensee operating in the 800

MHz Land Mobile Radio band and over 90% of the licensees affected by public safety interference in this band.

The Consensus Plan provides the only detailed, practical, and sustainable means

of achieving the FCC’s public interest objectives in the 800 MHz band. The Consensus Plan will solve the interference problem and provide more spectrum to public

safety, all without imposing costs on public safety or other licensees in the band and

without requiring legislation or taxpayer funding. In doing so, the Plan will help police, firefighters, and other first responders meet the unprecedented challenges they

now face in protecting this Nation’s security.

Unlike alternative proposals that rely on stopgap, case-by-case measures, the Consensus Plan addresses the fundamental cause of public safety interference by restructuring the 800 MHz ‘‘neighborhood.’’ The Plan will realign the band, shifting

commercial mobile providers and public safety systems into separate, contiguous

blocks of spectrum. Just as homeowners stand to benefit if developers are prevented

from building skyscrapers in a residential neighborhood, public safety licensees will

benefit greatly from the relocation of stronger commercial mobile signals to a different portion of the 800 MHz band.

The Consensus Plan will also give public safety operators access to additional 700

MHz and 800 MHz spectrum, thereby meeting the FCC’s second objective in its proceeding. The additional spectrum in the 800 MHz band is particularly significant,

since all recent development and implementation of new public safety communications systems have taken place in that band. For example, a number of states are

implementing new, statewide public safety communications systems at 800 MHz.

The FCC can build on these recent investments by providing additional 800 MHz

56

channels for interoperability, enhanced services, and expanded public safety capacity.

The Consensus Plan will also minimize disruption to incumbent licensees. No 800

MHz incumbent (except Nextel) will lose spectrum at 800 MHz as a result of the

Consensus Plan realignment, and less than 30 percent of private radio licensees will

have to retune a limited number of channels. The Consensus Plan can be implemented expeditiously, in three to four years, without any need for new legislation

or budget appropriations.

If the Consensus Plan is adopted, Nextel has agreed to contribute up to a total

of $850 million toward the relocation of all 800 MHz incumbents. Nextel and the

other Consensus Parties have worked hard to ‘‘drill down’’ on the involved costs and

expect that this amount will cover these incumbents’ reasonable relocation costs. As

part of the Consensus Plan, Nextel will also contribute 10 MHz of spectrum in the

700, 800, and 900 MHz bands to facilitate licensee relocations and provide public

safety with critically needed additional spectrum. In addition, Nextel will incur the

largest costs of any incumbent licensee required to relocate under the Plan—and it

will do so twice—at its own expense. To make Nextel whole for its contributions to

the Consensus Plan, it would receive 10 MHz of replacement spectrum in the 1.9

GHz band.

The Subcommittee should also note that the Consensus Plan is consistent with

a number of recommendations contained in the FCC’s 2002 Spectrum Task Force

Report. Among other things, the Spectrum Task Force recommended that the FCC

(1) maximize flexibility of spectrum use to permit the most efficient use of scarce

spectrum resources, (2) provide clear and exhaustive definition of spectrum rights

and responsibilities, and, as described above, (3) group technically compatible systems and devices in close spectrum proximity where possible.

In adopting the Consensus Plan, the FCC will abide by each of these Spectrum

Task Force recommendations. By turning away from stopgap ‘‘command and control,’’ case-by-case interference mitigation measures that constrain commercial and

public safety wireless operations and leave spectrum underutilized, the FCC will encourage efficient use of the spectrum. The Consensus Plan also offers a set of clear,

objective rules that define licensees’ rights and responsibilities in a reorganized 800

MHz band. Finally, as I’ve described, the FCC would separate incompatible ‘‘neighbors,’’ moving commercial wireless licensees into one portion of the 800 MHz band

and interference-sensitive public safety and private wireless systems into another

part of the band.

Mr. Chairman, the FCC has a clear path to improving public safety communications in the 800 MHz band, providing additional spectrum at both 700 and 800

MHz, and providing critical assistance to the police, firefighters, and other first responders who are so crucial to protecting this Nation’s Homeland Security. Robust,

secure, and interoperable public safety communications will save lives. I thank the

Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to address these important

issues, and I urge you to request that the FCC expeditiously resolve the issues facing the public safety community and adopt the Consensus Plan in full.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Carrico, welcome.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN CARRICO

Mr. CARRICO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I

am Stephen Carrico, Director of Communications and Business Development for Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, representing

the United Telecom Council. I serve as Chair of UTC’s Homeland

Security Steering Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity that we have to appear before you today.

For 55 years, UTC has directly or indirectly represented virtually

every energy and water utility and pipeline in the country on telecommunication issues. All of these companies own, maintain, and

operate mission critical communication systems. Critical infrastructure uses the same radio equipment as public safety.

As fellow emergency responders, we understand their communication needs better than any other industry. The most important

57

aspect of our radio systems is reliability. Utilities build their system for 24/7 high quality operation. The job of an electric lineman,

until just recently, was considered the most dangerous in the Nation. These crews rely on their radios just as police and fire personnel do.

During any kind of a disaster, police, fire, utility, and other

emergency personnel are on the scene at the same time. Any discussion of emergency intelligibility must include critical infrastructure if America is to have an effective system.

Congress recognized the importance of our systems in 1997 when

you designed us as public safety radio services. For years, UTC and

its members have looked for opportunities to bolster intelligibility

among all emergency responders. On a local basis, that has meant

shared radio systems. There are dozens of these throughout the

country. Many of them have been built by utilities because we

often can get the system funded and into operation faster than

public safety agencies. We build our systems so that they work

when the power is out.

I would just like to share with you two examples of shared systems. Gainesville, Florida, where the Gainesville Regional Utilities

has built and maintains a nonprofit shared 800 megahertz system.

In Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and the Florida Gulf Coast,

Southern Company has built a commercial 800 megahertz system

to utility standards. It is used by thousands of public safety personnel.

This is the only form of commercial system that is appropriate

for mission critical communications. These are only local or regional type systems. The United States needs a nationwide solution

so that all emergency responders can communicate with each other.

We offer our expertise to help reach this vital goal.

Unlike traditional public safety, critical infrastructure has no

dedicated spectrum for its own use. We suffer from increasing congestion and interference on the bands that we share. We want to

work with public safety to construct a nationwide system on a new

allocation, a system that would be interoperable among the many

utilities that respond to the emergencies, as well as traditional

public safety, Federal agencies, and others. A very good home for

this system would be on the 700 megahertz band, adjacent to the

public safety’s allocation. An overview of this proposal is in our

written statement.

Does public safety have enough interference-free spectrum for intelligibility? Critical infrastructure does not. Emergency responders, as a whole, will not be interoperable without critical infrastructure.

Finally, on the FCC’s 800 megahertz proceeding, many UTC

members operate on this band and have suffered interference, almost exclusively from Nextel. A prime example is Consumers Energy in Michigan. UTC is a leading member of the 800 Megahertz

User Coalition which has submitted an alternative position to

Nextel. We stress that interference to all user systems must be resolved at the cost of the interferer. Future interference must be

prevented through new technical rules, while increasing regulatory

flexibility.

58

1 A copy of the Executive Summary of the NTIA Study is included as Attachment A to this

document. The full study can be found at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/sp0149/

sp0149.pdf.

Mandatory rebanding is inefficient, overly expensive, and ultimately ineffective. It would not solve interference. Under the

Nextel plan, only Nextel could enjoy advanced technology and better spectrum efficiency. To the many utilities and State and local

governments investing hundreds of millions in better systems for

their communities, I am sorry, this is unacceptable.

I thank you for your time. I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Stephen Carrico follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN CARRICO, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION, ON BEHALF

OF THE UNITED TELECOM COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Subcommittee: I am Stephen

Carrico, Director of Communications and Business Development for Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, representing the United Telecom Council. I am a former

UTC Chairman of the Board and currently serve as Chair of UTC’s Homeland Security Steering Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today

to discuss issues of vital concern to all emergency responders.

For 55 years, UTC has been the voice of electrical, gas and water utilities in matters relating to their voice and data telecommunications. UTC’s several hundred

critical infrastructure members range in size from multi-state organizations such as

American Electric Power in the Midwest and Entergy in the South, to municipally

owned utilities and co-ops operating in cities, towns and rural areas throughout the

country. All of these companies own, maintain and operate mission-critical communications systems. Most importantly for purposes of this hearing, these include twoway land mobile radio systems on which we all rely for both routine and emergency

communications.

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMUNICATIONS AFFECT HOMELAND SECURITY

All critical infrastructure industries are becoming increasingly dependent on information management and private internal communications systems to control and

maintain their operations. A 2002 study by the National Telecommunications and

Information Administration (NTIA), entitled, ‘‘Current and Future Use of Spectrum

by the Energy, Water and Railroad Industries,’’ makes very clear the extent of this

dependency to meet essential operational, management and control functions.1 In

fact, the physical components of the energy and water production, supply and delivery networks can be wholly intact but rendered virtually useless through control or

incapacitation of these internal communications systems.

An article in the Washington Post a year ago noted that Al Qaeda operatives

spent time on sites that offer software and programming instructions for the distributed control systems (or DCS) and supervisory control and data acquisition (known

as SCADA) systems that run power, water, transport and communications grids in

the U.S.—so, too, should this aspect of critical infrastructure protection receive your

serious consideration.

All parties concerned with homeland security agree that one of the most important considerations is the availability of reliable communications for emergency responders. In this regard, there are three important issues which need to be addressed: 1) The critical players that require such communications include not only

the first responders from the public safety community, but also the critical infrastructure enterprises such as power and water utilities which must provide a first

line of defense; 2) We must ensure effective and interoperable communications between the communities of public safety responders and critical infrastructure enterprises; and 3) Government oversight of the communications facilities and services

relied upon by public safety and critical infrastructure, which is now shared between the FCC and NTIA, must be streamlined to ensure effective protection from

interference as well as interoperability.

59

EMERGENCY RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS

It is understood that the local and state police and fire personnel are among the

first responders to an emergency, as well as emergency health care workers. But

critical infrastructure employees—the emergency utility workers—are often overlooked as vital to any emergency response. Along with protecting life, the first order

of business following a manmade or natural disaster is the restoration of essential

public services, including water (to fight fires and ensure clean and safe supplies),

gas and electricity (to restore heat, light and energy generation capabilities). These

are the first services that must be brought back on line, so these workers are among

the first personnel on the scene.

Case in point: as soon as the magnitude of the 9/11 disaster became apparent,

more than 1900 Consolidated Edison emergency workers were dispatched to Ground

Zero to assist critical service restoration efforts and provide emergency communications capabilities to others on the scene. ConEd’s two-way land mobile radio system

was among the only communications available and was widely used during the first

few hours following the collapse of the Twin Towers.

In a more recent and more common example: so far this year, Consumers Energy

of Michigan has been called on to respond to two major storms. On Thursday, April

3rd, an ice storm swept across Michigan’s lower peninsula. Through the following

day, a total of 425,000 customers were without power. Over 10,500 ‘‘wire down’’ calls

were received. All available Consumers Energy crews and available contractors were

put into the field, along with over 125 electric line crews from neighboring utilities.

On Sunday, May 11th through Monday May 12th, strong winds in excess of 50

miles per hour hit Lower Michigan. Electric service to 101,000 customers was disrupted. Over 2,200 reports of down wires were received and resolved.

Responding to these storms required massive communication resources. All work

was coordinated via the Consumers Energy 800 MHz trunked radio system. Only

by having a reliable, private two-way radio system is Consumers Energy able to

adequately respond to such emergencies.

Critical infrastructure entities use the same kind of radio equipment as Public

Safety agencies, and as fellow emergency responders, we understand their communications needs better than any other industry. The most important aspect of our

radio systems is reliability—utilities build their systems for 24-7 and ‘‘five 9s’’ operation. The job of an electric lineman until recently was considered the most dangerous in the nation—these crews rely on their radios just as police and fire personnel do. And one element of reliability beyond that of traditional public safety:

our radios must work, wherever our crews go, when the power is out.

During any kind of manmade or natural disaster, you will see police, fire, utility

and other emergency personnel on the scene at the same time. Any discussion of

emergency interoperability must include critical infrastructure if the

United States is to have an effective system. The White House has recognized

this fact and has urged UTC’s inclusion in energy, water and telecommunications

sector work on Homeland Security.

LOCAL EFFORTS TOWARD INTEROPERABILITY

Congress recognized the importance of our systems in 1997, when you included

utilities, pipelines and other critical infrastructure among ‘‘public safety radio services:’’ those private systems that provide support to such vital systems that entities

operating them should have access to spectrum without obtaining it via auction.

Since then, critical infrastructure has not sought access to existing public safety

spectrum; however, the FCC has not made a separate allocation to non-public safety

private wireless since 1985. Therefore, UTC and its members have looked for opportunities to bolster interoperability among all emergency responders by other means.

The most effective means on a local basis has been through shared radio systems,

and there are dozens of these throughout the country. Many of them have been built

by utilities, because we often can get the system funded and into operation faster

than public safety agencies. And—we build our systems so they work when the

power is out.

Just a few examples of shared systems: Gainesville, Florida, where Gainesville

Regional Utilities has built and maintains a non-profit, shared 800 MHz system.

Local public safety agencies use this system as low-cost subscribers. There are many

municipalities, as throughout the Philadelphia metro area, where local utilities and

public safety agencies share a common radio system owned by the local government.

In Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the Florida Gulf Coast, Southern Company

has built a commercial 800 MHz system to utility standards, making it attractive

to thousands of public safety users, as well. A system like Southern’s is the only

form of commercial system appropriate for mission-critical communications, since

60

2The Subcommittee should take notice that programs promoting commercial wireless providers for Wireless Priority Access Service are completely useless to critical infrastructure. Even

if not overloaded with traffic during a disaster, whether manmade or natural, cellsites do not

have long-term backup power. A system that simply doesn’t work during power outages is useless to critical service restoration personnel and should be considered useless for public safety

personnel, as well. 3 Included as Attachment B.

4 A copy of the 800 MHz User Coalition filing, with current supporters, is included as Attachment C to this document.

utilities must have complete coverage of their service territories, as well as guaranteed reliability at all times. No consumer-oriented commercial wireless provider can

afford to offer service to this standard, nor do commercial systems continue to function during power outages of any duration.2

However, these shared systems are only local attempts to solve interoperability

problems, and the United States needs a nationwide solution so that all emergency

responders can communicate with each other. We offer our expertise to help reach

this vital goal.

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE HAS NO DEDICATED SPECTRUM

Unlike traditional public safety, the critical infrastructure industries have no designated spectrum for their own use, and we suffer from increasing congestion and

interference on the bands we share with millions of other non-public safety private

wireless users. We have requested a small, exclusive allocation of six to ten megahertz, on which we propose to construct a nationwide system. This system would

be interoperable among the multiple utilities that always respond to regional emergencies, and would be made available to traditional public safety, federal agencies

and others through additional equipment, or as part of a network of networks.

While it is understood that spectrum is a scarce resource, homeland security initiatives should consider an exclusive allocation of spectrum to critical infrastructure

for the establishment of a nationwide emergency communications network. This

would achieve three objectives: 1) economies of scale would drive down the cost of

equipment; 2) efficient spectrum use would dictate the use of this spectrum on a

day-to-day basis for critical infrastructure operations support, while entities would

be responsible for maintaining the emergency network; and 3) emergency response

capability would be served by all response agencies having immediate access to fully

operational communications equipment, priority access and a fully interoperable

network when the need arose. A very good home for this system would be on the

700 MHz band, on spectrum adjacent to the 24 MHz allocated to public safety. UTC

includes an overview of this proposal in our written statement.3

Thus, in answer to the subcommittee’s question of whether public safety has

enough interference-free spectrum for interoperability, this segment of ‘‘public safety

radio services’’ does not, and emergency responders as a whole will not be interoperable without critical infrastructure. However, we are ready and willing to help all

parties reach this goal.

THE FCC’S 800 MHZ PROCEEDING

Hundreds of mission-critical utility radio systems are operated on the 800 MHz

private land mobile radio (PLMR) frequency band. Such systems are of varying age

and technological sophistication, from analog conventional use to advanced digital

systems that incorporate voice and data transmissions. Several utilities are deploying such advanced systems across wide areas, with expectations of using them for,

not only routine and emergency field communications in support of service and

power restoration, but also for key telemetry systems that actually control the nation’s power and water infrastructures. Because of the ability to use frequencies exclusively within a licensed area, coupled with the variety of equipment manufactured, the 800 MHz band is probably the most important PLMR band currently

available for critical infrastructure communications, especially for entities seeking

to deploy more advanced technology.

800 MHz interference is not only a public safety problem. Many UTC members

operating on this band also have suffered interference, almost exclusively from

Nextel’s system. Prime examples are Union Electric in the St. Louis, MO area and

Consumer’s Energy in Michigan, which have had to resolve a number of interference

problems; they have done so through use of engineering solutions such as those

found in the ‘‘Best Practices’’ guide.

However, interference resolution alone is not enough. UTC is a leading member

of the 800 MHz User Coalition, which has submitted an alternative position to

Nextel’s.4 More than 30 parties, including several trade associations, individual critVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
61

ical infrastructure entities, small commercial carriers, the cellular industry and

some public safety agencies, have already signed on to the Coalition document, filed

on May 29, 2003, and more are added daily. Statements by Nextel and its supporters that its ‘‘consensus’’ plan is supported by a vast majority of affected licensees

are simply untrue.

The User Coalition stresses that interference to all user systems must be resolved,

at the cost of the interfering licensee—and that future interference must be prevented through improved engineering practices, as well as regulatory flexibility that

enables ‘‘channel swaps’’ and shared systems. Mandatory rebanding is an inefficient,

overly expensive and ultimately, ineffective solution, since interference would still

be present at the end of the process. Moreover, rebanding to ‘‘separate’’ compatible

systems from incompatible ones only freezes a moment in time: these systems are

not static, and migration to better technology will change the landscape again within a few years.

However, in spite of FCC policy directions in favor of better spectrum efficiency,

less detailed regulation and market-based solutions, the Nextel plan would require

a massive, four-year (at the minimum) reshuffling of the entire band placing all licensees in restricted space, and resulting in only Nextel being able to deploy advanced technology and better spectrum efficiency. To many utilities already building

digital wide-area systems for themselves and their communities, this is unacceptable. UTC and dozens of our member companies have opposed the Nextel plan consistently, as have many public safety agencies. Such restrictions only scratch the

surface of the User Coalition parties’ concerns about the Nextel ‘‘consensus’’ plan:

there are serious questions about the FCC’s authority to implement the plan, and

challenges are likely should it be adopted.

This band is too important to all its users; the solution for interference must be

one that keeps it fit for the future of all of those that depend upon it.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Haynie?

STATEMENT OF JIM HAYNIE

Mr. HAYNIE. Thank you very much. I would like to thank Chairman Upton for the honor of presenting to the subcommittee the collective views and concerns of our Nation’s finest volunteer resources, 680,000 licensees with the Federal Communications Commission Amateur Radio Service. I would also like to thank Representative Bilirakis for his great leadership in introducing H.R.

713, the Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act.

We are, indeed, a first responder. Mr. Chairman, I noted in your

opening remarks this morning, you mentioned the Titanic and its

sinking in 1912. It was a ham radio operator that received that

SOS. Our organization was founded only 2 years later, in 1914.

Amateur radio, which a lot of you know as ham radio, is a noncommercial radio service that goes beyond just having fun and

playing with the radio. It is a noncommercial vocational pursuit.

Ham radio has a duel mission. It provides in-depth, hands-on, technical education, and self-training in a stimulating environment. It

also produces capable trained volunteer communications and systems of emergency telecommunications that are impervious to disasters of all sorts.

These volunteers are ready to respond, and do respond, immediately when all other systems of communications fails, including

public safety communications when they are overloaded, destroyed,

or lack interoperability. Amateur radio operators answered the call

on September 11, 2001, at Ground Zero, at the Pentagon, and at

the crash site of the third hijacked airliner in Western Pennsylvania.

They were there during last summer’s disastrous Western forest

fires in Colorado and New Mexico. We helped after the tornados

62

devastated parts of the Midwest and the South earlier this year.

We responded when NASA needed help to locate debris that fell on

Texas and Louisiana following the shuttle Columbia’s tragedy. I

might point out to the committee the served agency was the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They called on us, and we came

through with flying colors.

We communicate from emergency communications centers, from

the shelters, from vehicles, and even on foot. I have had some personal experiences with this during Hurricane Alicia. We helped coordinate transportation for medical personnel. After a devastating

tornado hit Wichita Falls, Texas, we hams not only helped restore

the police and fire radios, we got a local A.M. broadcast station up

and running so that city officials could tell folks where to get help.

Radio amateurs are capable of providing high data rate communications, video, satellite communications, and long and shortrange base, mobile, portable and voice communications from disaster response efforts. They are trained and organized within emergency service groups and under the auspices of local civil defense

organizations, they provide a service that cannot be duplicated.

While amateur radio communication systems are decentralized,

they survive any natural or man-made disaster.

Our service conducts these activities out of a sense of national

and civic pride and volunteerism. Candidly, we also enjoy it. What

we ask in return is simply to retain access to the radio spectrum

that we have left. A equivalent replacement spectrum is needed in

order to continue to provide these services at no cost to the taxpayer, and to conduct our operations and our experiments.

Over time, and most especially during the last 15 years, the frequency bands allocated to the amateur radio service, has been substantially reduced. The FCC has either reallocated amateur spectrum, or substantially compromised amateur access to certain

bands. Not to put a fine point on it, but amateur service has lost

over 100 megahertz of VHF and UHF spectrum, and lost its use

of another 360 megahertz of VHF and UHF spectrum, which has

been substantially compromised.

H.R. 713 would apply to the amateur radio service, the same policy the FCC uses for other incumbent services displaced by these

new technologies. It would make an equivalent spectrum available

to the amateur service when an amateur radio frequency band is

needed for commercial service, or for unlicensed devices which are

incompatible with incumbent radio amateurs.

No cost reimbursement is requested or provided under this bill.

It would define a Federal policy and an obligation to the FCC to:

One, make no reallocation of primary allocations of amateur radio

frequency bands. Two, not diminish the secondary allocations of

those bands. Three, make no additional allocations within those

bands or frequencies that would substantially reduce their utility

to the amateur radio service unless the Commission, at the same

time, provides equivalent replacement spectrum. What constitutes

equivalent spectrum would be defined by the FCC.

The amateur service can compatibly share spectrum with many

other services. The FCC must have flexibility in spectrum management. H.R. 713 provides a flexible mechanism to ensure that the

FCC can make allocations rapidly and efficiently, while at the

63

same time retaining benefits and contributions of the tens of thousands of volunteers in the amateur radio services, one of the Nation’s true first responders.

I would be remiss if I did not point out to the committee that at

this very moment as I speak, in spite of all the fine technology that

we have heard here today, there is a construction operator running

a backhoe, taking the next bite toward the next fiber communications cable.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for the consideration of our concerns. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

I would ask that my testimony be included in its entirety.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Jim Haynie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM HAYNIE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE, INCORPORATED

The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, the national association of Amateur Radio Operators (ARRL), is pleased to offer the following testimony of its President, Jim Haynie of Dallas, Texas, regarding H.R. 713, the ‘‘Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act,’’ sponsored by Rep. Michael Bilirakis, (R-FL) and the spectrum

needs of the Amateur Radio Service, one of our nation’s true ‘‘first responders’’.

Amateur Radio, known informally as ‘‘ham’’ radio, should require little introduction to this Subcommittee. A non-commercial, public service avocation, Amateur

Radio is a voluntary communication service famous for providing reliable, emergency and disaster relief communications at no cost to States, municipalities, disaster relief agencies, and the Federal Government. Radio amateurs respond immediately, and without a call to duty, following any type of emergency or disaster with

communications facilities and systems, manned by volunteer, trained communicators. They assist in restoring public safety communications facilities; they provide

‘‘first responder’’ communications until public safety facilities are restored to operation; they provide interoperability between and among public safety and other entities (interoperability that typically does not exist on an interagency basis); and they

provide efficient communications for disaster relief agencies, such as the American

Red Cross and the Salvation Army, for the duration of disaster recovery efforts.

Amateurs are best known for their immediate responses to hurricanes, tornadoes,

earthquakes, snow and ice storms, floods and other natural disasters. They are immediately available during and in the aftermath of such events, and commence their

‘‘first response’’ communications in support of public safety and disaster relief agencies and state emergency response agencies without any advance requests.

Amateur Radio is also a service which promotes technical self-training. Many, perhaps most, telecommunications professionals derived their interest, and most of

their basic skills, from their avocational accomplishments in Amateur Radio. Many

developments in modern telecommunications, including low-Earth-orbit microsatellite technology, and many refinements and adaptations of new technologies, were

and are the direct result of Amateur Radio experimentation and inventiveness.

Worldwide, nationwide, statewide and local communications networks of Amateur

Radio stations are in operation twenty-four hours per day, every day of every year.

Since the Amateur Service is decentralized and ubiquitous, not dependent on fixed

infrastructure, the ability of radio amateurs to provide reliable communications instantly over any path cannot be defeated by any disaster, act of terrorism, or by

any other means whatsoever. The volunteer services provided by radio amateurs

could not be duplicated by governmental entities at the Federal, state or local level

at any cost. However, these services are provided at no cost. The Federal Communications Commission has at times described the Amateur Service as a ‘‘model of

volunteerism’’ and a ‘‘priceless public benefit’’.

Congress has repeatedly stated similar sentiments. In Public Law 103-408 in

1994, Congress found and declared that Amateurs are to be ‘‘commended for their

contributions to technical progress in electronics, and for their emergency radio communications in times of disaster;’’ that the Federal Communications Commission is

‘‘urged to continue and enhance the development of the Amateur Radio Service as

a public benefit by enacting rules and regulations which encourage the use of new

technologies’’ in the Amateur Service; and by making reasonable accommodation for

the effective operation of Amateur Radio from residences, private vehicles and public areas; and that regulation at all levels of government should ‘‘facilitate and enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
64

courage amateur radio operation as a public benefit.’’ Earlier, in 1988, in Public Law

100-594, a sense of Congress resolution, at Section 10 thereof, Congress held that

it ‘‘strongly encourages and supports the Amateur Radio Service and its emergency

communications efforts;’’ and that ‘‘Government agencies shall take into account the

valuable contributions made by Amateur Radio operators when considering actions

affecting the Amateur Radio Service.’’ In the Communications Amendments Act of

1982, Public Law 97-259, Congress, in praising the accomplishments of the Amateur

Service, held that: ‘‘the Amateur Radio Service is as old as radio itself. Every single

one of the early radio pioneers, experimenters, and inventors was an amateur; commercial, military and government radio was unknown. The zeal and dedication to

the service of mankind of those early pioneers has provided the spiritual foundation

for amateur radio over the years. The contributions of amateur radio operators to

our present day communication techniques, facilities, and emergency communications have been invaluable.’’

There are more than 680,000 Amateur Radio licensees of the FCC, and the numbers are growing. Amateur Radio has not lost any relevance or interest due to the

advance of the Internet or other new technologies. The number of technologicallyinclined individuals is on the increase as the result of the technology boom, and

Amateur Radio allows them to experiment and develop their skills in a useful, constructive and flexible medium.

The use by radio amateurs of the radio spectrum in small segments of the medium, high, very high, and ultra high frequency bands, and on microwave frequencies, serves two fundamental purposes. First, it ensures that radio amateurs

have spectrum to use at all times of the day and night to provide long distance and

short distance communications, voice, data or video, as needed. As actual examples,

a radio amateur in the United States might communicate with his or her counterparts in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or Guam during and after hurricanes or

typhoons to coordinate relief efforts and delivery of medical supplies when all other

facilities are inoperable. He or she might need to provide video transmissions from

helicopters in support of, and to coordinate, fire crews fighting the Colorado forest

fires. Short distance voice transmissions between amateurs allowed relay of messages between NASA personnel and FBI agents in efforts to locate Space Shuttle

Columbia wreckage in Texas. Amateur Radio was a critical communications medium

to facilitate tornado relief in Oklahoma and other parts of the Midwest in just the

past few weeks. Any transmission mode, over any distance, is possible via Amateur

Radio. All bands are used by some groups of radio amateurs for different applications. High speed data communications are popular in the microwave bands, as are

very narrow bandwidth voice transmissions to study propagation and to improve receiver and preamplifier technology. An excellent metaphor for the use by Radio

Amateurs of its small spectrum segments is that of a public park. The park is available to all who choose to use it, and it is used for the benefit of the public.

Radio Amateurs, following the events of September 11, 2001, have sought even

greater roles in disaster relief, homeland security, and emergency communications

generally. They participated at the Pentagon and in New York in recovery efforts

immediately following 9/11 by providing communications for disaster relief agencies,

and since that time, have entered into an affiliation with Citizen’s Corps, a program

for neighborhood alerting and security organized by the Department of Homeland

Security. ARRL has long had a memorandum of understanding with FEMA, with

the National Weather Service, with the National Communications System of the Department of Defense, and with other entities, but the Citizen’s Corps participation

stands to greatly expand the role of Amateur Radio at the community level.

Radio Amateurs must pass examinations in order to become licensed by the FCC.

These examinations are administered and prepared by private sector amateur radio

groups known as Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (VECs). They prepare and administer the examinations in coordination with the FCC for various license classes.

The privileges of each class of license are keyed to the level of sophistication of the

examination material. This is, however, the beginning of the educational process,

not the end. ARRL has a Certification and Continuing Education Program. The

most comprehensive aspect of this is the emergency communications training program. At the end of 2002, the Corporation for National and Community Service

(CNCS) made a three-year Federal Homeland Security Grant to ARRL, as part of

a program to boost homeland defense volunteer programs. It was used to develop

and administer at no cost to radio amateurs, improved emergency communications

training courses. As of the end of May, 2003, more than 2200 emergency communication volunteers have already entered the multi-level course. It includes basic

message handling, equipment and use, the incident command structure, and operations and logistics. The course has 20 lesson units and takes 25 hours to complete

over an 8-week period. There are intermediate and advanced courses as well.

65

Since all of the examination preparation and administration, and in fact most licensing data entry is done by radio amateurs themselves, the FCC utilizes almost

no resources administering the Amateur Radio Service. Almost no enforcement is

required by FCC, since the Amateur Service is essentially self-regulating. The invisibility of the Service to the FCC has produced both good and bad results. Radio

amateurs are proud of their contributions made at no cost to the United States.

However, the FCC, during the past 15 years, has had diminished awareness of the

Amateur Service, and tends not to consider the needs of the Service when making

spectrum allocations decisions. In general, the FCC neglects the Amateur Radio

Service when examining rules changes requested in order to decrease regulatory

burdens and facilitate deployment of new Amateur technologies.

The FCC has continually winnowed the amount of spectrum available to the Amateur Radio Service, more aggressively in recent years. To an extent, this is understandable due to the pressure on the spectrum for new consumer and other wireless

technologies. It is also something that Amateurs have accommodated by use of flexible, frequency agile equipment that allows re-use of spectrum. The Amateur Service

cooperatively and very successfully shares most of its allocations above 225 MHz

with the Federal government, and as well with unlicensed consumer electronic devices. For the most part, those sharing arrangements work well, and Amateur Radio

operators have adapted their operations to accommodate other services and unlicensed devices. Spectrum remaining available to the Amateur Service is used very

efficiently and very effectively, by use of new technologies including narrowband

data techniques, spread-spectrum, software-defined dynamic frequency selection,

and high-speed, packetized data.

Some FCC spectrum decisions, however, have been substantially harmful to the

Amateur Service. The FCC periodically has reallocated certain bands to other services, terminating access by the Amateur Service to those bands. As well, it has made

incompatible allocations decisions which, on a de facto basis, make continued Amateur Radio operation on those bands impossible. Illustrative examples include the

band 220-222 MHz, which was reallocated in 1989 for use by the Land Mobile Service, ostensibly to initiate narrowband commercial land mobile operation. However,

land mobile licensing in that band has only recently been finalized. More recently,

the 420-430 MHz band was reallocated in Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit to the

Land Mobile Service. Very recently, the FCC allocated 449-450 MHz, a band heavily

used throughout the United States for Amateur Radio Repeaters for voice communications in emergencies, for use by wind profiler radars. In 1982, the 1215-1240

MHz band was reallocated, and became unavailable for Amateur Radio operation.

The Amateur Service was formerly allocated the entire band 2300-2450 MHz.

Over time, the band 2310-2390 MHz was reallocated, first for aeronautical flight

test telemetry, and later for both Satellite digital audio radio, and miscellaneous

wireless services. Recently, the 2400-2450 MHz segment has been increasingly and

intensively used for wireless computer networking and Wi-Fi systems, making it all

but useless for Amateur and Amateur-Satellite operation. The 2305-2310 MHz segment was allocated to the miscellaneous wireless communications service. What remains reasonably available in that entire band is now 2300-2305 MHz and 2390-

2400 MHz, both of which are under pressure for reallocation by other services for

satellite or terrestrial commercial technologies.

At 5 GHz, the Amateur Service has a secondary allocation at 5650-5925 MHz, a

large band 275 Megahertz wide. Within the past ten years however, the FCC has

allocated 75 MHz of that for Intelligent Transportation Systems on a licensed basis

(5850-5925 MHz); 100 MHz of that for unlicensed National Information Infrastructure systems (5725-5825 MHz) and FCC has just recently proposed to allocate another 75 MHz (5650-5725 MHz) for new Wi-Fi and other wireless LAN systems.

Thus, of the 275 MHz formerly occupied by the Amateur Service and, compatibly,

on a primary basis by the military for radiolocation systems, there is now only 25

MHz, at 5825-5850 MHz, remaining substantially uncompromised. Amateurs are, as

a practical matter, excluded now from the 5850-5925 MHz band, because the Intelligent Transportation Systems that are to be deployed in that band include systems

such as smart road signs. Amateurs could never transmit their own communications

in a band in which signals from a ‘‘smart’’ road sign might be used to warn vehicles

at a railroad crossing, for example, of oncoming trains. The result of interference

could be disastrous. Thus, Amateurs are, de facto, excluded from that band entirely.

A year ago, the FCC allowed extremely high-powered unlicensed point-to-point

fixed microwave facilities to operate at 24.05-24.25 GHz using antennas with unlimited gain. These high-powered facilities will undoubtedly preclude any Amateur operation in those bands within the main antenna lobes of those devices.

ARRL and radio amateurs generally understand that spectrum allocations decisionmaking is increasingly difficult for the FCC. We know that it is a dynamic procVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
66

ess, and do not wish to limit that process or prevent the FCC from making allocations decisions that benefit everyone, and bring new services to the market. However, in that process, the spectrum needs of the Amateur Service have been, and

are increasingly, disregarded by the FCC. At the same time that the Amateur Service has grown and continues to grow substantially, the Amateur Radio band allocations have been reduced to the point that the Service is compromised. We cannot

continue to suffer the loss or diminution of use of available spectrum and at the

same time continue to provide the valuable communications services and fulfill the

important Federal goals for the Service that have been the hallmark of Amateur

Radio for the past century, and to the present.

Amateurs cannot pay for the spectrum they use, at auctions. Conceptually, a market-based allocations process disaccommodates radio amateurs completely. Assuming the utility of a market-based allocations process for spectrum using the private

property model, the Commission must still maintain the ‘‘public parks’’ of Amateur

Radio spectrum. Neither does the ‘‘spectrum commons’’ approach to spectrum management sufficiently accommodate the Amateur Radio Service, since unlicensed devices, in the aggregate, preclude much Amateur Radio operation without much more

prudent management by the Commission than has been demonstrated thus far.

While Amateur Radio is able to make some residual use of the unlicensed ‘‘junk

bands’’ at, for example, 902-928 MHz, 2400-2450 MHz, and elsewhere, the density

of unlicensed operation in the bands used for Wi-Fi and wireless broadband services,

and the resultant high-noise environment quickly becomes incompatible with

narrowband and weak-signal Amateur Radio operation.

The near-future spectrum challenges to the Amateur Service are substantial as

well. For example, the FCC is eagerly anticipating the use of power line carrier

(PLC) systems as a competitive broadband delivery mechanism referred to as ‘‘BPL’’,

or ‘‘broadband via power lines’’. The frequencies used would generally be in the

high-frequency part of the spectrum, including the crowded Amateur Radio frequency bands at 3.5-4.0 MHz, 7.0-7.3 MHz, 10.1-10.15 MHz, 14.0-14.35 MHz,

18.068-18.168 MHz; 21.0-21.45 MHz; 24.89-24.99 MHz and 28.0-29.7 MHz. These

bands are the long-distance mainstay of the Amateur Radio Service; they are critical

to Amateur long-distance communications; and they are extremely overcrowded at

all times. Receivers used are very sensitive. PLCs use power lines as transmission

systems, but they are also extremely good radiators at high frequencies. The potential interference to the Amateur Service from these systems is extremely high.

Other Amateur bands are in jeopardy, as the result of proposals from Mobile Satellite Service entities and terrestrial services who wish to expand their commercial

allocations. At any given time, most, if not all, Amateur bands are the subject of

requests for either reallocation of those bands, or for incompatible service overlays.

As stated above, the FCC should be able to quickly make dynamic allocations decisions to accommodate new technologies. As a matter of policy, when the FCC

makes allocations for new technologies which adversely affect incumbent licensees,

the newcomer is expected to make arrangements to reaccommodate displaced licensees in equivalent facilities. This was done, for example, in order to implement Personal Communications Service (PCS) at 2 GHz; in the 800 MHz auction proceedings;

and most recently, in order to implement Mobile Satellite Service at 2 GHz in the

bands formerly occupied by broadcast auxiliary and fixed microwave facilities. This

is standard FCC policy for commercial services. Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, 7 FCC Rcd.

6886 (1992); Mobile Satellite Service at 2 GHz, 12 FCC Rcd. 7388, 7396-7404 (1997);

Redesignation of the 17.7-19.7 GHz Frequency Band, 15 FCC Rcd. 13,430 (2000). In

the 17 GHz proceeding, the FCC affirmed its policy of making arrangements for reaccommodating those incumbents involuntarily displaced by new technologies in

comparable facilities. This policy has been applied consistently with commercial

services, and has been upheld on appeal each time. Association of Public Safety

Communications Officials International, Inc. v. FCC, 76 F. 3d 395, 397, 400 (D.C.

Cir. 1996); Small Business in Telecommunications, Inc. v. FCC, 251 F.3d 1015, 1017,

1026 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Teledesic, LLC. v. FCC, lll F.3d lll (D.C. Cir. No. 00-

1466, decided December 28, 2001. These cases all affirm the FCC’s policy that ‘‘existing operations should not be disrupted during transition to emerging technologies.’’

Inexplicably, (or perhaps merely reflective of the fact that the Amateur Service

is given insufficient consideration in FCC allocations decisionmaking), this policy,

consistently applied where commercial radio services are displaced in favor of new

technologies, is not applied where the Amateur Service is displaced, de jure or de

facto, from an Amateur allocation. Unlike commercial displacement, where incumbents are reimbursed for the often very substantial costs of displacement and relocation to other comparable bands, the Amateur Service seeks no expense reimburseVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
67

ment. Radio Amateurs would be more than satisfied with just a place to go in order

to continue their operations. That is exactly the purpose of H.R. 713, which does

no more than that. It would, after the effective date of the legislation, define as federal policy an obligation on the FCC to (1) make no reallocation of primary allocations of bands of frequencies of the amateur radio and amateur satellite services;

(2) not diminish the secondary allocations of bands of frequencies to the amateur

radio or amateur satellite service; and (3) make no additional allocations within

such bands of frequencies that would substantially reduce the utility thereof to the

amateur radio or amateur satellite service; unless the Commission, at the same

time, provides equivalent replacement spectrum to amateur radio and amateur satellite service.

This provides no significant burden on the FCC. Nor is the FCC’s flexibility in

making allocations decisions limited to any significant degree. If the FCC does decide that an Amateur band is needed for a new service, it can immediately make

the reallocations it wishes through normal rulemaking. It is merely obligated not

to disaccommodate existing Amateur operations, and must provide what it determines in its discretion to be equivalent replacement spectrum elsewhere. The FCC

would determine what constitutes ‘‘equivalent’’ replacement spectrum. Nor would

Amateur Radio displace other incumbents. The Amateur Service can cooperatively

share with most government and non-government incumbent users, and the burden

of finding equivalent replacement spectrum is negligible as the result.

The relief provided for the Amateur Service does not constitute any sort of special

accommodation or treatment. It is merely extending existing spectrum policy to a

service that should have been subject to the policy all along, but has not been. The

Amateur Service has been the victim of consistent and substantial reductions in

spectrum allocations. It requires the same protection afforded incumbent licensees

in other services against further net reductions in spectrum. H.R. 713 provides that

protection and it does so in such a manner as to provide FCC with all the flexibility

it requires to make allocations decisions quickly and efficiently, and to provide for

the rapid deployment of new technologies.

The Amateur Radio Service is a ‘‘first responder’’ in the service of the United

States, and with the assistance of this Subcommittee, will be able to serve in even

greater volunteer roles, efficiently, for decades to come. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the United States and its citizens.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. That is why you are supposed to call before you dig.

Mr. HAYNIE. I believe there was an incident here in the Capitol

just this morning. I saw it on the news.

Mr. WALDEN. We had one in the elevator, too, holding a dozen

members for 40 minutes.

Mr. Thomas, I have a question for you. Let us talk notch filters.

What role could they play in trying to deal with the interference

that some of the first responders in their communications? Could

you use a notch filter?

Mr. THOMAS. Theoretically, Congressman, you certainly could. It

is a question of cost. The truth of the matter is that there are technical solutions. There are procedural solutions. The combination of

picking, shall I say, the best class of each, is probably the right

way to go. But the direct answer to your answer is that they could

indeed solve the problem if they can be built economically. That is

a big if.

Mr. WALDEN. Do you have any cost estimate of what it would

take to retrofit one?

Mr. THOMAS. No, I cannot. That is a manufacturing issue. It is

also connected to volume. It is a very difficult thing to do. The filters that are required to do that are rather sophisticated state-ofthe-art filters.

Mr. WALDEN. Right. Mr. Brown, maybe you could enlighten me

as to that? What about notch filters and other ways to stop the interference?

68

Mr. BROWN. Motorola filed on May 6 with the FCC in response

to some technical questions about how to attack this issue. In essence, what we would call affectionately the ‘‘Technical Tool Box,’’

is comprehensive detailed documentation of exhaustive procedures,

tactics, and technical recommendations as a result of literally

months and years’ worth of experience, not only with us, but our

users and other carriers. We wrote that and filed it on May 6. It

involved a very disciplined set of steps that we think makes substantial progress in rectifying and mitigating interference.

It includes things like filtering transmissions, altering power,

and reconfiguring antennas, swamping frequencies, and the like. In

addition to that, it also includes a new interference resistant receiver that Motorola is going to produce and make available by the

end of the year in newer radios going forward.

Mr. WALDEN. It just has a better filtering system in the front

end?

Mr. BROWN. Among other things, yes. We have spent a lot of

time on it, working with a whole host of people. More recently, just

in the last few months, we have deliberately attacked some of the

toughest interference issues with about six or seven customers. At

this point we have significant cause for optimism in some of the

progress that we think can be made.

Mr. WALDEN. Very good.

Lieutenant, I was intrigued by your testimony as it relates to

what Michigan has been able to accomplish. One of the suspicions

that I have in all of this is that there has to be some territorial

warfare going on here among different organizations who have

their own systems in place that work for them. The notion of having to give that up and go invest in something else is not attractive.

Did you run into that in Michigan as you put together an interoperable system? Was there turn warfare between cities and counties and within agencies?

Mr. ADAMCZYK. There are turf battles, sir. Where an existing system is functional, and it is not due to be replaced, that is where

cross-band audio switches come in, or the patches. However, what

I find to be financially imprudent by local jurisdictions is when

they have to invest multiple millions of dollars and they will not

take advantage of the State system, or they are resistant to. The

State has this 181 tower infrastructure. You take a county or a

local jurisdiction, instead of building 15 of their own towers at $1.5

million, why not take advantage of what the State’s infrastructure

has and just add to that. We maintain our infrastructure and they

can maintain theirs. They are not a communications island. They

have whole integration into the system.

Mr. WALDEN. You have been able to achieve, or offer the ability,

to achieve that integration without us having to reallocate spectrum, correct? We have not done that.

Mr. ADAMCZYK. Yes, right now we have. Are there spectrum

issues? Yes. Are we fighting for spectrum? Yes, sir. With the

boundaries of the State, we can reuse spectrum every 70 miles.

Mr. WALDEN. Every 70 miles?

Mr. ADAMCZYK. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. All right.

69

Mr. Thomas, Mr. Jacknis states in his testimony the 800 megahertz band has ‘‘not fulfilled its promise as a single frequency

range for first responder coordination and communications.’’ Do you

hear the same concern from other public safety communications

personnel around the country? If it is true, why would the FCC

waste time with rebanding schemes in the 800 megahertz band

rather than start a transition of public safety systems out of the

band?

Mr. THOMAS. Congressman, we get mixed reviews, frankly. At

the end of the day, there are some public safety organizations that

complain about it. There are others that say, ‘‘It is just fine. Thank

you very much.’’ There are arguments in between. You see that in

almost any issue we get involved in. Our job is to try to weigh the

pros and cons and make a recommendation. I include that in that

band as well.

Mr. WALDEN. All right.

My time has expired. I turn to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.

Stupak.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you.

Lieutenant, the 800 megahertz State police radio system does not

provide full coverage for portable radios, right? Also, you cannot do

data over the 800 megahertz; is that correct?

Mr. ADAMCZYK. That is correct.

Mr. STUPAK. How do you resolve the portable radio system? You

talk about the Twin Towers, or just the trooper on the road trying

to talk with the firefighter. Once they leave their cars, they are on

portable radios. Once you leave your vehicle, if you cannot talk

with them on 800 megahertz, should we be looking at a different

spectrum or something different?

Mr. ADAMCZYK. The system was built to guarantee 97 percent

statewide mobile coverage.

Mr. STUPAK. As long as you are in your vehicle.

Mr. ADAMCZYK. As long as you are in your vehicle, correct. However, we have benchmarked portable coverage testing. We have,

statewide, overall, about 95 percent. Yes, there are dead spots. We

do not guarantee portable coverage. When you get into your heavy

buildings, when you get below grade, and depending on topography,

a local jurisdiction coming onto the system does have the option of

enhancing the infrastructure or putting amplification in buildings

to improve their in-building portable coverage.

Mr. STUPAK. You would have to do that for almost every building, or you would have a dead spot.

Mr. ADAMCZYK. Where you have a dead spot; yes, sir. Or if you

have a large enough geographic area, that is where you could add

infrastructure to ours and integrate into our system.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Tamlyn, what system are you on? You provide

the portable radios and interoperability, whether you are in your

car or outside, correct?

Mr. TAMLYN. Correct. When you start talking about politics,

there are politics of pulling this off. The counties wrote the checks

for this. We took all the available licenses that the three counties

had and we pulled them into one central pool. We had to put some

new towers up. We are looking at some new towers now. We have

70

looked at the State’s 800 megahertz system. You would have to

have more 800 megahertz towers.

Mr. STUPAK. You are on VHF right now?

Mr. TAMLYN. We are on VHF.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. Can the State police work off your system?

Mr. TAMLYN. They currently are.

Mr. STUPAK. Do they have the portability with the radios?

Mr. TAMLYN. Yes, they do.

Mr. STUPAK. Do you have data on yours?

Mr. TAMLYN. Yes, we do.

Mr. STUPAK. Has the State looked at the VHF and going into

that? It sounds like the Emmet County CCE has a much more complete system than the State system.

Mr. ADAMCZYK. The last executive office upgraded the system

one platform below integrated voice and data. You are correct. We

do not have mobile data right now. However, we are preparing to

ask the new Governor of Michigan to implement mobile data on our

system.

Mr. STUPAK. If you are using a 800 megahertz system, and you

are on VHF, how do we get you to combine and to work together.

You would then have one system so that the people of Michigan at

least are not trying to make a decision on VHF

Mr. TAMLYN. We are not locked out. The numbers they need for

data are relatively small. The States are in financial crisis right

now. They are not giving it to them. I talked with Mitch Erwin,

who is the Governor’s Director of Budget, Monday morning. He

said, ‘‘It is not there.’’ I do not understand it. If I were a State, I

would prioritize what the Lieutenant wants. We have other financial issues with the State over the cost of this. But these are all

workable issues.

Mr. STUPAK. If the State updates and gets the data on there, can

you then abandon your system and go totally on theirs?

Mr. TAMLYN. We could as far as the police go. As has been said

on this committee this morning, probably 85 percent of the firefighters in the United States are volunteer. The 800 megahertz system will not do voice paging. They tell me that the new 800 megahertz system will do a digital encrypted system and have firefighters responding to a scene trying to read in a moving automobile. They are not going to buy it. So we will still have to have

some type of lesser system in the patrol cars to talk with the firefighters and the EMS.

Mr. STUPAK. Let me get to Mr. Thomas. Today we had the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Bill. That was for DOD auction

proceeds. We tried to do a public safety trust fund so we could have

the funds to provide for law enforcement and others to improve

their systems.

Can you identify any upcoming auctions that might provide a

source of funding that we can look at and do a public safety trust

fund to try to get some money into all these providers? If I have

heard anything today, it has been money, money, money. I understand that, but we have to identify some sources. Do you have any

other auctions coming up that might be able to provide some source

of funding?

71

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, there are several auctions coming up this year.

There is one in June. There is another one in August. There are

two in September.

Mr. STUPAK. Can you identify the document you are reading

from? I would move that we make it a part of the record.

Mr. THOMAS. I would be delighted to give it to you.

Mr. STUPAK. In that way we would have it and we can work on

it a little bit more.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[FCC auction information is available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/

auctions/]

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Brown, I did not mean to cut you off.

Mr. BROWN. Just to add a little bit on the data discussion, and

consistent with some of my earlier remarks, I think, first of all, everybody is in agreement that more spectrum is better. That said,

we were very specific in requesting 700 megahertz consistent with

the Public Safety Wireless Committee Report in 1996, the Balanced

Budget Act of 1977, and subsequent FCC action, it is all consistent

and says that the 700 megahertz band, specifically 24 megahertz,

is the preferred resource to deploy wideband data.

Chairman Upton referenced some things we saw in Chicago earlier this week. Just as an anecdote, frequently during the day Chicago police officers ride alone in their police cars. If you had wideband data, which is what 700 megahertz would require, whether

you would be approaching a burglary or a traffic stop alone, it is

fundamental to the requirement and safety of our first responders.

We are quite enthusiastic about that specifically.

Mr. STUPAK. And operability outside the vehicle?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Bilirakis?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so very

much for holding this hearing. First, Mr. Chairman, I have an

opening statement that I did not have an opportunity to make. I

would ask that it be included in the record.

Mr. UPTON. We asked that all members to put their statement

in the record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I have a June 9 letter from Mr. James B. Massey

from the Lighthouse Amateur Radio Club in Palm Harbor, Florida.

I would ask that that be made a part of the record.

Mr. UPTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The last sentence in that letter says, ‘‘The amateur radio band should be considered a national resource, like the

militia during the American Revolution which was called upon in

a time of emergency.’’ I think that says it all insofar as the ham

operators are concerned.

Mr. Haynie, how do amateurs respond during and just after a

hurricane, for example?

Mr. HAYNIE. Well, first of all, we have had for many, many years

an agreement with the National Hurricane Center down in Miami,

Florida, where that is manned 24/7 by ham radio operators at two

different stations, if I recall.

72

Once a hurricane is spotted in the Atlantic or the Gulf, we are

well aware of it. In fact, ham radio operators in the islands give

data back to the National Hurricane Center.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So this is on a planned basis?

Mr. HAYNIE. Yes, very much so. Once the hurricane has hit land

and started damage, the amateur radio service is alerted by two

different networks, basically VHF and UHF. Again, the data keeps

coming in on HF from the islands. We thank the Commission for

the five discrete channels we got on 5 megahertz for this.

There are two basic groups—radio amateur civil emergency service, which is part of FEMA, and the amateur radio emergency service organizations, the league that our organization administers. We

start bringing people in to work with public safety where their systems are overloaded, inoperable, or in many cases destroyed. We

bring in our own systems for that. We station volunteers with public safety officials. We relay needed messages. We provide the same

disaster relief for the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, and all

types of logistics for the hospitals and other medical centers.

We provide generators which most hams do have as part of their

makeup of equipment. We have actually powered up cellular systems using our portable power sets. I have personally done this in

Hurricane Alicia and the Wichita Falls tornado. I am well aware

of the response. I just cannot say enough about what the hams do.

Hurricane Gilbert comes to mind where we had literally thousands

of amateurs from all across the South dispatched to Florida. I am

very proud of our people.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You are truly a communications militia, are you

not?

Mr. Haynie, does the FCC takes the spectrum needs of your service into account when making allocations and decisions? If not—

and I am assuming the answer is going to be no—why do you think

the FCC ignores the volunteer communication services that amateur radio operators provide during emergencies and disasters? Do

they ignore it? Why do they ignore it?

Mr. HAYNIE. Mr. Bilirakis, yes, by and large they do. It is pretty

understandable why they would. There are two basic reasons. The

amateur radio service has always been self-regulating. We prepare

and administer our own exams for ourselves. We provide license

data directly to the FCC data base. There is no cost there to the

government. We require almost no enforcement resources from the

Commission. We are small on their radar screen in the big picture

of what you have heard here earlier today.

We seldom ask for any additional allocations. Therefore, we are

largely invisible to the Commission and require little attention. But

unfortunately that is exactly what we get—very little attention.

The second reason is amateur radios are adaptable. We can

share a spectrum and we do with other services. The Department

of Defense is a good example. We always make do with less. That

concept has reached the breaking point for our service. We are just

in a real hard spot here. That is why I am here today. We cannot

do much with our high speed data networks anymore because of

the VHF/UHF spectrum. A good example is the 2.4 gigahertz which

has literally become the polluted area of the airwaves. We originally had this almost exclusively.

73

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, my time is about up. I am not

going to go into it anymore. We have had 9/11. We have heard the

role that the amateur radio people have played in that regard, and

in hurricanes and other disasters. I should hope, Mr. Chairman,

that we will seriously take their role into consideration regarding

any of our deliberations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Haynie.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. Engel?

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed the testimony of everyone. I think it is quite obvious that we need money

for this. I was glad that Mr. Stupak asked the questions about auctions. It is really evident that for too long we have left the public

safety spectrum and funding for communications equipment on the

back burner.

Again, I want to highlight what Mr. Jacknis mentioned in his

testimony that Mr. Stupak, Mr. Fossella, and I are working on a

public safety trust fund that will provide dedicated funding to first

responders. It is very clear to me that new radio equipment needs

to be interoperable, which is capable of having police, fire, and

medical personnel at all levels—local, county, State, and Federal

levels—all communicating seamlessly. It is expensive, but it is

needed.

Dr. Jacknis, welcome. It is nice to have someone from Westchester County, New York here. You have overseen difficult transitions in radio equipment for emergency personnel. Could you give

us an idea of what this is costing Westchester County?

Mr. JACKNIS. We currently have a voice system for our Department of Emergency Services and the dispatch of fire and EMS,

which will also include other agencies, like police and hospitals. We

are worried about the interoperability. That project is over $20 million. This is not ground communications. When the fire departments in a mutual aid situation get together, they are using a different set of frequencies, not the UHF frequencies we are using for

this. The police independently have their own. This is just for a

piece of it. That gives you an idea as to what the kind of numbers

are that we are talking about. The County has about 950,000 people. We have about 500 square miles.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Tamlyn, I would like to ask you the same question. You have had transitions in emergency personnel and radio

equipment. How much has it cost?

Mr. TAMLYN. The budget number that we have put in the system

since 1994 was about $16 million. Michigan has allowed us to put

a surcharge on telephones. I was told yesterday that one of the

Boards of Commissioners did it yesterday and the other two will

do it in the next 2 weeks. We will add another 4 percent surcharge

under the base rate of all phones in our three-county area and put

that money strictly into communications equipment.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.

It is clear to me that there is going to have to be some help from

the Federal Government if we are going to expect our communities

to implement this.

In the testimony, one issue that came to light is that the Northern States—New York is one, Michigan as well, and others—is the

74

problem with Canada and its allocated spectrum for use that are

hopefully now dedicating for public safety.

I am wondering, Mr. Thomas, if you could tell us what the FCC

is doing about this? I would also like to ask Mr. Stile about APCO.

Mr. THOMAS. I would be happy to, Congressman. There is a committee called the Radio Technical Liaison Committee which is a

joint committee with the Canadian equivalent of the FCC. We and

they jointly chair that committee.

One of the most recent events that is helpful had to do with

clearing Channel 63 and 68 in anticipation of using 700 megahertz.

There is negotiations going on to clear the entire 24 megahertz in

the 700 megahertz band. That committee meets regularly. Its intent is to address radio problems at the border.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. You anticipated my next question. I was

going to ask you about what the FCC is doing to encourage the incumbent television stations to move more quickly off 700 megahertz?

Mr. THOMAS. I think the FCC has probably gone as far as it can

under the present statute. The chairman has announced an initiative. One of the things that we enacted very recently was requiring

all TVs to have DTV tuners in them. The smallest ones having

those available would be by July 2007.

In addition to that, there is a voluntary program that we are encouraging people to make the transition. But at the end of the day,

Congressman, it really is a question of how quickly the consumers

will want to buy a digital TV. That has a lot to do with the utility

of that as compared to the TVs that they have already within their

homes. That is under the present statute to get to the 85 percent.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Mr. Stile, could you comment on APCO

and the Canada situation?

Mr. STILE. As Mr. Thomas points out, there was a meeting. New

York has been quite involved in the proceedings in industrial Canada to have them actually clear away the situation that is causing

a problem. It seems to me, and from what I understand, the transition in the border areas. They are going to go back to changing the

TV channels that were originally assigned to the 700 megahertz

spectrum that we are using for public safety.

I might also mention that in the consensus plan we have been

working on the border problem to the extent that if there is not

enough spectrum available for those border areas in the United

States, in the particular area of the border, that the frequencies

that are proposed in the 814/816 area, those frequencies are, in

fact, going to be utilized by the border area people just to ensure

that they have a spectrum to go to.

Is it permissible to go on?

Mr. ENGEL. Certainly.

Mr. STILE. Congressman Walden had spoken about the area of

adjustment that Motorola has just recently put out. We see that as

a very thing for public safety. However, that is good for future radios. I believe that is what Mr. Brown had already said.

In my county alone I have 4,000 radios, and I would have to

spend a lot of money in order to retrofit those receivers. That is a

problem for us. We need to be concerned about that.

75

There is a number of interference problems with public safety.

We have documented this. We do have documentation in Florida as

we get it in. There is a lot of interference problems that are not

being reported. We have about 157 people at agencies that are affected by the interference problem that Nextel has caused. We are

concerned about getting those things squared away.

If a police officer is shot, or cannot hear or cannot talk, that is

a problem. That is what we are trying to clear away.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if you could indulge me for one

final quick question to Dr. Jacknis.

Mr. UPTON. Certainly.

Mr. ENGEL. There has been a lot of talk about clearing Channels

63, 64, 68, and 69. Obviously that is not enough. How much spectrum would a system require that allowed voice, video, and data to

work at local, State, and Federal? Would it require much more

spectrum than that?

Mr. JACKNIS. Actually, I think the spectrum that was allocated

just recently by the FCC in its 4.9 gigahertz certainly would be a

good start to be able to handle all those things. I think that was

their intention in doing it. Obviously the concern I was talking

about earlier was to make sure that that piece of the spectrum

plays by a new set of rules so we do not repeat the mistakes that

we have had in the past where we have created these situations

of incompatibility.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Engel.

I want to go back to the cross-border inference. Lieutenant

Adamczyk, could you just site a couple of examples of what you

have seen as an officer of this State. Also, as I look at the membership on this committee, we have many members from the States

that are pretty close to Canada, and other jurisdictions.

How far does this interference spread? My district is over here,

across the lake from Chicago. I do not think we would get a lot of

interference from Canada, from Windsor, and that area. I would be

interested to know how big of a problem it is from all of the border

States? What are some of the concrete examples of problems that

you have seen as you have talked with your officers on the beat in

Michigan?

Mr. ADAMCZYK. As far as cross-border interference, unless my expert behind me tells me otherwise——

Mr. UPTON. You have the gun.

Mr. ADAMCZYK. As you were asking the question, I just do not

get a lot of complaints about cross-border interference. My expert

behind me tells me that’s because we have such a good relationship

with Canada, it is really not an issue.

When we do go to 700 megahertz, even if we do that in the

States, being a border State we still have to get Canada to comply,

as with the Southern States with Mexico when that times does

come.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Tamlyn, do you agree with that?

Mr. TAMLYN. It is not the problem of the spectrum with Canada.

When we have to do something near Canada you can add 1 year

76

in waiting time to get approval. You can figure if your radio experts tell you that you need a 300-foot tower with a 100-watt transmitter, that it is going to come back on the Hill that you described

as a 100-foot tower with a 20-watt transmitter. You have to put up

three or four times as many towers at three to four times the cost.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Stile?

Mr. STILE. I am the spectrum advisor for Southern New York

State. I have been dealing a good deal of time with Vermont, New

Hampshire, and Maine. As mentioned, you cannot get frequencies.

It takes a year to get a frequency in the northern tier. We do have

interference. The 700 megahertz band is being addressed separately. In fact, I think we have progressed quite a bit from the

original set-up that was being used by industrial Canada in their

southern tier.

The fact of the matter is that we have come quite a ways. With

these meetings that we have been having with industrial Canada,

as far as the FCC is concerned, they have been dealing with the

Canadian issue. I believe that that issue is pretty much getting resolved with the efforts that have been going on. We do have interference.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Donahue, as we think about the consensus plan,

does that address some of this cross-border interference policies?

Again, think about members on the committee, whether it be Oregon or New Hampshire, Michigan, or New York.

Mr. DONAHUE. It will address the majority of those issues, yes.

But I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, as it relates to interference and the conversations that have gone on concerning the 800

megahertz band, there are a couple of things that I think the committee should keep in mind.

First of all, there is a lot of what we call out-of-band interference.

The notch filters, the filtering systems that have been talked about,

do not address that issue. We find that issue in almost 50 percent

of the interference that has been reported to us. I would say that

we have to be very careful when we look at these other technologies and best practices to be sure that they, in fact, encompass

all of the interference that is being caused.

I think the second point that is very important to understand is

that 90 percent of the licensees that are currently utilizing 800

megahertz are for the consensus plan. That includes APCO, the

International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the major cities Sheriffs Associations.

I would say to you that as you take a look at this whole interference issue, it is important to understand that the really only

way to eliminate interference in its entirety is to realign the band.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Thomas, do you agree with that?

Mr. THOMAS. No, I do not. There are many ways to eliminate interference. The words I take exception with is ‘‘the only way.’’

There are a lot of options on the table being presented by very substantive parties. We are in the process right now of evaluating

them. At the end of the day our hope and prayer is to come up with

something that, No. 1, protects our public safety community and at

the same time is practical and economical to implement.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Donahue, do you want to have another word?

77

Mr. DONAHUE. Well, I would just say that we obviously have

been involved in this situation for a significant period of time. We

are very familiar with the practices and the practical solutions that

have been put on the table.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think if you just take a look at the chart

and look at where we are today and how that spectrum is

interleaved, and you take a look at what the realigned spectrum

does, it is pretty clear that contiguous blocks are going to go a long

way toward eliminating most of the interference.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Thomas, as I listen, you were here for the presentation by Mr. Weldon and Ms. Harman. Walk me through the

gymnastics of what has to happen from the FCC side, if in fact,

their bill was to become a reality. Again, as I look at the local example, at least from Michigan’s prospective, we have a major station in Detroit that uses that band. We have a much smaller station in my district in Kalamazoo, a religious broadcaster, but they

still use that. Mr. Stupak and Mr. Engel I am sure has some.

How difficult is it to wave that wand to see something happen?

Is it impossible?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, it is possible. It is not a technical issue.

Mr. UPTON. I said ‘‘Is it impossible?’’

Mr. THOMAS. Oh, I am sorry. It is possible, not impossible.

But let me just walk you through, since you asked me to. To me,

the problem is not a technical one. In most cases, the slots are

available. They can move to a digital slot. A more significant question is: If a station moves to a digital slot and spends the money

in order to do that, does it have an audience to support the advertising in the time you do it?

Mr. UPTON. You cannot move it in the analog slot; is that what

you are saying?

Mr. THOMAS. What you would do is that you would make existing

analog systems digital and move them to the digital slot.

Mr. UPTON. But that would take away from their capability of

broadcasting in analog?

Mr. THOMAS. Depending on the size of the consumer market in

their market area.

Mr. UPTON. I do not think that there is any question that there

is room on the digital scale to do that. We are seeing a number of

stations now beginning to broadcast in both, or at least prepared

to do that. The question is: What happens to that analog signal

until everybody is ready for it, to either have a digital set or have

the cable system that will carry that? That obviously is the donut

that needs to be filled.

Mr. THOMAS. That is certainly correct. I do not see a solution

that allows the analog stations to continue, and at the same time

establish a certain date.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Carrico?

Mr. CARRICO. We would like to disagree that all of the problems

would be solved by rebanding the 800 megahertz band. What would

happen is that there would be many, many dollars that would have

to be spent. That would go on the backs of the users of the 800

megahertz band. We do not believe that the time-frame that has

been put forth to do that will happen.

78

What we would prefer to see is that this interoperability happen

in the 700 megahertz band and not put the other users in the 800

megahertz band, kind of in the backwater of technology.

Mr. UPTON. My time has expired.

Mr. Stupak, do you have further questions?

Mr. STUPAK. I appreciate everybody coming. They have all put

good arguments on why we have to do this. Just listening to the

testimony here today, two things bother me. Mr. Thomas, if the

Hero Bill by Harman and Weldon become a reality, that bill calls

for 2006 as the implementation date. What do we do between now

and 2006? If we put the Hero Bill up here as the way to resolve

the issues, no one does anything until 2006. It just seems as

though we are further delaying the problem and further frustrating

the intent and the goals of everyone trying to get something done.

The second thing that bothers me is that I have heard rebanding,

realignment, VHF, 700 megahertz, and 800 megahertz. It sounds

like we are not all on the same page. Somehow we all have to get

on the same page, but if we are going to put forth Federal money,

maybe it is time for the Federal Government to step up and say,

‘‘Here is what we are going to do to guarantee the interoperability

of everything to work inside and outside the car, or wherever it

might be. This is what we will help fund. The rest of it we will

not.’’ I think that is more of a policy decision that we all have to

look at.

Those are the two things that are bothering me about today’s testimony. Does anyone care to comment on it?

Mr. Thomas, we will start with you and then to Mr. Stile.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Congressman. Let me begin by saying

that if you look at the public safety and in general all bands—and

I include a cleared 700 megahertz band as part of that—we are

talking about 97 megahertz available.

Now, different parts of the band have different problems in both

propagation versus accessibility. A lot of the problem is solved by

funding. The question is interoperability has a cost. Some changes

have to be made somewhere. Even from the simple thing to be able

to communicate from one band to the other.

There are two issues here. The first question is: Is there enough

frequency available for public safety in totality. I leave it to you to

form that judgment. But there are 97 megahertz. The question becomes: Can it be used in such a way—with more efficiency—that

it will, in fact, solve most of the problems we heard here today.

Mr. UPTON. You mentioned costs. What would the estimated

costs be?

Mr. THOMAS. Frankly I have no idea, Congressman.

Mr. UPTON. Besides billions.

Mr. THOMAS. It may or it may not. I just do not know. I am not

prepared to even hazard a guess.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you.

Mr. Stile, I know you want to jump in there.

Mr. STILE. What I would like to say is that the rebanding and

the consensus plan puts public safety contiguous with the 700

megahertz band. So if we get the 700 megahertz band, we have

public safety, but up against each other with the 800 megahertz,

that improves the interoperability in those areas.

79

This is a long-term proposition that I am talking about. You give

us the 700 megahertz and we have the 800 megahertz down contiguous with the 700 megahertz, we have a possibility here across the

Nation of having money put toward funding going into that 700

megahertz band. That would give us the frequencies that would

allow us to do that.

What we do is that we improve the interoperability between the

public safety entities. That is what I am proposing.

Mr. DONAHUE. Congressman, if I may?

Mr. STUPAK. Go ahead.

Mr. DONAHUE. I would just like to follow up Mr. Stile’s comments

and suggest that as it relates to the consensus plan, solving the interference through rebanding and realignment, the dollars have

been put on the table to pay for that. We estimate that would be

somewhere in the neighborhood of $850 million. We at Nextel are

prepared to put those dollars on the table to make that happen so

that you get to a point that Mr. Stile was just articulating.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Brown, I know you wanted to comment.

Mr. BROWN. Congressman, you mentioned your two concerns. I

think part of the complexity is that there are multiple issues that

I think we are collectively trying to address.

With that said, I think that the date certainty will provide, to

avoid this perpetual chicken and the egg, both the clarity and the

conviction to have market forces and other things and rate of approaches to get digital TV signal and analog clearance by December

31, 2006.

The other thing that was worth mentioning is that I think we

are in agreement that we need more spectrum. There are varying

degrees of what and where. It is also obviously an agreement

around funding. But it is also standards.

I think it was First Lieutenant Adamczyk who referenced in his

comments Project 25. There is an existing standard for P-25 today.

It provides for interoperable voice communications. It is supported

by a whole host of people that he referenced. So there is clarity

around that standard and coalescence around that.

Second, as I mentioned on the need for 700 megahertz, there is

strong agreement and coalescence around 700 megahertz for wideband data. So as you get inter-jurisdictional interoperability—local,

State, Federal—you need the wideband megahertz spectrum in 700

megahertz. That has also been stated.

So despite the complexity of the interference issues that I know

Mr. Thomas and others will address technically, there are some

clear standards around interoperable voice and a wideband data

standard that should be coming out in the 700 megahertz band in

a couple of months.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Carrico?

Mr. CARRICO. I would just like to say that from our perspective,

we are maybe one of the ones that are not here asking for money.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Haynie is.

Mr. CARRICO. And there may be some others here among my colleagues. But the dollars that you were talking about, we are not

here to ask for dollars. What we are here to ask for is the ability

to build a nationwide interoperable system that all first responders

can use. If you look at the bulk of public safety and the systems

80

that they are using, they are not in the 800 megahertz band. So

what good is that going to do to get a nationwide system for America?

We are asking for something in the 700 megahertz band, associated with public safety, so that we can get that interoperability.

Mr. UPTON. You get the last word, Mr. Stile.

Mr. STILE. Thank you very much.

I agree. The thing of it is, you put us all together in public safety

in that one grouping right there, it is not going to happen overnight. This is something that is going to happen over a period of

time. Local government has to put money aside to plan for that.

That is what I am saying. You put us in this group together, contiguous, you have a lot of spectrum there for good use.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Walden?

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My interest has been piqued in several areas. First of all, Mr.

Stile, you indicated that you have 4,000 radios that would have to

be retrofitted?

Mr. STILE. In Suffolk County.

Mr. WALDEN. I guess my question is this. If we were to make all

this band reallocation, you would go interoperable?

Mr. STILE. Right.

Mr. WALDEN. Would those 4,000 radios still work?

Mr. STILE. Yes, they would.

Mr. WALDEN. Without any change or modification?

Mr. STILE. No, they would have to be retrofitted to the extent

that you reband them. You can retune them. That is the whole idea

in the consensus. It is returning. You do not have to replace the

radios.

Mr. WALDEN. Right.

Mr. STILE. You just retune the radios.

Mr. WALDEN. Let me go to Mr. Thomas.

Mr. UPTON. What is the cost of retuning a radio?

Mr. STILE. We have an estimate of about $50 to $55.

Mr. WALDEN. Are they crystal controlled?

Mr. STILE. No, they are not crystal. They are computer controlled.

Mr. WALDEN. They are variable. Okay.

Mr. STILE. That is right.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Thomas, can you tell me from your experience

what is the cost of a notch filter?

Mr. THOMAS. No, I cannot for the simple reason that it is a matter of volume. That is a question better asked to a manufacturer.

It is basically a question of specification for the filter and the volume.

Mr. WALDEN. You went a question that I have been intrigued

about. If you move everybody up to this band, how does that frequency work in terms of multi-pathing issues and rugged terrain?

Is this a frequency that will be compatible whether you are on the

flat plains of the Midwest or mountainous regions, or in cities

around buildings?

Mr. THOMAS. You are talking about the consensus plan?

Mr. WALDEN. Right.

81

Mr. THOMAS. I see no more of a problem that way than presently

exists. I do not think that is a major issue either way, Congressman.

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. That is good to know.

I ought to be in the broadcast business. I have an engineer here

in front of me that does not bill me.

Mr. THOMAS. We could change that, if you would like.

Mr. WALDEN. I guess I do have to vote for your budget. So maybe

it does work out that way.

The outer-band interference we heard about coming in here. I am

curious with all this problem. It seems to me that you have two options. Both could apply. One is one the receiving end creating notch

filters. The other is on the transmitting end and holding those who

are transmitting more accountable for any signal issues that go

outside the band; right? As an A.M. broadcaster, I have to make

sure and test every approved performance that my A.M. output is

right where it is supposed to be; right?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, but let me identify the problem we see as the

most significant problem. It occurs when a public safety portable

is at a great distance from the base station, the public safety tower,

and in close proximity to a cellular base station, an IDENT system.

The out-of-band question that was posed is the one that has only

recently been identified by those involved in the consensus plan.

We have asked for a lot of technical data to better understand this.

The primary problem has to do with the overload and the interference that is the result of that by being close to another transmitter.

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. All right.

The other thing that happened on 9/11, at least here in the

Washington area, was that cellular service basically quit working.

It was so overloaded. And long distance, trying to dial out crosscountry failed. I know I had a Blackberry at that time. It worked.

Are we creating a system by putting everybody in the same band

where you could get overload in the case of a problem? How are

you going to sort all that out?

Mr. THOMAS. First of all, if I understand your question correctly,

the overload is not a function of the frequency. It is a function of

the traffic that is carried simultaneously at least for the width of

the channel that is provided.

My strong suspicion—and I have to admit this is a guess—that

relative to the available capacity, the Blackberry was not as overloaded as the cellular.

Mr. WALDEN. It worked.

Mr. THOMAS. I know it did because there was a residual capacity

to do that. That is a guess. But I suspect that it is correct.

Mr. WALDEN. My question, though, is a different one. If you

group everybody together in one band, is there going to be sufficient capacity in the case of the 9/11 event that we are talking

about to be sure to be able to be better prepared for it in the future.

I am thinking like ham radio. You could switch around to other

frequencies. If we have everybody interoperable in the same bandwidth, are we going to overload in the case of a major event?

82

Mr. THOMAS. Well, the question is if you lose bandwidth. It is not

the band itself; it is the width of the band.

So if in the aggregate—and I am going to just make this up—

you had 50 megahertz interleaved, and then you put it all together

and you still have 50 megahertz, the congestion would be no different in either case.

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. All right.

I can sneak one more in?

Mr. UPTON. You can, but if I might indulge the kind gentleman,

I have to vote again in Education. You can have two questions

more if you come take this gavel.

While you are coming up here, I want to thank all of you for

being here. I apologize for having to leave again. I will see you another day. God bless all of you. Thank you.

Mr. WALDEN. I am sorry to see the chairman leave. I just have

38 other questions now. I would like to ask about digital conversion

for television. From listening to Representative Harman and Representative Weldon, you could sort of walk away with the impression that it is the TV broadcasters who are not doing their job here,

that they are part of the problem, that they have not migrated

quickly enough.

My understanding is that they are actually ahead of schedule in

digital conversion and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars.

Is that what you are seeing at the FCC?

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly there are a lot of broadcasters who are

transmitting digitally. The real issue are the ones that are in the

band that we are talking about, and in the locations they are in

the band.

So if you are looking to clear a nationwide channel, it is like you

are going down a road and eventually you hit a roadblock.

Mr. WALDEN. There are 52 in analog and 7 in digital?

Mr. THOMAS. I have heard different numbers, but there are certainly under a hundred in analog. The number I have heard is 45.

Mr. WALDEN. But the legislation that required broadcasters to go

to digital and then eventually go up to band, the deal was that occurred once there was 85 percent consumer penetration. Do you

have any idea where are now?

Mr. THOMAS. It is under 1 percent.

Mr. WALDEN. I could have a set-top conversion box so that I can

still my analog TV?

Mr. THOMAS. That is a receiver. The way we count is that if it

has digital reception capability, it is a receiver. It goes into the

mix.

Mr. WALDEN. So that counts?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. WALDEN. But if I have an old TV that does not have digital

receiving capability, an analog TV, I am going to have to get something to be able to receive these 60 station, or whatever they are,

if they are digital and in this band if they go off analog; right?

Mr. THOMAS. Technically what you are going to have to do is get

a digital receiver. That could be contained in a high-end TV or it

could be a set-top box.

Mr. WALDEN. Do you have any idea of the pricing of the set-top

box?

83

Mr. THOMAS. They vary. In today’s market you are probably talk- ing about something in the $300 range.

Mr. WALDEN. Per TV?

Mr. THOMAS. Per TV; yes.

I do not know if you can go to one of the discounters and get a significant reduction. But you are talking somewhere between $100

and $300. The other thing is just a number. I think there are about

120 million households in the United States. That 1 percent, if you

take it, is like a million DTV receivers out there already.

Mr. WALDEN. I learned in the whole issue of satellite television

coming into the markets, I got more postcards and mail on that

issue than any other since I have been in the Congress. I am probably not alone on that. We were going to cut them off; right? What

happened was that we passed a law that said, ‘‘No, you just go

ahead. Just do the rebroadcast.’’ But what I learned out of that was

a little known clause in the Constitution that says ‘‘The right to my

TV is Constitutionally guaranteed.’’

Mr. WALDEN. I am all for trying to solve this problem of our law

enforcement and fire and first responders face. I think there are

ways to do it. But I think we have to be realistic, too, of the fire

storm. You are going to have riot police out there if suddenly we

say, ‘‘As of this date, Grandma, your TV does not work in any of

the three rooms you have it in unless you spend $150 to $300.’’

That is not a technical engineer question. That is a political engineering question.

Mr. CARRICO. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir?

Mr. CARRICO. I am not real skilled in this area, but I do not

think it means that your TV is not going to work. Your TV is still

going to work. It is just that if that particular channel goes digital,

you are not going to receive it.

Mr. WALDEN. That is my point. If you take these stations that

are broadcasted in this band between Channels 62 and 69, to tell

them that they can no longer broadcast in analog on that band,

that they can only do digital, then anybody in those markets where

there are millions of viewers, are going to lose it unless they have

a digital receiver; right?

Mr. THOMAS. Well, they will lose those specific channels.

If you have a favorite program on that channel, you would lose

it.

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to hear about it. But we would lose it?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, you would.

Mr. WALDEN. If you told them that they could not use that spectrum to broadcast in analog anymore—which is really what we are

talking about here, other than the seven that are already in digital

on those—then you have to figure out what you do with those.

Then you are going to have interference on it.

Mr. Carrico?

Mr. CARRICO. Well, I think I would ask the committee to have

someone get you the information as to how many people are actually going to be affected. I do not think it is going to be as many

as you think that it is out there?

Mr. WALDEN. When you look at my district, if you could learn

that——

84

Does the FCC have that kind of data?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The number we have right now are those that

are in the band we want to clear for public safety, is 45. I have

heard 50 and I have heard 75. The number that I was told was 45.

Mr. WALDEN. That is the number of stations?

Mr. THOMAS. The number of stations.

Mr. WALDEN. He is talking—and I believe I am asking, too—how

many people? What is the audience?

Mr. THOMAS. I do not know if we have that information. When

I go back, I will take a look. If we have it, I will file it for the

record.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. That is an important issue. What is the

tradeoff here?

Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Just one additional point. I do think I would encourage the clarity around the specificity of exactly who is impacted. I

agree with Mr. Carrico that while anybody affected is still more

than none—and there is no question that it is politically charged—

I do think the clarity and conviction of a date certain is important.

I am far from a technical expert on this, but the notion of a digital-to-analog converter, you do not necessarily have to go out and

buy a digital TV. The idea of having a digital-to-analog converter

that would be a lower cost than if there were a date certain made,

my guess would be that a lot of equipment manufacturers would

rally to that cause to drive the cost down aggressively.

Then ultimately the implementation would be made for your example, Grandma, a very easy installation, and maybe it would be

rabbit-ear like. But I do not think necessarily that everybody has

to buy a digital TV. Not to minimize the political issues, but it is

not the impact that might be described here.

Mr. WALDEN. I have more than exhausted my time.

Mr. Stupak, do you have any further questions?

Mr. STUPAK. No further questions.

Mr. WALDEN. So I get another round?

I find this topic very interesting. It is something we need to deal

with. It is just a matter of how we do it fairly.

I will finish up with you two gentleman.

Mr. Stile?

Mr. STILE. I would just like to go back to your question about the

overload in the spectrum. APCO is involved in public safety coordination. What we do is that we are very careful about the assignment of spectrum for a particular agency.

Mr. WALDEN. Within a specific area?

Mr. STILE. Within a specific area. What we have in operation is

a mission critical type of operation of police, fire, and EMS. But

they are not going to be impacting one another because they are

separated in an area. Spectrum-wise, yes; it is all in the same area.

But you utilize the spectrum that is in that area.

Mr. WALDEN. Well, since you started this, what happens in a

case like New York City where you had departments from all over

the country flocking there to help? They were all on different frequencies from their own departments in Pennsylvania, Oregon, or

wherever they came from. How does that coordinate?

85

Mr. STILE. What we did do in a good part of the City was that

we handed out radios. They were all on the same band. Particularly at Ground Zero, I put in a particular frequency on the interop

channels that allowed the workers in that area just to operate on

that particular frequency.

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. All right.

I believe Mr. Haynie wanted to make a comment.

Mr. HAYNIE. Thank you, Congressman Walden. This has been

most enlightening to me. I see a lot of the problems in the industry

that we have dealt with in amateur radio for years—70 mile rules

for VHF, UHF, coordination, frequency allocations—we do that, too.

But until you solve this Gordian Knot that you have on your

table, I just want to assure you that for the 680,000 radio amateurs

in the United States, we are going to be there.

I took exception a while ago when it was said that I was the only

one not asking for money. Well, I have changed my mind. If there

is a few million to hit the floor, I can assure you that the amateur

radio community can find good use for it.

I would like to make note of our education program. We talked

about that in my opening statement. We have funded fifty schools

across the United States with amateur radios, using it as a teaching tool in physics, mathematics, and speaking skills. We have

used the International Space Station, which is all manned by ham

radio operators to talk to the kids at the schools, to pen that new

spark of communications.

So as the industry sits here to my right, I would like for you to

remember that the engineers that you are going to get later on, are

coming from these kids that we are working within amateur radio.

A few million here and there never hurts.

Mr. WALDEN. I think there were some here somewhere.

We will leave the record open for member’s statements and for

other information.

[The following was received for the record:

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS

FAIRFAX, VA

June 5, 2003

The Honorable JANE HARMAN

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: H.R. 1425

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HARMAN: The International Association of Fire Chiefs

thanks you for introducing this important legislation. The IAFC gives its wholehearted support to this bill and will work toward its successful passage into law.

Congress, in passing the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, required the Federal Communications Commission to re-allocate an additional 24 MHz of radio spectrum for

public safety. The allocation was made from a portion of the radio spectrum that

will become vacant once television stations on channels 60-69 convert to digital television. The FCC did as required, by allocating specific radio spectrum (channels 63,

64, 68, and 69) and adopting rules for efficient and interoperable public safety operations. This allocation doubles the amount of radio spectrum available for public

safety and addresses some of the recommendations made by two federal advisory

committees on public safety communications.

There exists in law, however, a barrier to the scheduled transfer of that spectrum

to public safety on the final date of December 31, 2006. The 1997 legislation allows

television operations to continue existing operations on these channels until that

date or until some unknown date beyond that when at least 85% of television households in the relevant communities have access to digital television. This uncertainty

is preventing many state and local governments from making any real plans or

86

funding commitments to use the newly allocated spectrum. Public safety agencies

need this spectrum today—not some distant, unknown future date. H.R. 1425 resolves this serious problem by establishing a date certain that all of the channels

allocated to public safety will be available.

The need for this spectrum continues to be urgent. We are all too aware of the

communications failures that have occurred at major disasters—hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist incidents, etc. There are some technologies that can help with

short-term solutions, but the need for new and clear spectrum is now. The communications capabilities of fire/emergency medical services and law enforcement are restricted by the limited amount of radio spectrum allocated for public safety operations. In many parts of the United States, especially major metropolitan areas,

there are insufficient radio frequencies available to accommodate current and future

public safety communications needs, which include both voice and high speed data

transmissions. Limited spectrum availability has also forced agencies to operate on

several different, incompatible radio frequency bands. The result is a lack of ‘‘interoperability’’ which often makes it difficult if not impossible for fire, EMS, law enforcement, and other emergency responders from differing agencies to communicate

in the field, thus endangering the safety of emergency personnel and the public.

We very much appreciate your leadership on this extremely important issue for

public safety.

Sincerely,

CHIEF RANDY R. BRUEGMAN

President

APCO INTERNATIONAL

DAYTONA BEACH, FL

June 5, 2003

The Honorable JANE HARMAN

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HARMAN: On behalf of the over 16,000 members of APCO

International, I want to express my appreciation for your support for public safety

communications issues and, in particular, your sponsorship of the Homeland Emergency Response Organizations (HERO) Act, H.R. 1425.

Police, fire, EMS and other public safety agencies face severe shortages of radio

spectrum in much of the nation, and need additional communications capacity to

promote critical interoperability between personnel responding to emergencies in the

field. Congress responded to this need in 1997, by requiring the FCC to allocate 24

MHz of new radio spectrum, for public safety services. The reallocated spectrum is

in the Upper 700 MHz Band, which is also used by certain channel 60-69 television

stations. Unfortunately, the 1997 legislation did not establish a firm date for this

spectrum to become available, leaving it instead to be subject to the open-ended digital television (DTV) transition schedule. Thus, we support the HERO Act as it will

establish December 31, 2006, as a firm date to clear this spectrum for public safety

use.

Once again, thank you for your support of public safety.

Sincerely,

VINCENT STILE, President

APCO International, Inc.

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES

June 6, 2003

The Honorable JANE HARMAN

Ranking Member

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable CURT WELDON

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

DEAR REPRESENTATIVES HARMAN AND WELDON: On behalf of the National League

of Cities 17,000 direct member cities, we are writing to express our strongest support for H.R. 1425. ‘‘The Homeland Emergency Response Operations (HERO) Act.’’

As you know, the tragic events of September 11 made it abundantly clear that our

87

first responders are in dire need of improved communications. The HERO Act takes

an important step in helping remedy this problem by providing first responders with

badly needed access to broadcast frequencies for communications, Your continued

leadership in the area of public safety communications has been applauded by local

elected officials across the nation.

The strengthening of our nation’s public safety communications infrastructure has

never been more important to our nations security. The current capabilities of law

enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, disaster relief and other emergency

personnel remain severely restricted by the limited amount of spectrum allocated

for public safety purposes. This limited availability of spectrum has forced emergency agencies to operate on several different and incompatible radio frequency

bands, resulting in a lack of ‘‘interoperability’’ for communication between police,

fire, and other emergency responders.

As you know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to reallocate for public safety purposes that portion of radio

spectrum used by television stations on channels 60-69. However, actual public safety use of this spectrum is blocked indefinitely as current law allows television stations to retain these channels until December 31, 2006, or until 85 percent of the

television households in the community have access to digital television, whichever

is later. Absent a change in the law, public safety’s use of this spectrum may be

put off for the indefinite future and the resulting uncertainty over when—or if—this

spectrum will be vacated prevents local governments from making plans or funding

commitments for the use of this spectrum.

Local elected officials across the nation support legislation revising the Balanced

Budget Act of 1997 to ensure that radio spectrum for public safety use be made

available to state and local governments as soon as possible. Accordingly, NLC supports H.R. 1425, the HERO Act, which establishes a ‘‘date certain,’’ December 31,

2006, as a deadline for television stations to vacate channels allocated for public

safety use by the FCC. By establishing a firm deadline for television stations to vacate this spectrum, local governments can begin the lengthy planning process necessary for the use of this spectrum by emergency personnel.

Should you or your staff require additional information on this matter, please contact Juan Otero, Principal Legislative Counsel, at (202) 626-3022.

Very truly yours,

DONALD J. BORUT

Executive Director

cc: Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER FIRE COUNCIL

WASHINGTON, DC

June 6, 2003

The Honorable JANE HARMAN

2400 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-0536

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HARMAN: The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) is

a non-profit membership association representing the more than 800,000 members

of America’s volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue services. Organized in 1976, the NVFC

serves as the voice of America’s volunteer fire personnel in over 28,000 departments

across the country. On behalf of our membership, I would like to express my full

support for your legislation, the Homeland Emergency Response Operations (HERO)

Act (H.R. 1425). Which is intended to ensure our nation’s first responders have

greater access to shared broadcast frequencies for interoperable radio communications.

As you know, on September 11, 1996, the Congressionally-mandated Public Safety

Wireless Advisory Committee issued its Final Report recommending that 97.5 of additional spectrum be made available for public safety by 2010, including approximately 25 MHz from TV channels 60-69 (746-808 MHz) that should be made available within five years from the date of the report—September 11, 2001.

Your legislation sets a firm deadline of 2006 by which the Federal Communications Commission must give public safety agencies the broadcast spectrum first set

aside for them by Congress in 1997, That spectrum from 764-776 MHz and 794-806

MHz, is currently occupied by TV broadcasters on channels 63, 64, 68 and 69. Congress conditioned its transfer to public safety agencies on digital television reaching

85% of households. At present, only 1% of households have digital television and

most analysts believe that few markets will reach that 95% threshold anytime in

the coming decade. The HERO Act removes this threshold requirement.

88

Once again, the NVFC commands your efforts to support America’s fire service

and we thank you for the leadership role you have taken on this issue. If you or

your staff have any questions or comments feel free to contact Craig Sharman,

NVFC Director of Government Relations at (202) 887-5700 ext. 12.

Sincerely

PHILIP C. STITTLEBURG

Chairman

cc: California State Firefighter’s Association

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS

ALEXANDRIA, VA

April 1, 2003

The Honorable JANE HARMAN

2400 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

DEAR MS. HARMAN: On behalf of the International Union of Police Associations,

AFL-CIO, I am proud to add our name to those supporting the ‘‘Homeland Emergency Response Operations’’ or ‘‘HERO’’ Act.

Communications is always one of the crucial components of critical incident management. Even prior to the tragedy of 9-11, emergency responders frequently identified their inability to effectively communicate with one another as a problem during

post incident critiques. The events of that terrible day illustrated that point clearly

for you and for the general public.

Homeland Emergency Response Act will help ease the crowded airways. It will

also help public safety and those supplying communication enhancements for us

with the necessary frequencies to apply their burgeoning technology.

If there is anything I.U.P.A. can do to help move this legislation forward, I hope

you or your staff will call on me.

Respectfully,

DENNIS SLOCUMB

International Executive Vice President

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

it. The record will remain open.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

August 20, 2003

The Honorable FRED UPTON

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

2161 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, 20515

DEAR CHAIRMAN UPTON: Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before

you and the Subcommittee on June 11 to testify regarding public safety’s need for

funding for communications tools, and for nationwide availability of the 700 MHz

spectrum for their deployment of advanced wideband services and standards-based

interoperable communications solutions. I appreciate your leadership on these important issues and the tremendous work of your staff to address them.

We thank you for the chance to respond to you, in the attachment to this letter,

to the additional questions that were forwarded to me. Should you require additional amplification on any response, please feel free to contact me or Bill Anaya

of my Washington team at (202) 371-6912.

Sincerely,

GREGORY BROWN

EVP MOT & President & CEO, CGISS

cc: Howard Waltzman, Counsel, Committee on Energy and Commerce

Will Nordwind, Counsel, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO JUNE 11, 2003 HEARING

Question 1. Nextel has stated in their reports to the FCC that 10% of all public

safety agencies licensed at 800 MHz have reported interference, whereas Motorola,

89

using APCO numbers, has stated that percentage at only 1%. What parameters are

used to determine that information?

Response. As you indicate, Motorola used publicly available information concerning reports of interference cases from a website maintained by APCO to derive

the 1% number. Subsequently, Nextel submitted information to the FCC citing the

10% number that previously was not publicly available. APCO has indicated that

the information on its website is derived from voluntary reports by public safety licensees and is not a complete view of interference cases.

Question 2. Looking from a logical perspective, if a wireless service provider wants

to build another tower, shouldn’t they first test the site to make sure that they will

not interfere with public safety communications, first and foremost, as well as with

other service providers? What tools/formulas, excluding new radios, are available

today that could be used to prevent interference from occurring before a new tower

is put in place?

Response. The Best Practices Guide, jointly developed by APCO, PSWN, Motorola,

Nextel, and CTIA, provides information on technical measures that can be used to

identify and mitigate interference. Wireless carriers and public safety representatives are in the best position to advise the Subcommittee on the practicality of precoordinating antenna sites with public safety users.

Question 3. Nextel is causing the greatest proportion of interference with public

safety communications, and the company has stated that they would shell out up

to, but not more than $850 million to help move the public safety spectrum. The

public safety community has stated that $850 million is not nearly enough money.

With a contiguous band, Nextel could provide better services, gaining more customers and more capital from Wall Street. This leads to the question of whether

or not re-banding is necessary or if Nextel is making it necessary in an effort to

gain a contiguous block of spectrum in addition to a block of spectrum at 1.9 MHz.

Question 3a. With regards to the value of spectrum, is a contiguous block of spectrum worth more to public safety than the splinters that much of their spectrum

at the 800 MHz band currently is composed of?

Response. The primary value of spectrum to public safety is its ability to support

reliable communications to protect first responders and the public. Public safety associations have supported reconfiguring the 800 MHz band in part to alleviate the

interleaving of public safety and commercial channels because doing so provides an

environment more resistant to some types of interference.

Question 3b. Would a contiguous band allow public safety to offer newer and better services?

Response. The 800 MHz band will primarily support the current mission critical

voice communications services upon which first responders rely. The Consensus Parties Plan before the FCC indicates that public safety would gain some 800 MHz

channels as a result of the proposed rebanding. However, these channels would be

sourced from an 800 MHz spectrum pool below 814 MHz that Nextel currently holds

and they would continue to be spread throughout that band rather than form a contiguous block.

The most effective step that the Congress and the FCC could take to support new

public safety services as well as interoperability between state and local jurisdictions and federal law enforcement is to clear incumbent analog television stations

from the 700 MHz band. The FCC allocated twenty-four MHz of the 700 MHz band

to public safety over five years ago, and yet this spectrum is still not available to

support first responders in most of the top cities. Five percent of the nation’s TV

stations prevent over 50% of the country’s population from receiving the benefits

this new spectrum could bring. These benefits include wide area high-speed data

and video services which could be used to instantly distribute a picture of a missing

or abducted child; transmit video of a potential bomb or biological weapon to experts

at a remote location; and provide firefighter access to building blueprints, hazardous

material data and other critical information. The wideband standard to support

these uses has been developed and unanimously adopted in TIA, an ANSI accredited

standards development organization. In addition, trials of the technology upon

which the standard is based have been conducted with public safety customers. Full

product development awaits actual availability of this 700 MHz spectrum in major

markets.

Question 3c. Would a contiguous band be equally or more valuable to a private

carrier? And is it conceivable that they could provide newer services for their customers as well?

Response. We believe that cellular carriers are in the best position to respond to

this question regarding their business model and planning

Question 3d. With that, do we have any idea what the value of a contiguous block

of 16 MHz would be in the 800 MHz band?

90

Response. Motorola firmly believes that the primary value of spectrum is in its

use, rather than its ability to generate auction revenue. The market value of a contiguous 16 MHz block of spectrum in the 800 MHz band could best be estimated

by the cellular carriers that currently provide commercial services in that band.

Furthermore, the FCC would likely be able to provide such estimates based on previous auction receipts information in their databases.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AGOSTINO CANGEMI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND GENERAL

COUNSEL, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELE- COMMUNICATIONS

I am Agostino Cangemi, Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel at New York

City’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications. On behalf of

the City of New York, I am pleased to submit the following testimony on ‘‘The Spectrum Needs of Our Nation’s First Responders.’’

The City has submitted several rounds of comments to the Federal Communications Commission in various proceedings on public safety spectrum issues. The City

also has met with FCC commissioners, bureau chiefs and staff on related topics. We

commend the FCC’s obvious hard work and commitment in this area.

The spectrum-related needs and concerns of New York City’s first responders include the following:

• The resolution of communication interference in the 800 MHz frequency range; • The availability of additional public safety spectrum as soon as possible and,

above all, by a date certain; and • The avoidance of Federally-imposed unfunded mandates on local government first

responders in addressing the above public safety needs and in taking any other

actions relating to public safety spectrum issues.

ELIMINATING 800 MHZ INTERFERENCE

In the post-September 11 security environment, the interference being experienced by first responders in the 800 MHz frequency range is an increasingly dangerous problem, with profound implications for public safety. New York City makes

critical use of its 800 MHz frequency allocation to support its public safety operations. The City’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications

supports an interoperable system utilized citywide—by agencies including the City’s

Fire Department, the City’s Emergency Medical Services and the City’s Office of

Emergency Management—to coordinate communications in such extraordinary circumstances as blizzards, gas main explosions, hazardous materials incidents, plane

crashes and terrorist threats. On a daily basis, the City’s 800 MHz band allocation

also supports lifesaving data, telemetry and dispatch communications by the Fire

Department and Emergency Medical Services.

The City has experienced considerable interference to its 800 MHz operations

from private cellular providers. This interference appears to be caused primarily by

cell sites emitting strong Commercial Mobile Radio Service signals that overwhelm

the public safety signals that are emitted from more distant towers. Given the City’s

critical use of the 800 MHz frequency for both ‘‘routine’’ public safety-related responses as well as potentially extraordinary crisis situations, this problem must be

substantially, and not just marginally, set right. Neither the City’s first responders,

nor the public that relies on the system, should be subject to an unreliable public

safety infrastructure resulting from unpredictable, and sometimes crippling, interference.

Because this phenomenon appears to be linked to the fact that CMRS systems operate on frequencies that are on adjacent channels or in adjacent bands to public

safety frequencies, the City has given qualified support to the so-called ‘‘Consensus

Plan,’’ which would essentially eliminate the current interleaving of these frequencies. The City’s support has, however, been conditioned on a unambiguous commitment by the Consensus Plan sponsors to the following: 1) a ‘‘zero tolerance’’ solution to interference on the 800 MHz public safety band; 2) the continuity of public

safety communications (i.e., airtight assurances that these systems would remain

100% operational during every phase of any transition period); and 3) the up-front

identification and commitment of external funding sources to cover the full costs of

public safety implementation.

Ameliorating the 800 MHz public safety interference problem may also require

complementary equipment modifications and operational changes. Along these lines,

Motorola has recently proposed that certain technical advances may make it ‘‘possible to alleviate a majority of the interference being experienced through best practices and new technical solutions.’’ The City will apply the same three criteria to

91

the Motorola proposal as we have to the Consensus Plan. Specifically, the implementation of new radio designs, alteration of spectrum use and any other changes

(particularly, if in lieu of rebanding) must provide a complete solution to public safety interference, must not result in down-time to public safety systems and must not

place an unfunded financial burden on public safety licensees. The City looks forward to the release by Motorola of additional informational that will permit such

an assessment.

PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM

New York City’s public safety spectrum is stretched virtually to the limit. With

respect to the City’s 800 MHz operations, voice and data communications currently

exceed the FCC’s recommended loading criteria. Moreover, nearly two years after

the September 11 attack, the City is still confronted by pressing new public safety

communications needs on almost a daily basis. However, there still remains insufficient spectrum to meet these needs. Consequently, the City, along with other public

safety entities, must look to other sources of interoperable spectrum. Unfortunately,

our options in this regard are presently limited.

It should be stated that the City applauds the FCC’s swift action, and substantive

determinations, on public safety use of the 4.9 GHz band. The City, which submitted

comments in the 4.9 GHz rulemaking proceeding, believes the FCC got it right in

its recent Report and Order with respect to, for example, defining public safety eligibility criteria, establishing a geographic licensing scheme and prescribing various allowed uses of the 4.9 GHz spectrum. Without a doubt, the 4.9 GHz spectrum will

be an invaluable resource to first responders in applications for which this spectrum

is best suited—namely, broadband mobile, temporary fixed and point-to-point fixed.

Additionally, the City urges that the portion of the 700 MHz frequency band that

was allocated to public safety use as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act be made

available to public safety entities as soon as possible and, most importantly, by a

date certain. The 700 MHz spectrum is appropriate to addressing interoperable

wireless public safety needs. Regrettably, however, rather than setting a firm date

for when this spectrum will be available to public safety entities, the 1997 Act allows television stations that currently occupy Channels 60-69 to remain on-the-air

until the later of December 31, 2006 or until 85% of the households in the relevant

market are able to receive digital over-the-air television signals, whichever is later.

Consequently, public safety users, including the City, are not only prevented from

using this spectrum for an indefinite period of time, but are also stymied in their

ability to predictably plan for its use. Obviously, implementing a comprehensive 700

MHz interoperable network requires exhaustive planning—including needs assessments, engineering studies, vendor solicitations, vendor contracting, equipment purchases, construction, testing and so forth. There are also the internal funding processes to be considered, including prioritizing the scope of any rollout against competing budgetary needs, and ultimately identifying and, as necessary, securing necessary funding. None of these planning activities can occur apace without certainty

about the availability date of 700 MHz public safety spectrum. Particularly in the

absence of such certainty, there should be no illusion that, when the 700 MHz spectrum is finally transferred, public safety entities will be able to simply ‘‘flip a

switch’’ and be up-and-running.

AVOIDING UNFUNDED MANDATES

Municipal governments simply cannot bear the costs associated with new wireless

public safety spectrum mandates. I am certain the Members of the Subcommittee

are well aware of New York City’s own fiscal problems resulting from the national

economic downturn, the economic impact of the September 11 attack and the increased security-related costs we have incurred.

I have already discussed the fact that the City cannot bear the costs associated

with new 800 MHz mandates. Nor would it be fair for the public to bear such costs,

as the interference that is being inflicted on our public safety communications is

being caused by private carriers, while the City operates entirely within the scope

of its licenses.

I would, in closing, like to bring to the Subcommittee’s attention a recent development that could also result in a considerable cost to the City and other public safety

entities. In a rule issued on April 21, 2003, the FCC specified that public safety systems in the 150-174 MHz and 421-512 MHz bands must migrate from 25 kHz to12.5

kHz bandwidth transmissions by January 2018. (Non-public systems were ordered

to migrate by January, 2013.) Of greater concern to the City, to encourage faster

migration, the FCC rule further prohibited the manufacture and importation of 25

kHz equipment beginning January 1, 2008. Insofar as the City’s existing systems

92

that support interoperable analog radio communications are 25 kHz-based, by essentially preventing public safety entities from purchasing 25 kHz radios after 2008,

this new FCC rule will, in just a few years, preclude newer radios from communicating on the City’s existing 25 kHz-based systems. That is, the rule will eliminate

‘‘backward compatibility’’ with existing City systems utilized by first responders for

interagency communications. The City does not take issue with the FCC’s time-line

for full migration to 12.5 kHz transmissions by 2018. However, the benchmark date

of 2008 for the City to, for practical purposes, overhaul its system, places a tremendous financial and operational squeeze on the City. Therefore, the City urges that

the pace of transition to 12.5 kHz transmissions by the FCC’s prescribed date of

2018 be left to public safety entities to determine.

I thank the Subcommittee Members for holding this important hearing and for

providing the City of New York with the opportunity to present testimony on these

tremendously urgent issues.

NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

RESTON, VA

June 23, 2003

The Honorable FRED UPTON, Chairman

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

2125 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Re: The Spectrum Needs of Our Nation’s First Responders

DEAR CHAIRMAN UPTON: I am writing to address two points that were discussed

at the Subcommittee’s hearing on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 on ‘‘The Spectrum

Needs of Our Nation’s First Responders.’’ As you know, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Nextel Communications, Inc. (‘‘Nextel’’), I testified at this hearing

regarding the urgent problems facing public safety communications. On behalf of

Nextel, I respectfully request that this letter and the attached material be included

in the written record for this hearing.

First, Edmond Thomas, Chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology

suggested at the hearing that the FCC had only recently become aware that outof-band emissions (‘‘OOBE’’) from commercial mobile providers are a significant

source of interference to public safety radio systems. The FCC, in fact, has been

aware for some time that OOBE is a significant cause of this interference. In December 2000, Nextel, Motorola, numerous cellular carriers, and public safety representatives jointly developed and presented to the FCC the ‘‘Best Practices Guide,’’

which described the causes of public safety interference in the 800 MHz band and

discussed a number of short-term measures for managing this interference. The

Best Practices Guide discussed ‘‘Transmitter Sideband Noise,’’ another term for

OOBE. Best Practices Guide at 6-7. The Guide specifically stated that ‘‘[s]ideband

noise is an increasingly frequent factor for commercial/public safety interference . . .’’

Less than a year later, Nextel identified OOBE as a source of public safety interference in a ‘‘White Paper’’ filed with the FCC in November 2001. Then, in March

2002, the FCC itself noted the role of OOBE in public safety interference in its Notice of Proposed Rule Making, citing the interference analysis contained in the Best

Practices Guide. Since the FCC’s Notice, public safety representatives and Nextel

have repeatedly described the contribution of OOBE to public safety interference.

In fact, as the incidence of public safety interference in the 800 MHz band has

risen over the past several years, Nextel has found OOBE to be a contributing factor

in almost fifty percent of these interference events. Accordingly, any proposed solution to public safety interference in the 800 MHz band must address the effects of

OOBE. To date, the Consensus Plan is the only proposal before the FCC that would

virtually eliminate OOBE as a source of interference to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band.

Second, I would like to respond to the brief discussion at the hearing of the potential use of ‘‘notch filtering’’ to reduce public safety interference in the 800 MHz

band. A notch filter is a device that suppresses emissions across a narrow band of

channels, with comparatively little effect on surrounding frequencies. Some parties

have suggested that the installation of notched filtering by Nextel and other commercial mobile providers could significantly reduce 800 MHz public safety interference.

As explained in greater detail in the attachment to this letter, notched filters are

neither an effective nor feasible means of addressing public safety interference in

the 800 MHz band. As a fundamental matter, the 800 MHz band is simply too

mixed with incompatible systems for notch filtering to be successful. The jumbled

93

nature of this spectrum would require heavy use of these filters; such extensive filtering would suppress carriers’ ‘‘in-band’’ signals unacceptably degrading carriers’

service to their commercial customers. Carriers would have no way to compensate

for this signal loss, since the necessary power increases would be far too costly to

implement.

There are other problems with notch filters. First, due to the number of public

safety channels and the design of commercial systems, as many as 120 notch filters

would have to be installed at a typical commercial transmission site. At most sites,

there is not enough physical space to accommodate that many filters. In addition,

for the reasons discussed above, there does not appear to be a single notch filter

available off-the-shelf that is designed for use in the 800 MHz band. Waiting for

manufacturers to develop such filters would further delay meaningful action on public safety interference. Finally, notch filtering would have no effect on ‘‘intermodulation’’ interference, which contributes to approximately half of all incidents of 800

MHz public safety interference.

As I pointed out in my testimony, notch filtering and all other short-term, stopgap

technical measures fail to confront the fundamental cause of public safety interference in the 800 MHz band: the FCC’s obsolete, thirty-year-old spectrum allocation, which spreads and mixes incompatible cellular and public safety services almost randomly throughout this band. In order to achieve a long-term solution to

this fundamental problem, Nextel and the leading national public safety and private

wireless organizations last year proposed the Consensus Plan. By relocating incompatible commercial mobile providers and public safety systems into separate blocks

of spectrum, the Consensus Plan would essentially eliminate public safety interference in this band, while at the same time providing the public safety community

with urgently needed additional spectrum. As Vincent R. Stile, President of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc., stated at the

hearing, the public safety community strongly supports the Consensus Plan.

We all must do whatever is necessary to ensure that this country’s policemen, fire

fighters, and other first responders have access to robust and reliable emergency

communications. I ask that this Subcommittee urge the FCC to resolve the issues

facing public safety communications by expeditiously adopting the Consensus Plan

in full.

Sincerely,

TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE, President and Chief Executive Officer

Nextel Communications, Inc.

Attachment

1. Introduction. This paper discusses whether CMRS carriers should be required

to install notch filters to deal with interference to Public Safety radio systems in

the 800 MHz band. Notch filtering of CMRS transmissions to prevent interference

to spectrally adjacent and interleaved public safety systems is impracticable, unworkable and ultimately unrealistic in the current interleaved 800 MHz environment.

2. Notch filter. A notch filter is a passive device that rejects a particular set of

frequencies while having little effect on all other frequencies. An ideal curve and

a real curve for such a device are shown below in Figure 1. As Figure 1 shows, an

ideal notch filter produces no loss on any frequency except the target frequency. Unfortunately, in the real world, it is not possible to manufacture such a filter.

A more realistic notch filter curve (taken from the product literature from one

manufacturer) is overlaid on the ideal curve in Figure 1. As can be seen, it falls

short of ‘‘ideal’’ performance in several areas:

a. Notch depth is not as great

b. Notch width is wider

c. Insertion loss is greater

3. Application to interference problems in the 800 MHz band. In order to use notch

filters to address CMRS out-of-band emissions (‘‘OOBE’’) interference to public safety radio systems, it would be necessary to install a bank of series-connected notch

filters (at least one tuned to each public safety frequency to be protected) between

each transmitting antenna at the CMRS site and its associated transmitter(s). This

leads to the following problems:

a. Straight notch filters for use in the 800 MHz band are very uncommon. A survey

of product literature from RFS, DB Products, and TX-RX (three well-known

manufacturers of RF combining components) indicates that there are no off-theshelf notch filters for the 800 MHz spectrum.

b. The number of notch filters that would be required to address public safety interference in the 800 MHz band would be enormous. A typical CMRS site has 6

94

transmitting antennas (2 per sector). If the public-safety radio system serving

the area has 20 channels, as is common, a total of 6 x 20 = 120 notch filters

would have to be installed at the CMRS transmitter site. There simply is not

room at a typical CMRS transmission site to house this quantity of filters.

c. The series combination of notch filters would introduce significant signal loss

across the 800 MHz spectrum. As shown in Figure 1, there would be at least

a 1-dB insertion loss for all frequencies above the notch frequency. If 20 of these

notches were connected in series, that measure would result in at least a 20

dB loss between the CMRS transmitter and its antenna (a 100-fold reduction

in power). It would be impossible for the CMRS operator to raise transmitter

power to a degree sufficient to compensate for this loss. Even if such a power

increase were technically possible for the CMRS equipment itself, the resultant

rise in electric power requirements would be unsupportable by the utilities involved, the increased space and HVAC requirements would not be approved by

local zoning boards, and the operation of the CMRS transmitter site so modified

would be prohibitively costly.

d. In any case, the notch depth of the individual notch filters may not be sufficient

to reduce public safety interference in the 800 MHz band. If this were the case,

even more notch filters would have to be connected in series to achieve the necessary result. Such action would exacerbate the problems described in (b) and

(c) above.

e. CMRS frequencies that are relatively close (e.g., 3-6 channels away) to the center

frequency of a given notch (presumably the protected public safety frequency)

will receive even more attenuation than the 1 dB per cavity expected from the

notch filter. This will make a significant quantity of interleaved CMRS channels

unusable.

Moreover, applying notch filters to CMRS transmitters would do nothing to

combat receiver-generated IM interference, which has contributed to approximately half of the interference cases that Nextel has addressed to date.

For these reasons, it would be unreasonable, unrealistic and ultimately ineffective

to attempt to apply notch filtering to reduce public safety interference in the current

interleaved spectrum environment in the 800 MHz band.

4. Use of additional filtering as an adjunct to rebanding. While use of notch filters

in an interleaved environment is completely unreasonable, use of additional filtering

as a complement to realignment of the 800 MHz band is completely reasonable and

is, in fact, part of the Consensus Plan. By segregating the CMRS and non-CMRS

allocations into separate blocks, it is possible to build a bandpass filter with extremely sharp skirts to reduce noise. Consider the filter curve shown in Figure 2:

Figure 2 shows a measured curve of an off-the-shelf 800 MHz bandpass filter from

a major manufacturer. This particular filter provides more than 55 dB of rolloff

within 2 MHz of its lower design frequency. Application of a similar type of filter

to CMRS sites would resolve the above-described problems associated with the notch

filter approach:

a. A single filter would be required between each CMRS site transmitting antenna

and its associated transmitters, as opposed to the large collection of notch filters

described earlier. In contrast to the notch filtering scenario described above, a

typical CMRS transmitter site could accommodate such equipment.

b. The additional loss (less than 1 dB) in the CMRS antenna path is easily compensated for with a slight increase in CMRS transmitter power. This is both

economically and technically feasible.

c. With a bandpass filter in a post-realignment environment, the overall reduction

in OOBE noise in the 800 MHz band would be 55 dB or more for ALL frequencies at least 2 MHz below the filter design frequency.

5. Conclusion. It is completely impractical and unworkable from a technical and

economic perspective to rely on notch filters to protect individual public safety systems from interference from CMRS-generated OOBE. In contrast, application of additional filtering to CMRS transmitters in the post-rebanding environment would

provide reliable suppression of OOBE noise to public safety systems.

95

96

1 ‘‘Non-cellular,’’ as we use the term here means a system employing only one or just a few

transmitters to cover a wide area. Generally, the antennas of non-cellular systems are installed

on high towers or buildings. Non-cellular systems are therefore often referred to as ‘‘high-site’’

systems. ‘‘Cellular’’ systems use many transmitters or ‘‘cells’’ each of which covers a comparatively small area. Most, but not all, antennas of cellular systems are installed at low elevations.

Cellular systems are therefore often referred as ‘‘low-site’’ systems. Because of their configuration—several cells each covering a small area—cellular operators can employ ‘‘frequency reuse,’’

i.e. the same channel may be used simultaneously by different cells in the system, thereby increasing subscriber capacity. Moreover, cellular systems use computer controlled ‘‘handoff’’ in

which, as a subscriber leaves the coverage area of one cell, he or she is automatically switched

to another cell in the system. The process usually is transparent to the subscriber.

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO

QUESTIONS OF THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

Question 1. Does the fact that someone is allowed to provide a new service in a

spectrum band allow him or her to interfere with incumbent operators?

Response: No, generally, new users must protect incumbent licensees that operate

on the same frequencies if both services have the same allocation status (secondary

or primary). In the 800 MHz band, public safety, Commercial Mobile Radio Service

(CMRS) providers and private radio users all have primary status. There are several

applicable Commission rules requiring licensees to avoid interference and to work

cooperatively to rectify any interference resulting from their operations. See, e.g., 47

C.F.R. Sections 90.173 and 90.403(e). The Commission’s rules also specify out-ofband emissions (OOBE) (signals that a licensee radiates outside its assigned channel) to protect services operating on adjacent frequencies. The Commission’s 800

MHz Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) addresses the issue of reported instances of interference between existing licensees using ‘‘non-cellular’’ 1 and ‘‘cellular’’ architectures in the 800 MHz band and the immediately adjacent cellular

telephone bands. In discussing OOBE, the NPRM notes that imposing more stringent OOBE limits on CMRS transmitters could reduce interference. The NPRM thus

solicited comment on the degree of OOBE suppression—relative to the CMRS carrier frequency—that would protect incumbent operators.

Question 2. In filings with the FCC, it is apparent that interference is growing

as new low-site, high-power towers are being built. What rules does the FCC have

in place with regard to new entrants into a spectrum band causing interference with

an incumbent in the band? What enforcement powers does the FCC have to ensure

that, once an operator recognizes a problem, the interfering operator ends that interference?Response: As noted in response to Question 1, the Commission’s rules require licensees to cooperate to avoid harmful interference. This obligation applies to

incumbents as well as new entrants. In the majority of cases, licensees do cooperate

in resolving interference pursuant to these rules. However, there have been instances in which interference has been difficult to identify and resolve. For instance,

in the 800 MHz band, OOBE from one or more ‘‘low-site, high-power’’ CMRS transmitters have been known to interfere with public safety portable and mobile radios;

and two strong signals from one or more CMRS operators can ‘‘mix’’ together in the

public safety radio to form a third signal (an ‘‘intermodulation product’’) that falls

on the public safety operating frequency and renders the receiver portion of certain

public safety radios inoperative. This OOBE and intermodulation interference can

occur even if the CMRS licensees are operating pursuant to the Commission’s technical rules, e.g. maximum OOBE limits for individual CMRS transmitters; effective

radiated power; antenna elevation and frequency stability. It is for this reason that

the FCC, in WT Docket No. 02-55, is considering new rules and policies directed to

the avoidance of such harmful OOBE and intermodulation interference. The NPRM

in that proceeding sought comment on the efficacy of re-locating public safety, private radio and CMRS operations within the 800 MHz band so that public safety

channels would be separated as far as possible from CMRS channels. Such ‘‘rebanding’’ also would extract most CMRS systems from the ‘‘interleaved’’ portion of

the band where their ‘‘low-site, high-power’’ cells can cause OOBE interference to

public safety systems operating on channels that are immediately adjacent to—or

only a few channels removed from—the channels used by the CMRS cell. The

NPRM also sought comment on various technical remedies subsumed under the

term ‘‘Best Practices.’’ Presently, the Commission is examining whether rebanding,

Best Practices, or a combination of the two, will eliminate the harmful interference

encountered by some public safety systems. A decision in Docket 02-55 is anticipated in the near future. Finally, it should be noted that not all interference cases

involve violation of the Commission’s rules. Where interference results from a violation of a Commission rule, the Commission has aggressively enforced its rules, and

97

licensees who violate the rules may be subject to significant enforcement action including monetary forfeitures and license revocation.

Question 3. The disruption and costs associated with Nextel’s Consensus Plan to

realign the 800 MHz band appear to be disproportionate given the number of interference cases reported so far. Moreover, Nextel has said that re-banding will not resolve all interference problems. It has been further noted that the $850 million price

tag is sufficient only to replace 1% of Public Safety handsets, and that many of the

purported benefits of re-banding will occur only after all Public Safety handsets are

replaced. While we all agree that Public Safety communications should not be compromised, do you also agree that the costs, both direct and indirect, need to be considered in relation to the benefits?

Response: Yes, we agree that it is incumbent upon the Commission to weigh the

costs and benefits associated with each potential solution to the 800 MHz public

safety interference problem. It is anticipated that such analysis will be done in the

context of the Commission’s ongoing rulemaking proceeding examining the issue. In

this connection, it is important to note that the record before the Commission includes conflicting information regarding the number of interference cases. Some

argue that such conflict may be due to underreporting and the often transient nature of the interference and because it often is difficult to determine whether loss

of communications is caused by a radio malfunction, a coverage problem or interference (the receiver portion of the radio often simply goes ‘‘dead’’). In any event,

the Commission’s goal is to address the 800 MHz public safety interference problem

in a manner that resolves all interference problems to the greatest extent practicable, ensures that existing public safety and critical infrastructure communications systems are not unduly disrupted, and balances the costs and benefits associated with the potential solutions presented by interested parties. We believe effective public safety communications remains the paramount factor in crafting a solution.

Question 4. Under Nextel’s Plan, electric and gas utilities that operate extensive

land mobile systems in the 851-854 MHz band may be required to relocate to a

‘‘Guard Band’’ at 859-861 MHz where they will be subject to a higher probability

of interference. Nextel’s plan also proposes that licensees in this Guard Band will

receive less interference protection than other licensees in the band. As a result,

utilities’ communications could be disrupted when they are conducting activities

that are critical to public safety, such as restoring power or responding to requests

to turn off electricity and gas so firemen can safely put out fires. Do you think it

is appropriate to adopt a plan that compromises the communications of critical infrastructure licensees?

Response: Any plan intended to effectively address the 800 MHz public safety interference problem should be designed in such a way that protects against compromising communications by all existing licenses, particularly those licensees engaging

in public safety and/or critical infrastructure communications. It is anticipated that

this will be one of the factors examined and analyzed before the Commission adopts

a plan. In terms of the proposals currently presented in the record of the 800 MHz

public safety interference proceeding, it should be noted that on August 7, 2003, the

Consensus Parties filed a supplement to the Consensus Proposal. In the supplement, it appears that the Consensus Parties essentially have abandoned the guard

band concept and now propose that all non-cellular 800 MHz licensees, the Utilities

included, would be provided an enhanced—and equal—degree of interference protection notwithstanding their location in the band.

Question 5. Nextel has stated in their reports to the FCC that 10% of all public

safety agencies licensed at 800MHz have reported interference, whereas Motorola,

using APCO numbers, has stated that percentage at only 1%. What parameters are

used to determine that information?

Response: Nextel premised its estimates on 1,580 ‘‘distinct’’ public safety systems

in the U.S., 155 of which (approximately 10 percent) reported interference in 703

different locations since the beginning of the year 2000. In a subsequent letter to

the Commission, Nextel stated that the number of locations had increased to ‘‘nearly

800.’’ Motorola premised its estimates on 2,139 public safety systems in the U.S.,

and stated that APCO data revealed twenty-four ‘‘unique customer issues’’ in 2000,

seven in 2001 and five in the first quarter of 2003. Nextel noted that different conclusions may be reached on the total number of public safety systems, because a

given public safety entity may operate a single system using multiple call signs, and

that it had compensated for that fact in its estimates. APCO noted that its ‘‘Project

39’’ interference collection effort—which resulted in the data relied upon by Motorola—was not intended to be inclusive of all cases of interference.

Question 6. Looking from a logical perspective, if a wireless service provider wants

to build another tower, shouldn’t they first test the site to make sure that they will

98

2 We note that some in the public safety community believe the $850 million estimate (of

which $700 million is devoted to public safety system relocation) is unrealistically low; but that

others, including the public safety representatives that are members of the ‘‘Consensus Parties,’’

APCO included, have characterized Nextel’s estimates as ‘‘reasonable ‘‘subject, however, to several significant variables.’’

not interfere with public safety communications, first and foremost, as well as with

other service providers? What tools/formulas, excluding new radios, are available

today that could be used to prevent interference from occurring before a new tower

is put in place?

Response: Yes, good engineering practice would dictate analysis and testing of a

potential transmitter site prior to construction to ensure that operations will not

cause interference to other services in the same or an adjacent frequency band. With

respect to tools/formulas that could be used to prevent interference from occurring

before a new tower is put in place, we note that there are a number of commercially

available software packages that are designed for site analysis (e.g., Cellplan, RF

CAD, etc.). These tools allow CMRS providers to vary parameters including frequency, power, and antenna patterns to determine the best combination to minimize

the potential for causing interference to public safety licensees. For such analysis

to be meaningful, however, it must take into account the performance specifications

of the receivers used by public safety licensees.

Question 7. Nextel is causing the greatest proportion of interference with public

safety communications, and the company has stated that they would shell out up

to, but not more than $850 million to help move the public safety spectrum. The

public safety community has stated that $850 million is not nearly enough money.

With a contiguous band, Nextel could provide better services, gaining more customers and more capital from Wall Street. This leads to the question of whether

or not re-banding is necessary or if Nextel is making it necessary in an effort to

gain a contiguous block of spectrum in addition to a block of spectrum at 1.9 MHz.

Question 7b. With regards to the value of spectrum, is a contiguous block of spectrum worth more to public safety than the splinters that much of their spectrum

at the 800 MHz band currently is composed of?

Response: The value that public safety might place on a contiguous block of spectrum in the 800 MHz band would depend on several factors. For example, the narrow channel bandwidths are now optimized for voice services. A contiguous block

of spectrum could be divided into narrow channels for voice service or used as wideband channels for data applications. There would likely be some economies of scale

if the band continued to be used for voice applications because most existing equipment can be re-tuned to operate across the entire 800 MHz band. Further, contiguous spectrum for public safety would reduce the instances where public safety and

CMRS systems operate on adjacent channels and thus may reduce the potential for

interference between these services. These potential benefits would have to be

weighed against the costs and disruptions of band relocation. APCO and other public safety organizations participating in the Consensus Proposal believe that the

benefits outweigh the cost and disruptions; conditioned, however, on band reconfiguration being accomplished at no cost to public safety licensees. 2

Question 7b. Would a contiguous band allow public safety to offer newer and better services?

Response: As we mention above, public safety licensees might want to use wider

channels for data applications. This may be possible with a contiguous public safety

band. However, new wideband equipment would need to be manufactured and rules

adopted to permit such use. Further, the Commission recently allocated public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band which will accommodate both narrowband voice

and wideband data applications; and recently allocated contiguous spectrum in the

4.9 GHz band for public safety services, including wideband applications. Again,

however, the costs and disruptions of band relocation would have to be considered,

and those costs and disruptions could adversely impact the provision of new and improved services.

Question 7c. Would a contiguous band be equally or more valuable to a private

carrier? And is it conceivable that they could provide newer services for their customers as well?

Response: Private entities, such as utilities, would gain the same benefits as public safety and have the same potential costs. Contiguous spectrum at 800 MHz could

allow private carriers to offer new wideband applications not possible with non-contiguous channels. Such applications currently are not possible using non-contiguous

channel technology such as the Motorola iDen system used by Nextel and others.

Because private radio licensees use most of their capacity for internal communicaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:23 Sep 17, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 88424.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
99

tions related to their businesses, the monetary value that access to contiguous spectrum could provide is uncertain.

Question 7d. With that, do we have any idea what the value of a contiguous block

of 16 MHz would be in the 800 MHz band?

Response: It is difficult to assess the value of contiguous vs. non-contiguous spectrum; e.g. the value that would accrue to Nextel if its current channels, scattered

throughout the 800 MHz band, were consolidated into an 8 MHz (transmit) and 8

MHz (receive) block, in part because, among other things, there is no history of such

spectrum consolidation to serve as a basis for valuation. Moreover, spectrum values

fluctuate significantly, as has been demonstrated in the PCS and other auctions. We

also note that the 800 MHz spectrum has not been ‘‘scored’’ by OMB.

NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

2001 EDMUND HALLEY DRIVE, RESTON, VA 20191

September 2, 2003

FRED UPTON, Chairman

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

Committee on Energy and Commerce

Washington, DC 20515-6115

DEAR CHAIRMAN UPTON: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on

June 11, 2003 on behalf of Nextel Communications, Inc. (‘‘Nextel’’) before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications & the Internet on the vital issue of the ‘‘Spectrum Needs of Our Nation’s First Responders.’’

In response to your July 24, 2003 letter request for further information, this response addresses the following two questions:

Nextel has stated in their reports to the FCC that 10% of all public safety agencies

licensed at 800 MHz have reported interference, whereas Motorola, using APCO

numbers has stated that percentage at only 1%. What parameters are used to

determine that information?

If a wireless service provider wants to build another tower, shouldn’t they first test

the site to make sure that they will not interfere with public safety communications, first and foremost, as well as with other service providers? What tools/

formulas, excluding new radios, are available today that could be used to prevent interference from occurring before a new tower is put in place?

INTERFERENCE TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM

As I described in my written testimony, interference to public safety systems

using the 800 MHz band is growing rapidly. Since the year 2000, over 155 public

safety licensees (out of 1,580 distinct systems nationwide) (approximately 10%) have

reported interference at over 800 locations and in more than 25 major cities across

the country. Many of these systems have suffered multiple incidents of interference;

some continue to report interference after the interference (new or recurrent) in

their jurisdiction was thought mitigated.

Nextel generated this data through its own investigations of incidents of interference reported to it by public safety agencies since the year 2000. As Nextel was

alerted to an interference problem with public safety licensees in 1999-2000, it

began tracking incoming complaints of interference that came directly from the public safety licensees themselves (typically to a monitored e-mailbox,

publicsafety@nextel.com). Each report was investigated, typically by joint testing

with Nextel’s engineers and public safety personnel to validate the report and then

to determine the causes and contributors to the interference. Nextel then catalogued

the investigations and resolutions, if any, for each report in a database, which it

has submitted to the FCC and referred to in its testimony before the Subcommittee.

Nextel believes, however, that the statistics provided above do not indicate the

full scope of the interference problem. In some cases public safety officials may not

have reported interference to Nextel, but may have provided it to one of the cellular

providers, who also cause public safety interference but apparently do not track

such information or make it publicly available. In other cases, public safety licensees

may have experienced interference but not reported it to anyone at all because they

may not have known whom to contact. The nature of the interference problem is

such that, in many cases, interference may not be recognized unless and until a first

responder tries to communicate at a particular location. As a result, the existence

of harmful interference often goes unnoticed and hence unreported by public safety

officials until an incident actually occurs. Unfortunately, a first responder can be

put at grave risk before public safety interference is recognized and reported.

100

1 Attached to this letter is a June 2, 2003 filing to the FCC made by APCO that explains

the limitations of the APCO database.

The ‘‘APCO database’’ Motorola cited to in its FCC filings significantly undercounts the extent of the interference problem. This ‘‘database’’ is in fact merely a

list of interference incidents that have been reported to APCO by public safety agencies that have taken the time to complete an online incident questionnaire maintained on APCO’s website. APCO itself has pointed out that this questionnaire is

informal and participation by member public safety agencies is voluntary. As a result, as confirmed by APCO itself, the APCO database does not provide a comprehensive source of data on the frequency of public safety interference.1

The reports of public safety officials, both to Nextel, and to the FCC during the

course of the FCC’s proceeding, provide compelling evidence of a nationwide interference problem. In an August 7, 2003 filing with the FCC, a coalition of the nation’s leading public safety agencies, such as the International Association of Chiefs

of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials International (‘‘APCO’’), private wireless associations and Nextel (the ‘‘Consensus Parties’’) presented a state-by-state map depicting

the incidents of interference that are described above. This map is provided below.

As this geographical representation demonstrates, the CMRS-public safety interference problem is national in scope. The problem is only getting worse, despite the

mitigative efforts of Nextel, public safety agencies and the cellular industry. Based

on the data reported by public safety and collected by Nextel, 13 public safety agencies experienced interference in 2000, 46 were affected in 2001, 74 suffered interference in 2002 and 51 agencies have experienced interference just through April

30 of this year. Similarly, the locations of interference have steadily increased: 56

locations in 2000, 200 locations in 2001, 330 locations in 2002 and at 117 locations

already through April 30, 2003. At least 55 more incidents were reported by public

safety in May 2003. At these rates, interference will be reported at more than 400

new locations during 2003.

Nextel initially submitted the above data to the FCC on May 16, 2003 and provided updated data in a filing dated July 1, 2003. Since then, on July 30, 2003, the

Orange County, California Sheriff’s Department submitted a Report to the FCC reporting an additional 150 cellular A-band sites that cause public safety communications ‘‘degradation every day.’’ On July 31, 2003, Columbus, Ohio, reported that its

countywide public safety radio system ‘‘has repeatedly experienced interference.’’

Also, on July 31, 2003, the Public Safety Communications Division for Orange County, Florida confirmed: ‘‘[W]e are being interfered with on a daily basis. The worst

part of this interference is that we do not know that we are being interfered with

until a user complains. Since our users are public safety first responders, this a dangerous situation.’’ The interference reported to Nextel and that reported separately

to the FCC now totals over 1,000 locations. The CMRS-public safety interference

problem is a national problem that requires a comprehensive solution.

PRE-COORDINATION AND TESTING OF NEW TOWERS CANNOT PREVENT 800 MHZ CMRSPUBLIC SAFETY INTERFERENCE

The Subcommittee also asked whether pre-testing at a new CMRS site could ensure against interference to public safety operations. In today’s spectrum environment, Nextel and public safety licensees have learned it is impossible to predict or

prevent the occurrence of CMRS—public safety interference so long as the channels

used by public safety and those used by CMRS operators remain mixed among each

other.

The conditions that cause interference to public safety under the current 800 MHz

band plan are highly variable, including the location of the public safety radio receiver in relation to both public safety base stations and the more numerous CMRS

base stations, the timing of the particular public safety and CMRS transmissions

that give rise to the potential for interference, the type of radio and transmission

equipment involved, the interaction of different CMRS signals with each other, and

numerous other factors. CMRS operations are inherently dynamic, and are intended

to be responsive to constantly changing consumer demands, utilizing base stations

that can transmit on thousands of different combinations of channels at any given

moment. As a result, Cellular A and B block signals can mix with each other and

with Nextel’s transmissions, resulting in thousands of possible channel mixtures

causing potential interference in the immediate areas where their facilities are colocated or virtually co-located. In addition, radio-frequency (‘‘RF’’) propagation is affected by seasonal foliage and other variable natural and man-made environmental

features that further complicate predictive efforts. At best, testing at a proposed

101

2 The limited amount of interference to public safety operations that cannot be resolved by

realignment alone can be addressed through filtering and other technical measures by the relocated and consolidated block of cellularized operators above 861 MHz. Because of the interleaved

nature of the current 800 MHz band, these same technical measurers have proven ineffective

in resolving the interference to public safety operations in the current environment.

new site can only provide a snapshot of the RF environment; it cannot be relied

upon to prevent interference to public safety operations. Even if a proposed new site

could be tested to ensure there would be no immediate interference, each subsequent new site or even a minor change to a new or existing public safety or CMRS

provider’s site would create an entirely new RF environment, making a previous

tested site at risk to cause interference.

Moreover, to be effective, pre-construction testing would have to ‘‘freeze’’ the RF

environment, thereby preventing the natural evolution of both public safety and

CMRS operations. Such restrictions would directly conflict with the public interest

goals of improved public safety communications and ubiquitous CMRS coverage.

Public safety operators, by necessity, are working right now to improve their systems and expand their operations to address the needs for interoperability and increased reliable communications, particularly in the wake of September 11th. At the

same time, CMRS carriers are also continuing to build-out their nationwide networks to meet the increasing demands of their customers, who demand ubiquitous

coverage. As a result, the thousands of locations of these CMRS and public safety

sites cannot be restricted or held static. Each site, both new and old, presents countless opportunities for interference ‘‘dead zones’’ to occur. It would be impractical, unreliable, and inefficient for CMRS providers and public safety agencies to conduct

interference probability testing at all of these sites. In any case, even if a CMRS

licensee were to follow these testing procedures in good faith, it could not guarantee

that CMRS—public safety interference will not occur at some point in the future.

A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION IS AVAILABLE TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE: THE

CONSENSUS PLAN FOR 800 MHZ REALIGNMENT

The Subcommittee also asked whether there are any methods available today that

could be used to prevent interference. As my testimony in June described, the Consensus Plan for 800 MHz Realignment is a proactive, preventative approach to permanently solving the public safety interference problem. A realignment of the band

would correct the underlying cause of the interference, an outdated 800 MHz band

plan, which permits incompatible technologies to operate in the same geographic

area in an interleaved and adjacent spectrum environment. Other approaches do not

address this root cause and would fail to correct the problem.

By realigning the 800 MHz spectrum band, and separating cellularized technologies from the high-site, high-power operations of public safety operations, interference can both be eliminated and prevented. Realigning the 800 MHz band puts

cellularized operations into one portion of the band, while public safety operations

would be relocated away from the adjacent and interleaved cellularized operations.

The public safety nationally allocated band (the NPSPAC band), which today is

sandwiched between Nextel and the Cellular A band carrier, would see a 99.8% reduction in the probability of interference after relocation to the lowest end of the

band. The remaining portion of the 800 MHz band where public safety operators

would remain, at 854-859 MHz, would see the probability of interference reduced

by over 95% post-realignment. Realigning the 800 MHz band as set forth in the

Consensus Plan will virtually eliminate interference to public safety operations.2

The Consensus Plan offers other significant benefits. The Consensus Plan is the

only plan before the FCC that provides public safety operators approximately 25%

more 800 MHz spectrum (now licensed to Nextel), to protect, save and serve their

fellow citizens. This spectrum is not only available today—there are no incumbent

television broadcasters on Nextel’s spectrum—but no new equipment needs to be developed to allow operations on the spectrum. Thus, the Consensus Plan will provide

immediate tangible benefits to public safety

Finally, the Consensus Plan is funded without any federal, state or local taxpayer

funding. As I described in my testimony, Nextel has committed to provide $850 million dollars to make 800 MHz realignment possible. As a result, public safety will

not be burdened with paying for the solution to the interference problem caused by

the outdated 800 MHz band plan. Instead, Nextel will fund public safety realignment in a unique public-private partnership.

In conclusion, unlike other proposals before the FCC, the Consensus Plan is a

comprehensive solution to the 800 MHz interference problem, while providing significant benefits to our Nation’s first responders. For all of these reasons, we urge

102

the Subcommittee to support our Nation’s first responders and indicate its support

for the Consensus Plan before the FCC.

I trust this addresses the Subcommittee’s questions. Thank you again for allowing

Nextel the opportunity to provide its views on these vital matters to our Nation’s

first responders.

Respectfully submitted,

TIMOTHY M. DONAHUE

President and Chief Executive Officer

cc: Representative W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin

Representative John Dingell

Representative Edward Markey

Æ