U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

27–974 WASHINGTON : 2018

OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET: STATE PERSPECTIVES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 1, 2017 

Serial No. 115–71 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Member 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 4 

WITNESSES

Michael Poth, CEO, First Responder Network Authority .................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 92 

Christopher Sambar, Senior Vice President, AT&T ............................................. 16 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 105 

John T. Stevens, Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, State of New Hampshire ....................................................................................................................... 28

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 117 

Brian J. Moran, Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, State 

of Virginia ............................................................................................................. 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

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

Robert Legrande, II, Founder, The Digital Decision ............................................ 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

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

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Verizon, submitted by Mr. Doyle ..................................................... 78 

Letter of October 23, 2017, from Governor Sununu of New Hampshire to 

fellow governors .................................................................................................... 82 

Executive order of Governor Sununu ..................................................................... 84 

Statement of the Competitive Carriers Association .............................................. 86 

Statement of the International Association of Fire Chiefs ................................... 88 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET: STATE 

PERSPECTIVES 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2017 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, 

Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, Collins, Cramer, Walters, Costello, Doyle, Clarke, Loebsack, Eshoo, 

Engel, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Zachary Dareshori, Staff Assistant; Sean Farrell, Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; Chuck 

Flint, Policy Coordinator, Communications and Technology; Adam 

Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Elena Hernandez, 

Press Secretary; Tim Kurth, Senior Professional Staff, Communications and Technology; Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications 

and Technology; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications 

and Technology; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, 

Minority Staff Assistant; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; 

Jessica Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member Services Coordinator; and Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will now come to order. 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome everyone to this, as we continue our committee’s oversight of FirstNet, the authority charged with deploying a 

nationwide interoperable broadband public safety network. The 

First Responder Network Authority was an important fixture of the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. 

There is a lot of work that has been done by this committee and 

others, and it has gone into reviewing the recommendations from 

the 9/11 Commission on how to better prepare our first responders 

in times of crisis. Interoperability has long been a challenge for our 

2 

state and local authorities. In the wake of the recent natural disasters and, of course, the terror attack that took place in New York 

City just yesterday, we have realized how incredibly important that 

it is that not only we do this, but that we get this right. There is 

no room for error when you are facing a disaster and need these 

communications. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing today. 

Mike Poth is the CEO of FirstNet. He now has both the privilege 

and the pressure of this huge undertaking. We know that it is 

going to be successful, and we look forward to making certain that 

the implementation is smooth and that the continuation is one of 

success. 

Chris Sambar is a Senior VP at AT&T, and his company is the 

winner of FirstNet’s RFP to gain access to 20 megahertz of the 700- 

megahertz spectrum. 

Our friends from the states include John Stevens, who is the 

New Hampshire Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, and Brian 

Moran, who is the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security. Their unique perspective of what states are thinking 

will illuminate how to avoid a top-down approach that could lead 

to failure. 

Rob LeGrande consults now, but was the CTO for Washington, 

D.C., in building out a public safety broadband network. I am sure 

that he is going to be able to help us sort out issues that the states 

and localities face, and perhaps can even give us a little bit of a 

more granular view on how to address challenges that are in our 

rural and tribal areas, and how we work to calculate their decisions. 

As you all know, this past September, FirstNet delivered its network plans to the combined states and territories. Part of what 

brings us here today is the December 28th deadline from that notice for those states and territories to elect whether they will accept 

the plan. Under the statute, states are permitted to opt into their 

respective state plan or opt out of the FirstNet network and build 

and maintain radio access networks, or RANs, from other providers, but still meet interoperability requirements set by the FCC. 

I think it is also worth pointing out that, while AT&T will build 

the FirstNet RAN in opt-in states or territories at no cost to each 

jurisdiction, public safety entities will still be responsible for paying subscription cost and end-user device expenses. And they are 

not required to subscribe to the FirstNet service. We must ensure 

that choice remains a paramount principle as the states and territories proceed with their decisonmaking and their implementation. 

While there has been some debate on schedules and fees, subscriber levels, device availability, and whether the network will be 

able to deliver mission-critical-level services, I know the panel 

today can help us sort through all of these issues to further reaching this goal. 

At this time, I would yield the balance of my time to Mr. Lance. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Welcome to the committee’s continuing oversight of FirstNet, the authority 

charged with deploying a nationwide, interoperable broadband public safety netVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 May 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-71 CHRIS
3 

work. The First Responder Network Authority was an important fixture of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. A lot of work at this committee 

went into reviewing the recommendations from the 9/11 commission on how to better prepare our first responders in times of crisis. Interoperability has long been a 

challenge for our state and local authorities, and in the wake of the recent natural 

disasters they have faced, its importance is as clear as ever. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing today. Mike Poth is the CEO of FirstNet. He 

now has both the privilege and the pressure on this huge undertaking being a success, but I can assure folks in this room we intend to be part of its successful implementation. Chris Sambar is a senior vice president at AT&T, and his company is 

the winner of FirstNet’s RFP to gain access to 20 MHz of the 700 MHz spectrum. 

Our friends from the states include—John Stevens, who is the New Hampshire 

Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, and Brian Moran, who is the Virginia Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security. Their unique perspective of what 

states are thinking will illuminate how to avoid a top down approach that could lead 

to failure. Rob LeGrande consults now, but was the CTO for Washington, DC in 

building out a public safety broadband network. I’m sure he can help us sort out 

issues states and localities face, and perhaps can even be a bit more granular to 

address challenges those in rural and tribal areas have to calculate in their decisions. 

As you all know, this past September, FirstNet delivered its network plans to 53 

states and territories. Part of what brings us here today is the December 28th deadline from that notice for those states and territories to elect whether they will accept 

the plan. Under the statute, States are permitted to opt-in to their respective State 

Plan, or opt-out of the FirstNet network and build and maintain radio access networks, also referred to as RAN, from other providers but still meet interoperability 

requirements set by the FCC. I think it’s also worth pointing out that while AT&T 

will build the FirstNet RAN in ‘‘opt-in’’ states or territories at no cost to each jurisdiction, public safety entities will still be responsible for paying subscription costs 

and end-user device expenses, and they are not required to subscribe to the FirstNet 

service. We must ensure that choice remains a paramount principle as the states 

and territories proceed with their decision-making and implementation. 

While there has been some debate on schedules of fees, subscriber levels, device 

availability, and whether the network will be able to deliver mission critical level 

services, I know the panel today can help us sort through all the issues to further 

everyone’s goal of making this a transparent and successful process. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Before I begin, let me say that our prayers are with the victims 

of the terrorist attack in New York yesterday, the worst loss of life 

in such an attack since 9/11. 

Our 9/11 first responders from all over the tri-state area responded to the unprecedented attack on the World Trade Center. 

Several issues with their communications system, including interoperability and resiliency, hindered the coordination of these fine 

public agencies. The equipment and networks used by the various 

departments that responded from all over the area, including New 

Jersey, were in many cases incompatible. These issues were recognized by the 9/11 Commission. 

As New Jersey was one of the first states to opt into FirstNet, 

I am interested in learning how our state and others can work with 

AT&T and the providers to prevent future challenges with interoperability and public safety agencies, as well as improving the resiliency and security of our public safety networks. 

Thank you for being here today to discuss this important topic. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding 

this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before 

us today. 

FirstNet and the National Public Safety Broadband Network 

have come a long way and made great progress in the 5 years since 

the program was established. FirstNet has designated its partner 

in AT&T. States have received their buildout plans, and 25 states 

and two territories have already opted to accept FirstNet’s plans. 

By the end of the year, all states will have to decide whether to 

opt in or opt out of the FirstNet plans. 

I am pleased with the progress that FirstNet and AT&T have 

made, and I hope this program continues to perform well as more 

states opt in and the buildout of FirstNet begins in earnest. 

Now I know a lot of hay has been made recently about the optout process and the costs for states to choose that route. States 

looking into opting out seem overwhelmed by the potential punitive 

cost and the risk they take on in building and managing their own 

network. Companies seeking to get states to opt out see this as a 

barrier to their entry into this market and a stumbling block to 

meaningfully engaging with states. 

To my mind, the cost and risks placed on the states for opting 

out are steep because building and maintaining these networks is 

a hard and risky endeavor. Without access to tens of billions of dollars necessary to build out a dedicated network of their own, states 

that opt out need to gamble on a private partner’s ability to leverage private capital, utilize a relatively small amount of shared 

spectrum, and undertake the buildup of a hardened multibillion 

dollar communication network. And they need to do all of this in 

a timeframe that is competitive with FirstNet, using technologies 

and systems that are fully interoperable. 

To my mind, the monetary risk is so great because this is a hard 

problem and the likelihood of failure is high. More to the point, the 

risk to the public at large and first responders is high if a state 

fails to meet its obligations. If building this network wasn’t hard, 

Congress wouldn’t have needed to create FirstNet; first responders 

wouldn’t have died on 9/11 because of communication failures, and 

the 9/11 Commission would not have recommended the creation of 

a national interoperable public safety communications system. 

Building this network and deploying the service is a serious challenge and we need serious solutions. States are free to make their 

own choices, but they need to understand and accept the risks. It 

is something I would encourage governors contemplating an opt-out 

to strongly consider. 

I have also seen reports of competitors seeking to sign up individual first responders complaining about the requirements of creating interoperable services with FirstNet. Let me say, I am strong 

believer in the value of competition, but I also believe that, if other 

providers want to offer services to first responders, they need to be 

fully interoperable. Lower-cost services and devices can’t fix the 

problem first responders face if they are not interoperable. We are 

still seeing this issue today in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, the VirVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 May 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-71 CHRIS
5 

gin Islands, and the wildfires that affected the areas of the West 

Coast. 

Americans are lucky and grateful that so many people volunteer 

to help when disaster strikes, and first responders come from far 

and wide to help. What we need to do is ensure that they have access to the best available interoperable technologies. If a competitor 

can provide that, great. If they can’t and they are putting equipment in people’s hands that isn’t interoperable, that is liable to create a problem rather than solve one. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and the discussion here today. 

With that, Madam Chair, if there is no one on my side that 

would like my time, I will yield what I have left to Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the ranking member for yielding. 

The recent wildfires in my home State of California shed light on 

the critical role of our nation’s first responders and the need for 

first responders to be effectively communicating and receiving information during these emergencies. It is essential that we have a 

resilient and redundant interoperable broadband network, so that 

our first responders are equipped to carry out their duties during 

natural disasters. 

But it is also important that this network be secure and able to 

withstand attacks from the various actors. We cannot afford for cybersecurity to be an afterthought in these scenarios because the 

consequences could be fatal. 

I look forward to the hearing and learning about FirstNet, what 

FirstNet is doing and the progress that it has made so far. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I would like to introduce for the record an op-ed 

by Montgomery County’s chief of police entitled, ‘‘For police, first 

responder communications network is much needed good news’’. 

And also, I would like to introduce the written testimony submitted by Verizon. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And as we permit this, I would just like to say 

I noticed that there are several first responders in the audience 

today, and we recognize your presence and we thank you ever so 

much for your service. You are, indeed, on the frontlines. 

Chairman Walden is not here. Does anyone on the Republican 

side seek his time? 

[No response.] 

No one is seeking that time. Ranking Member Pallone is not 

here. Anyone else seeking time? 

[No response.] 

No one else is seeking time. Everybody has got a sugar coma 

going on, I know. Yes, too much of that candy. 

[Laughter.] 

And we do thank all of our witnesses for being here today. We 

are grateful for your preparation, for your opening statements that 

were submitted in a timely manner, for your insights into what is 

before us. 

6 

As you can see, this is something where there is bipartisan 

agreement. Doing our due diligence in conducting oversight is important. So, we welcome each of you. 

I previously recognized you. Michael Poth, who is the CEO of 

FirstNet; Chris Sambar, who is the Senior VP at AT&T for 

FirstNet Business Solutions, Global Public Sector; Rick Kaplan, 

who is the General Counsel and Executive VP of the National Association of Broadcasters. John Stevens is the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator for the state of New Hampshire, and Robert 

LeGrande, who is the former CTO of Washington, D.C., now a consultant. 

Again, we appreciate that you are here. We will begin our panel. 

Mr. Poth, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL POTH, CEO, FIRST RESPONDER 

NETWORK AUTHORITY; CHRISTOPHER SAMBAR, SENIOR 

VICE PRESIDENT, AT&T; JOHN T. STEVENS, STATEWIDE 

INTEROPERABILITY COORDINATOR, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; BRIAN J. MORAN, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF VIRGINIA; AND ROBERT LEGRANDE, II, FOUNDER, THE DIGITAL DECISION 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL POTH 

Mr. POTH. Great. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking 

Member Doyle, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify today. 

I am Mike Poth, the Chief Executive Officer of FirstNet, and I 

am pleased to be here to provide an update and progress on this 

important initiative for our nation’s first responders. 

FirstNet is committed and accountable to this committee and 

Congress, but, first and foremost, to public safety. And it is the 

mission of serving public safety that drives my team toward exceeding the goals that you set out for us when you established 

FirstNet. 

I, too, would also like to thank the members of public safety who 

are in attendance today. We really appreciate their focus and commitment. 

We have faced an enormous task in developing this system over 

the past few years. Nothing like this has ever been done before, but 

thanks to the support of Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, and all of you here today, we are closer than ever to providing 

public safety what they have long asked for, a dedicated network 

that will save lives. 

We have spent the better part of 3 years consulting with our 

partners in the states and territories and tribal nations to ensure 

that we have gathered the needs of local first responders. This is 

a very complex technical, operational, and logistical effort to meet 

the needs and expectations of public safety. 

Since our contract signing that Chairman Blackburn attended a 

little over 7 months ago, significant progress has been made. I am 

happy to report that AT&T has met or exceeded all of its required 

deliverables. There is a clear line of sight and plan for a successful 

implementation in the coming years, depending on the final deterVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 May 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-71 CHRIS
7 

minations of the remaining states completing their due diligence on 

their options. 

We have now established a binding contractual mechanism to ensure the successful buildout in the 56 states and territories of a nationwide public safety broadband network and the financial sustainability to support this effort for the next 25 years. 

It is important to note that we are holding AT&T accountable 

while ensuring that we support their efforts. Their success is critical in order for this to work. If they fail, then we have to go back 

to the drawing board. 

It is important to remember and give context that, through this 

contract, AT&T is already contractually obligated to build out the 

system in the 56 states and territories to the plan that has been 

submitted to each of those states. This includes spectrum lease 

payments, adoption targets, disincentive and termination fees, if 

they fail to meet the terms of the contract. Only in those states 

that decide to pursue building their own radio access network is 

that obligation lifted from AT&T. FirstNet, along with our board of 

directors, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget continue to work 

alongside AT&T to ensure that they meet all the contractual requirements. 

Over the last 3 years, FirstNet has gone to great measures to 

make sure that all the states and governors fully understand the 

opportunities, risks, and challenges to opting out. It is important 

to note, however, that FirstNet will do everything possible to make 

sure that an opt-out is successful. This process is involved, as failure, as has been previously mentioned, at the national, state, or 

local levels is not an option for our first responders. 

We have delivered the final plans to the states and territories. 

Twenty-eight governors have approved and opted in, and another 

state will actually be announcing its opt-in choice this afternoon. 

This is truly an exciting time while the remaining 27 governors 

have 58 days left to make their final determination to either accept 

the FirstNet/AT&T’s solution or assume the risks associated with 

opt-out. 

It is, again, important to note that FirstNet has been open and 

transparent in every step, ensuring that everyone who is involved 

in this process has as much information as possible. We built in 

new steps as needed that allowed the states and the business communities to step up and become true partners. Ultimately, each 

state and governor have all the information possible to make an informed decision. 

The public and first responders need us to be successful. Lives 

will depend on this network. This is the standard against which we 

will be measured. When you look at the recent storms that brought 

devastation to Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico, and the inconceivable tragedies that took place in Las Vegas and now New York, 

communications are a vital part of any response and recovery. 

We are proud of what we have achieved thus far, but we also 

know that we have a long way to go to deliver to public safety what 

it truly needs and deserves. This has never been done before. And 

FirstNet will continue to work with each state and territory to get 

it right for them and for public safety. 

8 

Thank you again, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poth follows:] 

9 


27974.001

Introduction 

Written Testimony of Michael Poth 

Chief Executive Officer, First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

A hearing entitled: 

"Oversight of FirstNet: State Perspectives" 

November 1, 2017 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and all Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to appear today to provide an update on the progress we are making at 

FirstNet toward the deployment of an interoperable, nationwide public safety broadband network 

(NPSBN or Network). 

Progress towards a Network 

FirstNet intends to provide a cutting-edge wireless broadband communications system, with priority and 

pre-emption, to millions of first responders at the local, state, tribal, and federal levels across all states, 

territories, and the District of Columbia, consistent with the vision laid out in the Middle Class Tax Relief 

and Job Creation Act of 2012 {P.L 112-96) (Act). By enabling the Network's deployment, FirstNet will 

provide a dedicated, ubiquitous solution that helps solve public safety's decades-long interoperability 

and communications challenges, which includes advanced communications services, devices, and 

applications to help first responders and other public safety personnel make communities safer. 

FirstNet's goal of deploying the Network, and thereby meeting the needs of first responders, is a matter 

of critical importance for public safety, and today we are closer than ever before to accomplishing this 

goal. Since its inception, FirstNet has taken the necessary steps to build an organization, execute a 

vigorous consultation and outreach strategy, develop and release a comprehensive request for 

proposals (RFP), select an experienced and proven wireless industry leader for a first-of-its-kind publicprivate partnership, and lay the groundwork for a successful deployment of the NPSBN. Much has been 

accomplished. 

However, as it is with any unprecedented undertaking, every step forward presents new challenges and 

requires identification of innovative solutions. The past three years have involved hundreds of 

thousands of working hours to solve the various challenges First Net has faced. I am proud to say that 

today we have an organization of people who have approached these challenges head on and advanced 

the mission with a clear and unwavering dedication to public safety. The organization is dedicated to 

fulfilling FirstNet's responsibilities to the public safety community; creating a culture of hard work, 

openness, and transparency; developing a successful public-private partnership; and continuing to 

educate, inform, and obtain input from FirstNet's partners in the states and public safety stakeholders. 

The Selection of AT&T 

At a signing ceremony on March 30, 2017, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced FirstNet's 

award of the nationwide NPSBN contract to AT&T. The attendees included AT&T CEO Randall 

1 
10 


27974.002

Stephenson, Federal Communications Commission (FCC} Chairman Ajit Pai, Chairman Blackburn and 

other Members of Congress and staff, FirstNet Board members, FirstNet leadership, and, most 

importantly, public safety representatives. 

Prior to the ceremony, the FirstNet Board voted unanimously to authorize the award. With the Board's 

authorization, FirstNet and the Department of the Interior, which assisted First Net with the Network 

procurement, made the 25-year award to AT&T based on a careful evaluation ofthe proposals against 

the evaluation criteria articulated in our comprehensive RFP. Based on this rigorous review the 

determination was made that AT&T's proposal presented the overall best value solution for FirstNet and 

public safety.' 

The Benefits of a Public-Private Partnership 

Before listing the details of the solution FirstNet and AT&T are delivering to public safety, it is important 

to understand the benefits of the public-private partnership. By leveraging private sector resources, 

infrastructure, and cost-saving synergies to deploy, operate, and maintain the Network, as directed by 

the Act, the NPSBN can be deployed quickly, efficiently, and far more cost-effectively than any other 

model. 

Congress foresaw the benefits such a partnership could offer and gave FirstNet the tools necessary to 

engage the private sector, thereby allowing the private sector to do what it does best- i.e., leverage the 

market to determine the best deal at the best price, while ensuring that a dedicated, interoperable 

Network is built to public safety's requirements. The fact remains that neither party- FirstNet nor AT&T 

-on its own could build a network like the FirstNet Network. It would be too expensive and too 

burdensome. A public-private partnership ultimately will provide a Network that benefits public safety 

in a manner that would have been impracticable to achieve if left solely to the private sector or federal 

government. 

FirstNet is confident that the Network will also provide many specialized features. In addition to priority, 

preemption, and robust rural coverage, public safety will have access to FirstNet-dedicated deployable 

equipment for use during disasters and pre-planned events, as well as in-building solutions- because 

FirstNet recognizes that first responders' communications do not stop at the curb. 

The solution also includes a customer service center dedicated specifically to public safety- available 

24/7, 365 days a year; a dedicated FirstNet core with built-in redundancy to provide end-to-end FISMA 

compliant cybersecurity; and an entire eco-system of devices, apps, and tools for public safety, including 

a FirstNet app store. Each of these features will be a first for public safety as they are not currently 

available on any network today. 

How the Network Will Help Public Safety 

The ability to communicate seamlessly across jurisdictions is critical for law enforcement, fire, and 

emergency medical services (EMS} during day-to-day operations, when securing large events, or 

responding to emergencies and disasters. In those instances, networks can become overloaded and 

1 We were able to move forward with an award to AT&T after a March 17, 2017, decision by the U.S. Court of 

Federal Claims to deny a protest filed by one of the unsuccessful bidders. 

2 
11 


27974.003

inaccessible, limiting responders' use of vital communication technologies, such as smartphones and 

applications dedicated to public safety services. 

By providing unfettered, uninterrupted access to wireless spectrum, the NPSBN will help improve 

response times and situational awareness for public safety from coast-to-coast, every state, territory, 

and across tribal and federal land, in both rural and urban areas, leading to safer and more secure 

communities, and first responder safety. 

The market certainty the Network will provide through a long-term commitment, scale, and capacity will 

enable private sector investment and innovation for advanced life-saving technologies, tools, and 

services, such as: 

Applications that allow first responders to reliably share videos, text messages, photos, and 

other information during incidents in near real-time; 

Advanced capabilities, like camera-equipped connected drones and robots, to deliver images of 

wildfires, floods, or other events; 

Improved location services to help with mapping capabilities during rescue and recovery 

operations; and 

Wearables that could relay biometric data of a patient to the hospital or an alert when a fire 

fighter, police officer, or paramedic is in distress. 

Network technology will also be tested and validated through the FirstNet Innovation and Test Lab, 

located in Boulder, Colorado, to ensure first responders have the public safety grade, proven tools they 

need and can trust day-to-day and during disasters and emergencies. 

State Plans 

On June 19, First Net and AT&T delivered initial State Plans to the states and territories for review and 

comment three months ahead of schedule.' This marked a major milestone in the deployment of 

FirstNet. 

Since 2013, FirstNet has worked hand-in-hand with the states, territories, localities, federal authorities, 

tribes, and the public safety community to make sure the Network is specifically built for their needs. 

FirstNet's consultation efforts included more than 140,000 engagements with public safety stakeholders 

nationwide, and the collection of data from states and territories that accounted for more than 12,000 

public safety agencies representing more than 2 million public safety personnel. 

Developed with this input, the customized State Plans outline the coverage, features, and missioncritical capabilities FirstNet and AT&T will bring to first responders and other public safety personnel. 

States have had the opportunity to identify priorities and concerns related to Network coverage 

2 The initial State Plans for three territories (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa) were delayed. 

These plans have now been uploaded to their respective portals, and FirstNet met with representatives from each 

of the territories in Honolulu, Hawaii on October 24 and 25. At that meeting FirstNet discussed the unique 

characteristics of the territorial and geographic regional response goals. Governance models, and operational 

needs, along with future collaboration between the territories and FirstNet were also discussed. 

3 
12 


27974.004

(including in rural areas) and services. Consistent with the Act, FirstNet has also encouraged statedesignated single points of contact (SPOCs) to include tribal stakeholders in FirstNet engagements and 

solicit feedback and collect data from the tribes in their states to ensure those priorities and concerns 

were incorporated in the State Plans. Based on this feedback, FirstNet and AT&T determined a path 

forward, where possible, to address these requirements. 

Tribes sought a more formal consultation process where there was less reliance on States to convey 

Tribal priorities and concerns to FirstNet. Subsequently, FirstNet determined that once governors made 

their "opt-in/opt-out" decisions, FirstNet will conduct a formal Tribal consultation process. On October 

23, 2017, FirstNet released its Tribal consultation policy. 3 

FirstNet and AT&T have created a public website: FirstNet.com. This website provides information about 

the FirstNet solution, the unique value of the FirstNet Network to public safety, and how public safety 

entities may subscribe to First Net once a state or territory opts in. The site will host information on 

quality of service, priority and preemption; local control features; the applications store; devices and 

accessories for FirstNet; and coverage and rate plans. 

Official Notice 

We are now in a critical decision-making time for the FirstNet project. On September 29, 2017, FirstNet 

provided official notice to governors, as required by the Act, which included notification of the 

completion of the RFP process for the state, the delivery of the State Plan, and the funding level for the 

state as determined by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).4 The 

official notice initiated the 90-day clock that the Act provides for each state or territory governor to 

make an "opt in/opt out" decision on its State Plan.5 The deadline for governors to make this decision is 

December 28, 2017. 

FirstNet and AT&T will continue to actively engage with the states and territories to support their review 

of their respective State Plans and answer questions. 

The Governors' Decision 

The decision that a governor faces is one that will have profound consequences on the ability of public 

safety in his or her state or territory to gain access to mission critical broadband. 

3 https://www.firstnet.gov/consu!tation/tribes 

4 See "NTIA Release of Funding Level Determination for Each State" (Sept. 29, 2017), available 

at: https:/lwww .ntia. doc.gov I other-publication/2017/ntia-release-funding-level-determination-each-state. 

5 As noted above, FirstNet is still working with Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa on their 

State Plans, and thus did not provide official notice to the Governors of these territories on September 29, 

2017. The 90-day decision period has not yet begun for these territories. With respect to Puerto Rico, due to the 

unique circumstances related to Hurricane Maria and the difficulty related to basic services operating in the wake 

of the storm, FirstNet has been unable to confirm the receipt by the Governor of the official notice, and therefore, 

the 90-day decision period for Puerto Rico has also not yet begun. The Governor, however, has previously pledged 

his support for the deployment of the FirstNet Network in Puerto Rico. 

4 
13 


27974.005

Opt in: 

A governor's decision to opt in will enable FirstNet and AT&T to begin the process of delivering services 

to that state or territory's public safety community. It is a decision that will also drive infrastructure 

investments and job creation. 

If a state affirmatively opts in or takes no action on the State Plan within 90 days of receiving notice, 

which under the Act is also a decision to opt in, FirstNet will be able to start the process of deploying the 

Radio Access Network (RAN) portion of the FlrstNet Network in the state at no cost to the state. States 

do not have to wait the full90 days to make an opt-in decision, and several states have already provided 

notice of their intention to opt in. The opt-in path is a low-risk option that will support faster delivery of 

services to the state's public safety community. 

We anticipate a significant number of opt-in announcements over the weeks and months ahead now 

that the 90-day clock has started. 

Opt out: 

If the state elects not to participate in the FirstNet RAN deployment, pursuant to the Act, it must provide 

notice to FirstNet, the FCC, and NTIA within 90 days after receiving official notice from FirstNet, and 

within 180 days of such notice to FirstNet, the state must develop and complete an RFP for the state 

RAN. Subsequently, it must submit an alternative plan to the FCC for the construction, maintenance, 

operation, and improvement of the RAN in the state within 60 days of RFP completion. The state RAN 

must be interoperable with the Network and comply with FirstNet's requirements and standards for the 

Network. Before the state's RAN deployment can begin, the FCC must approve the alternative plan, and, 

if approved, the state must then apply to NTIA for the right to enter into a spectrum capacity lease with 

FirstNet, and ultimately agree to the terms of such a lease with FirstNet through a Spectrum Manager 

Lease Agreement. The state may also apply to NTIA for a state RAN construction grant under the State 

Alternative Plan Program." 

Opt out states will assume all technical, operational, and financial risks and responsibilities related to 

building, operating, maintaining, and improving their own RAN for the next 25 years. Given the 

statutorily mandated processes, it is possible a state pursuing opt out will be at least two years behind 

states that opt in. 

It is important to note that if a state or territory wishes to opt out, FirstNet will do everything we can to 

make that opt-out process a success. Public safety cannot afford to have areas of no service throughout 

the country. We are encouraging states and territories to look at all the information in the State Plans to 

ensure that they fully understand the risks and requirements associated with opting out. We are 

confident that each State Plan will deliver the coverage, services, value, and experience states and 

territories expect for their first responders, bringing us closer to making the cutting-edge Network and 

technologies that public safety has been asking for a reality. 

6 Additional information regarding the grant program will be available from NTIA in a forthcoming SAPP Notice of 

Funding Opportunity. 

5 
14 


27974.006

Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement 

Congress created FirstNet to ensure the establishment of the NPSBN and made FirstNet the sole 

licensee of the Band 14 public safety spectrum. As mentioned previously, under the Act, a state that 

chooses the opt-out option and successfully completes the congressionally mandated approval process 

must enter into a Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) with First Net in order to use FirstNet's 

licensed spectrum. The SMLA is a binding agreement between the opt-out state and FirstNet 

establishing the terms and conditions for the state's use of the Band 14 public safety spectrum. The 

agreement reflects the requirements of the Act, standard telecommunications industry regulations, the 

NPSBN's critical role in supporting public safety communications, and the significant responsibilities 

involved with deploying a wireless broadband network for public safety. 

In short, the SMLA sets forth requirements associated with the state building, operating, maintaining, 

and improving its own RAN, including the state's financial obligations to the federal government. These 

requirements are intended to ensure the ongoing operation of an interoperable, secure, and sustainable 

network that meets the needs of public safety across the nation, and they are similar to the 

requirements that FirstNet will deliver to opt-in states. 

Conclusion 

For more than three years, FirstNet has worked hand-in-hand with our partners in the states and 

territories to develop a Network that meets the needs and objectives of our nation's first responders 

and other public safety personnel. After thousands of meetings and countless discussions with the 

public safety community, we feel confident about the overall Network solution and individual plans that 

we have proposed for each state and territory because they have been driven by and reflect public 

safety stakeholders' input throughout the nation. 

FirstNet has made a great deal of progress over the past year. We successfully completed a 

comprehensive nationwide RFP process; awarded a 25-year contract to AT&T- an innovative private 

sector technology partner who has nearly 140 years of experience serving the public safety community; 

and worked effectively and efficiently with AT&T to deliver State Plans three months ahead of schedule 

and update those plans based on stakeholder input. We are now focused on preparing for the 

deployment of the Network in opt-in states and territories and the next crucial phase of the project -

public safety user adoption. 

While there has been much success, we still have work to do. As the recent Government Accountability 

Office report highlighted, there are areas for improvement, and FirstNet is dedicated to continuing to 

strive for excellence in every area.' 

Through cooperation with the Department of Commerce, NTIA, the FCC, the federal members of the 

FirstNet Board-the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget-and other federal partners, First Net has continued to meet our 

commitment to the States and public safety community. We have been able to achieve a great deal over 

the past year. Moving forward, we plan to continue to leverage these partnerships. Ultimately, the most 

important action that FirstNet must take is to continue to listen to public safety community. We at 

7 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Public Safety Broadband Network: FirstNet Has Made Progress 

Establishing the Network, but Should Address Stakeholder Concerns and Workforce Planning (2017). 

6 
15 


27974.007

FirstNet have been entrusted by the public safety community to deliver what they need in order to keep 

us safe. It is this belief that drives us at FirstNet and will ensure that we accomplish what public safety 

community deserves- excellence in service, reliability, and performance. 

7 
16 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Sambar, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SAMBAR 

Mr. SAMBAR. Thank you. 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the 

committee, I am Chris Sambar, AT&T Senior Vice President. I am 

responsible for AT&T’s fulfillment of the FirstNet project, a special 

opportunity for AT&T and its dedicated employees to demonstrate 

their continued commitment spanning two centuries to public service and public safety. 

I am proud to affirm to this committee that AT&T is on track 

to deliver on its commitments and has, in fact, met the first set of 

milestones identified in the FirstNet contract, as Mr. Poth mentioned. We have also launched the FirstNet application ecosystem, 

including an application store for America’s first responders, as 

well as the first ever developer program geared specifically for first 

responders. 

And now, again, as Mr. Poth mentioned, we have over half of the 

states and territories having made the decision to opt into 

FirstNet. AT&T is delivering on the promise of a dedicated interoperable network that will give first responders in those states and 

territories the technology they need to effectively communicate and 

collaborate across agencies and jurisdictions. 

Before FirstNet, first responders frequently lacked the ability to 

communicate with each other and to coordinate incident response 

activities across agencies and jurisdictions. Relying on over 10,000 

radio networks as well as the same commercial networks that 

Americans used today, first responders have been hampered by a 

lack of interoperability and network congestion during times of significant emergency. 

The recent unprecedented sequence of natural disasters and public safety incidents over the past couple of months have reinforced 

the wisdom of the widespread bipartisan consensus of Congress in 

2012 to establish the First Responder Network Authority, FirstNet, 

as an independent authority within NTIA, to provide emergency responders with the first nationwide high-speed broadband network 

dedicated to public safety. 

AT&T is honored to have been chosen to build and manage the 

FirstNet network. We committed to spend about $40 billion over 

the life of the FirstNet contract to build, operate, and maintain the 

network. AT&T also committed to connect the first responder network to our best-in-class telecommunications network, valued at 

over $180 billion, with a wireless network reaching 99.6 percent of 

the U.S. population. 

Moreover, AT&T submitted a plan that ensures that local commanders in opt-in states can adjust the access in times of emergencies to the services, featuring priority and preemption, allowing 

others such as bus drivers during pre-storm evacuation or medical 

personnel after the storm has passed to have access to the same 

services in time of need. Priority access means just that. In times 

of network congestion, our first responders will have communications precedent for primary users, be able to preempt other users 

off of the AT&T and FirstNet network. 

17 

In earning the FirstNet contract, AT&T demonstrated its particular competencies with respect to world-class national disaster 

recovery. The national disaster recovery team at AT&T recently 

demonstrated its value in preparation for and during the aftermath 

of the devastating hurricanes that recently hit Texas, Florida, 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, most recently, the California wildfires. 

We helped, and are continuing to help, restore communications 

in these areas by deploying an array of equipment, including portable cell sites, cell on light trucks—we call those COLTs—generators, charging stations, evacuee centers, and emergency communications vehicles. We used ships and chartered cargo flights to deliver this equipment to our NDR personnel in Puerto Rico. In 

northern California we were able to move mobile restoration assets 

in quickly and place them in areas where fire had destroyed our 

communications equipment and where first responders needed 

them most. 

In the meantime, there are significant and immediate benefits to 

states that opt into the FirstNet network. Opting in eliminates 

long-term risks associated with funding, building, and for the next 

25 years maintaining a network that interoperates with the 

FirstNet network. Public safety entities in states or territories that 

opt in can purchase, at competitive rates, service with key features 

such as quality of service, priority access, and preemption. Notably, 

preemption over the AT&T LTE network for primary users is expected by this year’s end. 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Congress intended for 

FirstNet to provide the public safety community with what it demanded for years, a single interoperable public safety network. 

That network that AT&T is building for opt-in states and territories brings security, priority, and preemption. 

And I look forward to answering any questions you have today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sambar follows:] 

18 


27974.008

STATEMENT OF CHRIS SAMBAR 

AT&T Senior Vice President, FirstNet 

AT&T Inc. 

Hearing: "Oversight of First Net: State Perspectives." 

Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the United States House 

of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

November 1, 2017 

Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Committee. 

I am Chris Sambar, AT&T Senior Vice President- FirstNet. AT&T is a company with a 140-

year heritage of innovation that includes 8 Nobel Prizes and more than 15,000 patents and 

pending patents worldwide. We employ more than 200,000 people in the United States, and over 

the past five years, we've invested more in the U.S. than any other public company- nearly 

$135 billion. 

1 appreciate the opportunity to update the Committee on the progress FirstNet and AT&T are 

making to provide a nationwide broadband network for public safety. I head a group at AT&T 

dedicated to building and operating that network for decades to come. And 1 can assure you that 

AT&T is fully committed to delivering a dedicated, interoperable network that will give first 

responders the technology they need to communicate and collaborate across agencies and 

jurisdictions during emergencies. This opportunity aligns with our centuries-old history of 

serving the U.S. federal government and the public safety community. I am also pleased to 

report that AT&T is on track to deliver on its commitments and has, in fact, met the first set of 
19 


27974.009

milestones identified in the FirstNet contract. We have also launched the FirstNet application 

ecosystem, including an app store for America's first responders, as well as the first app 

developer program geared toward our first responders. And now, with half of the states and two 

territories having "opted in" to FirstNet, AT&T is beginning to deliver on the promise of 

FirstNet to first responders in those states. 

Supporting public safety is part of our company's DNA. As a retired Naval officer and Navy 

SEAL, public service has been a calling throughout my adult life. I view FirstNet as a special 

opportunity to do it again for a company that shares a commitment to public service and public 

safety. 

FirstNet Background and Purpose 

First responders frequently lack the ability to communicate with each other during emergencies. 

In fact, first responders rely on over I 0,000 radio networks for voice communications to do their 

job and they use the same commercial wireless networks that we all do. Those networks can 

quickly become congested during a significant emergency. We have unfortunately witnessed 

how these issues hamper first responders, such as in responding to the 9/11 attacks and in other 

emergencies since. The recent devastating hurricanes and wild fires remind us how important 

communication is during such events. 

In response, Congress recognized that we can and should do better to support our first responders 

and their critical mission- to save lives. And in 2012 Congress passed legislation that created 

the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNct) as an independent authority within NTIA to 

2 
20 


27974.010

provide emergency responders with the first, nationwide, high-speed, broadband network 

dedicated to public safety. Congress established FirstNet to deliver a robust, highly secure, and 

efficient communications network that will help responses to emergencies as they unfold. And 

that is exactly what FirstNet and AT&T intend to deliver. 

AT &T's Commitment to FirstNet 

As I said, AT&T is honored to have been chosen to build and manage the FirstNet network, and 

we are committed to bringing to bear all the necessary resources to ensure its success, just as 

Congress envisioned. What will that mean? 

First, as part of its commitment, AT&T will spend about $40 billion over the life of the FirstNet 

contract to build, operate and maintain the network. AT&T will connect FirstNet to its worldclass telecommunications network valued at over $180 billion, with a wireless network reaching 

99.6% of the U.S. population. 

Second, I am also proud that AT&T will support FirstNet with its world-class Network Disaster 

Recovery (NOR) Team. This team, which we established over 25 years ago, has a single 

mission: to recover AT&T voice and data service in areas affected by a disaster. The NDR 

solution combines network infrastructure and support trailers, recovery engineering software 

applications and a response team with both full-time and volunteer members from AT&T. Team 

members have spent more than 130,000 working hours on field exercises and deployments over 

the last two decades. 

3 
21 


27974.011

The NDR team demonstrated its worth after the devastating hurricanes that recently hit Texas, 

Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We helped and are continuing to help restore 

communications in these areas by deploying an array of equipment, including portable cell sites, 

cells on light trucks (called COLTs), generators, charging stations in evacuee centers, and 

emergency communication vehicles. We used ships and chartered cargo flights to deliver this 

equipment and our NDR personnel to Puerto Rico. In addition, in response to the fires in 

Northern California, we were able to move mobile restoration assets quickly into place in areas 

where the fire destroyed either towers or the fiber backhaul network necessary for connectivity, 

and we worked hard to keep California first responders and our customers connected. 

These vast capabilities and our dedicated network team (the most important asset of all) will all 

be available to support communities and first responders affected by emergencies. And we will 

increase our fleet with 72 new deployables exclusively to support First Net in states that opt in. 

Third, as I noted above, we have put together an internal group, which !lead, dedicated solely to 

FirstNet. This group is growing and will reach several hundred employees by year's end. As we 

ramp up our buildout of the FirstNet network, we are hiring people across the country who have 

a passion for public safety and for first responders. 

With these resources, AT&T is creating a nationwide !P-hased high-speed mobile network that provides 

First Responders priority. "Priority" means just that-- in times of emergencies and network congestion, 

our network will give first responder communications precedence and, for "primary users," preempt all 

other communications. And, if an area is hit with an emergency (e.g., hurricane, wild fire), a local 

4 
22 


27974.012

commander can temporarily provide priority or preemptive access to individuals for a limited 

duration during a specific incident in a particular geographic area. For example, in a hurricane, 

the commander could designate evacuation vehicles as having priority prior to the storm hitting 

as people leave the area, then shifting priority to medical personnel and utility workers after the 

storm passes through. 

In sum, the FirstNet network will meet the needs of public safety like never before, providing: 

• A unique, differentiated, and highly secure network, encrypted at its core. 

• Dedicated IP core with capabilities of priority and, for primary users, pre-emption. 

• Interopcrability across public safety agencies and jurisdictions. 

• Customized customer service with dedicated 24/7/365 AT&T security and helpdesk 

operations support centers. 

• A highly secure app ecosystem. 

• Network Disaster Recovery resources. 

• Highly competitive, flexible pricing. 

Together, these capabilities will better connect first responders to the critical information they 

need in an emergency, keeping them out of harm's way. 

In addition, FirstNet and AT&T will innovate and evolve the network to benefit public safety. 

In many cases, and often due to budgetary constraints, the public safety community has not been 

able to keep up with advances in communications technology. But these advances can make a 

real difference in crisis situations. For example, providing emergency personnel timely 

5 
23 


27974.013

information on traffic conditions to help determine the best route to an emergency can help save 

critical minutes for first responders to get to an emergency. Other enhanced capabilities, such as 

wearable sensors and cameras for police and firefighters, can deliver near real-time images of 

events, such as fires, floods or crimes. Imagine camera equipped drones and robots delivering 

these images. In fact, we utilized drones to inspect cell towers in flooded and unreachable areas 

affected by Hurricane Harvey. AT&T is at the forefront of loT advances and a leader in Smart 

Cities technology that can monitor a city's critical infrastructure, traffic and even listen for gun 

shots. Solutions like these could one day enhance the capabilities AT&T can bring to first 

responders. 

And we are already taking steps to bring 21st Century innovation to first responders. Last month, 

we launched the first app store and developer program dedicated to America's first responders. 

This program will encourage the developer community to design applications with solutions built 

for the unique needs of first responders. The developer program will feed the FirstNet app store, 

providing public safety a one-stop-shop for reliable, highly secure solutions optimized for the 

FirstNet network. 

FirstNet will also create jobs and drive investments across states and territories. This significant 

public-private infrastructure investment, and the buildout supporting it, is expected to create 

10,000 U.S.jobs over the next two years. These new jobs will include positions in technology 

development, network deployment and operations. 

6 
24 


27974.014

AT&T could not be more excited about delivering on the promises of the FirstNet network, to 

the benefit of first responders and the communities they serve. 

Benefits to States Opting In 

Since FirstNet announced (on March 30'h) that it had selected AT&T, we have been working 

closely with states and territories to provide them all the information they need to make an 

informed decision to opt in to the FirstNet network. As part of this public/private partnership, 

FirstNet and AT&T have had countless meetings with state decision makers and public safety 

stakeholders to answer any questions they might have. In fact, even before AT&T was selected, 

the FirstNet team spent more than 3 years meeting with public safety experts in the states to 

solicit their feedback on what they wanted in this network. That is why FirstNet is a solution 

designed by public safety exclusively for public safety. FirstNct and AT&T are committed to 

continual engagement and consultation with the states and territories to help explain what 

FirstNet means to their stakeholders and to help ensure that it delivers what the public safety 

community in each state and territory needs. 

On June 191

h, three months ahead of schedule, FirstNet and AT&T began providing states and 

territories individual state plans. We released the plans ahead of schedule not only to give states 

the ability to opt in early (and receive the benefits ofFirstNet as soon as possible), but also to 

provide them extra time to exchange feedback with FirstNet before the official 90-day clock 

started on September 291

h. States and territories that have not already opted in now have until 

December 28'h to accept the FirstNet/ AT&T plan, or assume the responsibility for deploying, 

7 
25 


27974.015

and, for the next twenty-five years, operating and maintaining its own network that must be 

interoperable with the FirstNet network. 1 

As of October 31 ", half of the states and two territories have opted in to FirstNet. Many cited 

low-risk, expanded coverage, increased network capacity, and/or immediate access to missioncritical capabilities as key reasons for their early opt-in decision. In fact, three of these states 

(Michigan, Arizona and Alabama) decided to opt in after evaluating proposals from competing 

vendors. Even with that additional information and due diligence, states still opt in, confirming 

that the FirstNet AT&T State Plans deliver the best network and services public safety needs and 

deserves. 

There are significant and immediate benefits for states that opt in to the FirstNet network. 

• Opting in eliminates long-term risks associated with funding, building and, for the next 

twenty five years, maintaining a network that interoperates with the FirstNet network. 

• Once a state or territory opts in, pub! ic safety entities in that state or territory can 

purchase, at competitive rates, services with key network features, such as quality of 

service and priority access to voice and data across AT&T' s L TE network. First 

responders in the opt-in states and territories are already receiving service. To be clear, 

as I explained above, local commanders in opt-in states will have local control. They can 

1 It is our understanding that FirstNet is still working with the Pacific Territories and did not provide official notice 

to the Governors of these territories on September 29''. In addition, it is also our understanding that First Net has 

not confirmed official receipt of the state plan from the Governor of Puerto Rico, although the Governor has 

previously supported the deployment of FirstNet in Puerto Rico. 

8 
26 


27974.016

utilize priority access in times of emergency and grant such access to others (e.g., 

evacuation trucks and then medical personnel) as an emergency unfolds. 

• Preemption over the AT&T LTE network for primary users is expected by year's end. 

This means fire, police and EMS with FirstNet service will have dedicated access to the 

network when they need it. 

• As states and territories join, investment in infrastructure and job creation will follow. 

AT&T's Commitment to Diversity 

Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to stress AT&T's commitment to meeting or 

exceeding all requirements to subcontract work to veterans, minority-owned, and woman-owned 

businesses. AT&T has a long history of supporting diverse businesses and communities. AT&T 

is among the leading companies in identifying and doing business with diverse suppliers. Last 

year, we spent $14.2 billion with diverse suppliers, representing nearly 19% of our total supplier 

expenditures. It is not surprising that AT&T has been ranked No. I for three consecutive years 

in Diversity Inc.'s "Supplier Diversity Survey." We employ more than Il,OOO veterans. In 2013, 

AT&T announced it would hire I 0,000 veterans within the next 5 years, which was met at the 

end of20 15, well ahead of schedule. AT&T is doubling that commitment and pledged to hire an 

additional 10,000 veterans by 2020. In 2016, AT&T's U.S. workforce was 32% women and 

43% people of color. In 2016, nearly 31.5% of our new hires were women, and 56% people of 

color. We recognize that this diversity benefits our company, our customers, and our employees. 

9 
27 


27974.017

Conclusion 

Congress designed FirstNet to be a solution for public safety that provides much more than the 

ability to make and receive phone calls. Congress intended for FirstNet to provide the public 

safety community what it demanded for years: a single "nationwide public safety interoperable 

broadband network." Only such a network can bring the security, priority and preemption, and 

seamless interoperability that Congress envisioned. And only AT&T and FirstNet are prepared 

to deliver on Congress's vision. 

I look forward to continuing this important dialogue as FirstNet moves forward. I welcome your 

questions. 

Thank you again Chairman Blackburn for this opportunity. 

10 
28 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Stevens, you are recognized, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. STEVENS 

Mr. STEVENS. Madam Chair, good morning. Members of the committee, good morning. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to 

speak here today. 

Let me preface my remarks by saying that there is no greater advocate for FirstNet than the State of New Hampshire. As a former 

state police commanding officer, what often would keep me up at 

night was knowing that troopers, police officers, firefighters, and 

EMS personnel were in the field in some areas with little or no 

communications. So, when I came back to state service approximately 10 years later, many of the interoperability communications 

issues still existed. In my first conversations with FirstNet, approximately about 3 1A1⁄2 years ago, New Hampshire was going to 

receive a significantly small footprint. As one of the last recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, FirstNet was created and 

Congress appropriated $6.5 billion to build a nationwide network, 

a nationwide, dedicated first responder network, not a national network. 

Even though FirstNet was under an edict to develop in rural 

areas, we recognized early on that there would be many areas of 

the country that would be underserved. Having the opportunity to 

see FirstNet maps that illustrated limited coverage, and looking at 

New Hampshire maps, that certainly the northern part of the state 

was not being addressed, we looked at possible other opportunities. 

Knowing the information and being familiar with FirstNet advertised timelines of 90 days for a governor to make a decision, and 

180 days to develop an RFP, award an RFP, and create an alternative plan that would need to be submitted for approval, the 

timeline that was provided was unrealistic and unattainable for 

New Hampshire and probably many other states. 

With that in mind, the State of New Hampshire, through the 

Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee and its Data Communications Working Group, began to develop an RFP in July of 

2015. That, in and of itself, turned the industry upside down. Industry people were taking every opportunity to dismiss New Hampshire and its intentions for putting the RFP on the street in December of 2015. 

On September 7th, 2016, the governor and council awarded a nocost, no-obligation contract to Rivada Networks. Why? Because the 

proposal that was submitted was so intriguing that it could not be 

ignored. From September 2016 to September 2017, the State of 

New Hampshire along with Rivada Networks developed an alternative state plan that was delivered to Governor Sununu on or 

about the same date as the FirstNet/AT&T state plan was delivered. Today we are the only state in the country that has an alternative plan in place. 

I mentioned early in my testimony that there was no greater advocate than New Hampshire because it is an officer safety issue 

and it means increased capability to provide services to our citizens 

and visitors. So, it is unclear to us why FirstNet, NTIA, and now 

29 

AT&T, would wish to make the reality of an opt-out decision so onerous and difficult. 

At the beginning of last month, October 2017, New Hampshire 

SEIC made a unanimous recommendation to opt out. Why? Because the alternative plan was far superior to the FirstNet/AT&T 

plan that was delivered in regards to coverage and price. We are 

operating in good faith and we understand that there are regulatory permissions that need to be reached. However, based on 

what we know and what we have been dealing with, we feel threatened by policy and procedure, not by law. We will not allow this 

opportunity to fail, and we have every confidence in the proposed 

network that is being proposed. 

Was that the intent of the law that created FirstNet or was the 

intent to provide to the first responder an unprecedented opportunity to communicate in the most difficult of situations? It is unfortunate, from our perspective, that in some ways FirstNet seems 

to have lost its intended mission. 

When we first looked at this, we looked at this as a win/win situation. New Hampshire would secure an investor to build the infrastructure at no cost to FirstNet, where FirstNet could invest the 

$6.5 billion elsewhere, and then, New Hampshire would enter a 

fair and reasonable leasing agreement with FirstNet for the utilization of 20 megahertz of 700 spectrum. 

We have done our due diligence. In regards to due diligence, I 

would be remiss in my responsibilities if, in fact, we did not go 

down this road to try to create an alternative plan. 

FirstNet demands our transparency, but fails to be transparent 

themselves. AT&T says it wants to work with the state, but says 

it will only negotiate pricing when the state opts in. NTIA says 

that it may take up to 2 years to approve an alternative plan. 

I applaud Governor Sununu and all the work that has been accomplished in New Hampshire, which has also provided direction 

for many states who are weighing in on their options. When the 

scales seem to be tipped, when pressure is enhanced, and when 

there are unprecedented obstacles, which can all be seen as threatening states to opt in, we believe it is worthy of review. 

In conclusion, New Hampshire has done its due diligence, and 

our only mission is to make FirstNet successful in New Hampshire. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevens follows:] 

30 


27974.018

Written Testimony of John T. Stevens 

United States House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Oversight of FirstNet: State Perspectives- November 1, 2017 

Over the course of the last month, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu was 

presented with two FirstNet Plans- the FirstNet/AT&T State Plan and the New Hampshire 

FirstNet Alternative Plan. We remain the only State in the country to have completed an 

alternative plan. Eighteen states currently have Request for Proposals (RFP's) in various stages 

of development, but are now under a time constraint to actually develop a complete alternative 

plan. New Hampshire recognized early in the process that the 180 day time period offered by 

FirstNet would not give New Hampshire sufficient time to give this opportunity the care and due 

diligence that it requires. 

Because New Hampshire has been out in front of this process for the past two years and 

has already created an alternative plan, New Hampshire is well positioned to assist other states 

who are considering an opt-out decision. That is why Governor Sununu created a FirstNet Optout Review Committee to further investigate regulatory and financial issues that would be 

associated with that decision. Our emphasis is primarily the following: I) to ascertain from 

FirstNet and NTIA the necessary procedural requirements and achieve a full understanding of 

the regulatory agreements that must be in place for a state to construct its own network; 2) to 

understand the justification for what appear to be arbitrary and capricious fees and penalties 

provided for in the draft SMLA; and 3) to fully understand the feasibility, sustainability, and the 

financial obligations necessary to fully operate, empower, and enhance the FirstNet network in 

New Hampshire for the next twenty-five (25) years. 

We are confident that, as a result of the process we have engaged in for the last two years, 

New Hampshire is now in receipt of an alternative FirstNet Plan that will address coverage on a 

statewide basis and will also deliver to our first responders a network that will be at little or no 

cost to the subscriber. Isn't that the very reason why the law was established and FirstNet was 

created, to provide the tools that will allow first responders to communicate in times of 

emergency? Unfortunately, states are now being threatened with outrageous and indefensible 

penalties that deter states from even considering an opt-out decision. It honestly makes one 

believe that the SMLA is fraught with fictitious and erroneous figures only to apply pressure on 

states to opt-in. 

New Hampshire has been advised, through the SMLA, of a termination penalty, ranging 

from $10,609,059-$608,568,423, that will be imposed if for some reason the designed network 

should fail. Other states have been advised that their termination penalty payments will be in the 

billions and billions of dollars. Can we honestly expect that states could assume such risk, when 

all they are trying to do is represent their first responders by providing the best possible 

coverage? And if the penalty was to be assessed, where does that money go? To AT&T? These 

figures are absurd, and they are accompanied by spectrum payments in the tens of millions of 
31 


27974.019

dollars, adoption disincentive payments, adoption payment levels at 5 years, and adoption 

payment levels at 20 years. What are we promoting here, public safety and the ability to provide 

better service to our citizens, or lining the pockets of corporate America? 

We have a FirstNet alternative plan that we have great confidence in. If the plan passes 

the hurdles presented by the FCC, NTIA, and FirstNet, why then should we be subject to any 

penalty and why would FirstNet not want to work with the State to make the opt-out plan 

successful? We seem to have lost the meaning of why FirstNet was created in the first place. 

Corporate America (i.e. the AT &Ts, the Verizons, and major cell phone companies) were 

approached years ago and asked to provide public safety with priority preemption in cases of 

extreme emergencies. They declined. Now that FirstNet has been created, AT&T and Verizon 

(who only recently has jumped in to vie for the same business) say that their interest is in serving 

public safety. There is no better determiner of States needs then the States themselves, and who 

can better represent public safety than public safety? 

Out of concern for all who will be adversely affected by the manner in which FirstNet has 

approached this issue, I ask this committee to consider the original intent of the law that created 

FirstNet- to allow states to build a dedicated wireless broadband network for first responders in 

a manner that is best each state's citizens. This is what New Hampshire is attempting to 

accomplish, and why we have spent the past two years working to put our state in a position of 

having two viable options. We therefore implore this Committee to hold FirstNet accountable 

and take steps to ensure that FirstNet provides a full explanation of the numbers it has released, 

complies with the intent of the law, and provides a fair pathway for each state to make its optin/opt-out decision free of undue duress. 
32 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. Moran, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. MORAN 

Mr. MORAN. Well, good morning, Madam Chairman Blackburn, 

Ranking Member Doyle, members of the subcommittee. On behalf 

of Governor Terry McAuliffe, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to discuss FirstNet and our mutual desire to equip our 

first responders with the interoperable communication capabilities 

necessary to respond to all hazards. 

Governor McAuliffe is proud that Virginia was the first state in 

the nation to opt into FirstNet. Virginia decided to opt in in July 

after a thorough review in order to provide public safety subscribers with the benefits of priority service at no cost to the Commonwealth and to proceed with the buildout of Virginia’s portion 

of the National Public Safety Broadband Network. We also viewed 

the decision to opt in as a way to promote competition within the 

public safety communications marketplace in order to reduce costs 

and drive innovation for public safety agencies. 

The option to opt out was thoroughly reviewed through in-depth 

engagement with our public safety stakeholders across the Commonwealth. But the unknown costs of network construction, maintenance, and operation were neither feasible nor determined to be 

in the best interest of Virginia. 

Virginia has long been a leader in the field of public safety interoperable emergency communications. Our success is based on a belief that first responders and emergency communications experts 

should lead the effort to identify solutions, as they are the ones 

who best understand the unique threats we face and the resources 

needed to respond. 

I am joined here today by local public safety professionals from 

Virginia who have been instrumental in promoting interoperability 

and guiding our decision to opt in. Fire Chief Richard Bowers from 

Fairfax County is leading the effort to leverage the benefits from 

our decision to opt in, and I know Loudoun Chief Brower and others from Arlington County are here as well. 

Fairfax Fire now has interoperability between their public safety 

radio system and broadband with a push-to-talk application. When 

Fairfax Fire deployed to Houston to support Hurricane Harvey response efforts, they were able to utilize priority service. 

Terry Hall from York County serves as the Chair of the Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee. Through the SIEC, 

they have facilitated a collaborative multidiscipline process to engage our local governments. 

Virginia’s unique geography, critical infrastructure, and emerging threats require the Commonwealth’s public safety community 

to be prepared for a wide range of threats. Since the attacks at the 

Pentagon on 9/11, the goal has been, and still is today, to ensure 

continued interoperable communication among our first responders. 

We saw the importance of this this past June when Representative Scalise and his colleagues were victims of a horrible violent attack in an Alexandria ballpark. Again, in August, our Commonwealth was attacked when a large demonstration of white supremacists and neo-Nazis and counterprotesters descended on the 

33 

city of Charlottesville for a rally that resulted in the death of 

Heather Heyer and two state police troopers. 

It is tragic situations like these that highlight the importance of 

equipping our first responders with the tools they need to save 

lives. We believe that our decision to opt in creates the opportunity 

to realize the ultimate goal of creating a dedicated, safe, secure, 

and reliable network for public safety in the least risky manner. 

Moving forward, we will continue to work collaboratively with 

FirstNet and AT&T to maximize the benefits of the network for the 

Commonwealth’s public safety community. Essential to this collaborative effort is ensuring adequate coverage and reliability, especially in rural areas. We must ensure FirstNet and AT&T 

prioritize mission-critical voice and enhanced location capabilities 

in order to protect our men and women in uniform. 

As more states determine their best way forward, I know that 

the public safety community will continue to provide feedback to 

Congress, FirstNet, and AT&T. Virginia’s decision to opt in marked 

another significant step forward as we advance interoperable emergency communications and public safety, and we look forward to 

the work ahead. 

Thank you again, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:] 

34 


27974.020

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

Brian J. Moran 

Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Commonwealth ofVirginia 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

"Oversight of FirstNet: State Perspectives" 

November 1, 2017 
35 


27974.021

Summary 

Virginia conducted a coordinated and thorough review process involving local government 

public safety representatives to ensure that the decision to opt-in to FirstNet was informed by 

those who arc the subject matter experts for public safety communications. 

Opting in was the best decision for public safety in Virginia. Opting-in ensured, as quickly as 

possible, that our first responders have the right tools and resources to do their jobs, and are able 

to leverage the benefits of priority and preemption. Public safety agencies in Virginia who are 

current AT&T subscribers have already taken advantage ofFirstNet: Fairfax County Fire and 

Rescue Department's wireless devices were moved over to FirstNet, which gave them priority 

service when they deployed to Houston after the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey. There is 

no requirement for state agencies or localities to use the network or switch carriers, rather, 

opting-in has provided the option. Opting-in cost the Commonwealth nothing and does not 

commit the Commonwealth to any role in the FirstNct buildout. 

Opting out was not a viable option for Virginia. Virginia would have had to oversee the 

buildout of a highly technical broadband wireless network and assume all responsibility, liability, 

and fiscal accountability, maintenance, and management of users and customer care. Opting out 

would have required accepting the unknown, associated costs and risks for the ongoing 

deployment, operation, maintenance, and improvement of the network within the 

Commonwealth, which must be maintained in accordance with FirstNet's policies. As a one term 

administration, in the midst of transitioning to a new administration in January 2018, attempting 

to oversee and execute a project of this magnitude and ambiguity would have put the state on 

unsolid ground. 

Moving forward, Virginia will remain engaged with FirstNet/AT &T and stakeholders to 

ensure capabilities crucial to the success of the network come to fruition. AT&T does not 

have sufficient rural and small market network coverage in Virginia to warrant many agencies 

switching to FirstNet. The network must be hardened to ensure public safety-grade reliability. 

Stakeholders have expressed a desire that the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network be 

compatible with other networks to ensure interoperability-the motivation behind the creation of 

the network-is achieved. Mission-critical voice and mission-critical, enhanced location with 

z-axis, vertical capabilities are critical functions of the network and should be prioritized. 

2 
36 


27974.022

Introduction 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Doyle, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss furthering the effort to enhance 

emergency communications for public safety. 

Virginia is proud to have been the first state in the nation to opt-in to FirstNet's Nationwide 

Public Safety Broadband Network. This decision was critical to our ability to provide public 

safety with the tools they need to carry out their mission and protect lives. Virginia did not arrive 

at the decision to opt-in haphazardly. Since the tragic events of9/11, Virginia public safety 

professionals have been actively engaged in the efforts to improve emergency communications 

and fully leverage the technological advancements of mission-critical broadband. A coordinated 

and collaborative approach with local government public safety representatives was utilized to 

ensure that the decision was informed by those who are the subject matter experts for public 

safety communications and who stand on the frontlines of all-hazard emergency response. The 

decision to opt-in was based on the desire to ensure as quickly as possible that public safety is 

able to leverage the benefits of priority and preemption service, as well as to prevent costs to the 

Commonwealth and move forward with the collaborative process of building the network to 

meet the Virginia-specific needs of public safety. 

Virginia's Decision-Making Process 

Engagement with FirstNet & AT&T 

Since FirstNet was created, Virginia has been in continual contact with the agency; there have 

been countless meetings, briefings, calls, and emails. Virginia's State Single Point of Contact 

(SPOC) ensured continued communication throughout the process so that Virginia remained 

informed of developments as they occurred. Since the announcement of FirstNet and AT&T' s 

public/private partnership, Virginia's SPOC has facilitated numerous briefings for Virginia 

public safety leaders and the Commonwealth's senior leadership in the Governor's Office and 

the Office of the Attorney General. 

Engagement with Stakeholders 

Virginia has held over 70 state, regional, and local engagements with our stakeholders to ensure 

they are informed and involved in the process. These meetings engaged subject matter experts to 

3 
37 


27974.023

help identify Virginia's needs and priorities. This process helped to ensure state and local 

officials outside of public safety understood the role of FirstNet and how it would affect them. 

Presentations were neutral with regard to the opt-in/opt-out decision in order to elicit feedback 

that would enable an effective evaluation of each course of action. 

The Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC), made up of 33 representatives from 

state agencies, the seven Regional Preparedness Advisory Committees for Interoperability, and 

key professional public safety and telecommunication organizations provides guidance to the 

state on interoperability. The SIEC was integral in developing the state plan vetting and 

recommendation process. 

Engagement with Other SPOCs 

Virginia's perspective has always been, that in order for this to truly be a Nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband Network, states must work together to ensure the network meets everyone's 

needs. To this end, Virginia hosted a regional meeting with the SPOCs from six states, as well 

as the District of Columbia. This meeting produced valuable data to inform the plan evaluation 

and decision process, as well as feedback that was provided to FirstNet. This feedback directly 

contributed to the additional information states received after the FirstNet/ AT&T SPOC 

conference in Dallas, TX at the beginning of June. 

Request for Information (RFI) Review 

Virginia issued an RFI to ensure our ultimate decision was thorough and fully informed. Six 

responses were received and were reviewed by both the Office of the Secretary of Public Safety 

and Homeland Security and the Office of the Secretary of Technology. The responses did not 

contain information to convince us that opting-out was a viable endeavor. 

State Plan Review 

All of the above engagements served to inform Virginia's review of the state plan. Before the 

portal was accessible, the Office of the Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, the 

Virginia Information Technologies Agency, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, 

the Oflice of the Attorney General, the Office of the Secretary of Commerce and Trade, the 

Department of General Services, the Virginia State Police, and the Statewide Interoperability 

Executive Committee were informed of their role in the state plan review process. Over 100 

4 
38 


27974.024

individuals from localities and state agencies were given access to the state plan portal. It was our 

view that widespread engagement was essential to a thorough review of the plan. 

Once the plans were accessed and reviewed, Virginia was surprised that the information 

contained in the plans turned out to be a lot of the same information that FirstNet and AT&T had 

already provided. There was no significant information to analyze. Besides the state coverage 

map and local data, most of the information was similar to the public site. 

Opting-In was the Best Decision for Virginia 

Virginia Public Safety is Now Better Off 

Opting-in provided Virginia public safety personnel with an additional tool in the tool belt. 

Because AT&T is making available network capacity on all of its existing LTE bands, ahead of 

L TE deployment on FirstNet' s 700 MHz Band 14 spectrum, public safety agencies who are 

AT&T subscribers will have priority access on the network now. This will be invaluable in the 

event of a crisis or emergency situation. 

Early FirstNet Success from Fairfax County 

There are public safety agencies in Virginia who are current AT&T subscribers and, like 

Fairfax County, have already taken advantage ofFirstNet. Fairfax County Fire and 

Rescue Department's wireless devices were moved over to FirstNet, giving them priority 

service when they deployed to Houston after the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey. 

Fairfax Fire and Rescue is currently piloting ultra-rugged broadband devices to replace 

standard smartphones and some two-way radios, and currently has interoperability 

between the public safety radio system and broadband with the push-to-talk application. 

Opting-in generated competition among service providers, which will inevitably influence 

improvements to coverage and reductions in plan costs. Competition will also drive innovation 

and we want to make sure our responders are in the best position to do their jobs effectively, 

maintain situational awareness, and communicate within and across jurisdictions. 

No Cost to the Commonwealth 

Opting-in cost the Commonwealth nothing. Priority access on the network comes at no 

additional financial cost to subscriber nor to the Commonwealth. There is no requirement for 

5 
39 


27974.025

state agencies or localities to use the network or switch carriers, rather, opting-in provides the 

option. State and local agencies still have the decision-making power to decide which carrier 

works best for them based on coverage, reliability, cost, etc.; this simply tool adds to that 

analysis. The Commonwealth does not advocate for any particular service provider; our goal is 

to ensure our first responders have the tools they need to save lives. 

Opting-in does not commit the Commonwealth to any role in the FirstNet buildout. FirstNet and 

AT&T will build, operate, and maintain the Commonwealth's portion of the Nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband Network at no cost to Virginia. 

Opt-Out Consideration 

Opting out would have required the state to accept the unknown costs and risks for the ongoing 

deployment, operation, maintenance, and improvement of the network within Virginia, which 

must be maintained in accordance with FirstNet's policies. Virginia would have had to oversee 

the buildout of a highly technical broadband wireless network and assume all responsibility, 

liability, and fiscal accountability, maintenance, and management of users and customer care. 

The cost of what it will take to construct, maintain, and operate a public safety dedicated 

broadband network in the Commonwealth, that is interoperable with the Nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband Network and matches the quality of service, is still unknown. No one has been 

able to adequately assess the cost and unfortunately any profits would have to be reinvested in 

the network and would not have been able to serve as a revenue source for the state. 

Based on the legislative constraints, in particular the time constraints, thoroughly vetting an 

opt-out proposal, to the extent necessary, was not realistic. Choosing to do so would have put the 

Commonwealth in untenable, ambiguous position. As a one term administration, in the midst of 

transitioning to a new administration in January 2018, attempting to oversee and execute a 

project of this magnitude and ambiguity would have put the state on unsolid ground. Moreover, 

opting out would have delayed the benefits of network access to Virginia's first responders for 

an unacceptable time, perhaps as much as two years. This reality solidified Virginia's decision to 

opt-in; there were only benefits to doing so now, and none for waiting. 

6 
40 


27974.026

Virginia's Path Forward 

Virginia understands that the state plans are merely a base-line. There remains much to be seen. 

Many in Virginia are waiting for FirstNet and AT&T to fulfill the intent of the network before 

determining their next step. Thus, moving forward, Virginia will continue to assess issues and 

will remain engaged with FirstNet/AT &T and stakeholders in order to ensure capabilities crucial 

to the success of the network come to fruition. There are capabilities that Virginia has already 

identified as critical to a successful public-safety-dedicated broadband network: 

• Coverage: The public safety community is well aware that AT&T does not have 

sufficient rural and small market network coverage in Virginia. Band 14 buildout needs 

to occur where there are gaps in coverage, not just where it is economically viable. 

Virginia will continue to work with state and local partners to help AT&T identify and 

bolster its overall coverage. 

• Public Safety-grade: The network must be hardened to ensure public safety-grade 

reliability. The opportunities currently presented by AT&T's commercial network are 

beneficial, but this does not negate the increased level of reliability needed by public 

safety. Public safety networks must be constructed to provide timely, adequate 

propagation in a manner that best serves public safety, without regard for profitability. 

• Interoperability: Competition among wireless carriers drives innovation and brings 

many other foreseeable benefits; however, it also raises concerns over interoperability. 

Stakeholders have expressed a desire that the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband 

Network be compatible with other networks to ensure interoperability-the motivation 

behind the creation of the network-is achieved. 

• Mission-critical voice: It is not only the burden of needing multiple devices (one for 

voice, one for data) that demands this issue be addressed, but each state's economic 

burden as well, with the desire for new FirstNet data capabilities tempered by the 

ongoing need to maintain extensive separate voice networks across the same coverage 

area. FirstNet's RFP includes a March 2019 milestone for the mission-critical-push-totalk (MCPTT) technical capability to be implemented in its network, but more 

information is needed on specific, intermediate milestones for technology development, 

testing and validation, along with committed resources to achieve those milestones. 

7 
41 


27974.027

• Mission-critical, enhanced location (with z-axis, vertical capabilities): Unlike 

mission-critical voice, enhanced location is a more near-term reality, with known 

technologies capable of rolling out during the same timeframe as the base FirstNet L TE 

deployment. These capabilities, including 3D geolocation, situational awareness, and 

incident management command and control, would be of extraordinary value to first 

responders, both in finding an emergency caller, by floor, in a high-rise building as well 

as in protecting their own safety in the event they become disabled or endangered. This is 

a critical function of the network and should be prioritized ahead of the contract deadline. 

Continued Collaboration with FirstNet and AT&T 

An essential component of seeing these capabilities come to fruition, is continued collaboration 

with FirstNet and AT&T. A part of this, is the need to understand what will be expected from the 

SPOCs moving forward. Virginia wants to ensure we are able to maximize the benefits of the 

network to support the Commonwealth's public safety. Virginia recognizes that this is only the 

beginning and has no intention of ending discussions with FirstNet and AT&T. 

Continued Collaboration with Stakeholders 

As this process continues, Virginia will continue to work with our local partners to provide 

feedback to FirstNet and AT&T in order to ensure a viable network that will enhance public 

safety communications throughout Virginia. 

Since opting-in in July, Virginia's SPOC has hosted a series of seven regional conferences 

attended by over 600 stakeholders. Local and state public safety personnel from all disciplines 

attended the conferences for an in depth explanation ofFirstNet's Virginia State Plan, the actions 

taken to study the plan, and the various technologies that will leverage the network. 

Stakeholder outreach will continue in the upcoming months, with a second set of regional 

conferences, this time focused on a comprehensive overview of a jurisdiction's decision process 

in determining whether to use the FirstNet network. This series will specifically target key 

decision-makers in each jurisdiction with oversight of three main areas: Public Safety, 

Information Technology, and Contract/Procurement Management. Workshop participants will 

receive education materials and a customizable modeling tool to guide their jurisdiction's 

decision-making process. 

8 
42 


27974.028

Conclusion 

Governor McAuliffe views protecting public safety and supporting first responders as his top 

priority. Each day, Virginia's first responders put on their unifonns and leave their families and 

homes to risk their lives to keep our communities, citizens, and visitors safe. We are thankful 

every day for their service and sacrifice, and in return, we must continue to do more to protect 

their safety. 

Ensuring that our first responders have the right tools and resources available to do their jobs is a 

key component of achieving that goal. That is why Virginia is proud to have been the first state 

to officially opt-in to the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. This innovative 

technology will improve public safety throughout the entire Commonwealth and better protect 

our men and women in unifonn. 

FirstNct' s public safety broadband network marks another significant step forward with these 

wireless data capabilities. FirstNet and AT&T are committed to working with us to make sure 

Virginia will have the full coverage that our first responders need. We will continue to work 

closely with them to provide feedback on the network and look ahead to enhancements that will 

build on this current success. 

Virginia intends to not only lead the nation in the support and deployment of the Nationwide 

Public Safety Broadband Network, but also in support of the safety of its citizens and first 

responder community. 

9 
43 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. LeGrande, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LEGRANDE, II 

Mr. LEGRANDE. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking 

Member Doyle, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Robert LeGrande, and I am the former Chief Technology Officer with the District of Columbia government. I am a 

former program executive for the National Capital Region’s Interoperability Program. In this role, I led the District’s Land Mobile 

Ready upgrade and, also, led the development of the nation’s first 

citywide 700-megahertz wireless broadband network for first responders. This network was considered a model for the nation and 

served as a testbed how broadband applications can be shared 

among public safety agencies. 

I left the D.C. Government in 2007 and formed The Digital Decision. My firm leverages lessons learned from the District, the Land 

Mobile Ready, as well as the 700-megahertz wireless broadband deployments, to help states, locals, and even commercial customers 

prepare to deploy public safety broadband communication networks. 

I appreciate the committee’s ongoing efforts to address this critical issue, and I thank you for the opportunity to present my views 

on FirstNet. It is important to remember that FirstNet was created 

to address the communications problems that have plagued public 

safety for many years, especially the lack of interoperability, which 

we have spoken about so many times already, among our first responders. 

Along with my public safety colleagues, I believe that a dedicated 

public safety broadband network was what was needed to address 

the public safety requirements. In discussions with this subcommittee prior to the legislation being passed, I referenced my 

previous experience when working with a Seawolf Class nuclear attack submarine. No one would disagree that the Navy and our fleet 

is America’s first line of defense. By the same token, no one should 

disagree that our first responders are our last line of defense, including their communication systems. 

Now, we would never consider a U.S. Navy and a Carnival 

Cruise Line partnership in order to cover the operating cost of a 

nuclear attack submarine. So, why would we rely on anything less 

than a fully-funded dedicated public safety broadband network for 

our first responders? Well, of course, that was not possible, given 

the limitations of the available funding. That would have been $50 

billion or more. But Congress was able to provide FirstNet, and 

they did a good job of putting this together, with the spectrum and 

funding to support the development of a public safety broadband 

network and establish provisions to encourage the private sector 

involvement. 

Now, while many public safety officials, including myself, fought 

for a true dedicated public safety broadband network, what we actually got from FirstNet is access to AT&T’s network with public 

safety features and functions along with it. Now, while that may 

have been necessary, and it was, given the limitation of funding, 

it also means that we must look at this network and its competitive 

44 

options for states to make sure that they have viable means to opt 

out from this commercial offering, because it is truly a commercial 

offering. 

Now, unfortunately, I do not believe, as Mr. Stevens had mentioned earlier, that the opt-out requirements established under 

FirstNet adequately preserve the states’ rights to make their own 

decisions and consider competitive options for the network providers. This is especially troubling, given that half the FirstNet 

spectrum came from state and local governments. That sacrifice in 

spectrum makes state and local governments investors in FirstNet. 

At a minimum, states should have the same ability as FirstNet 

to develop a public-private partnership. States should be able to 

choose their preferred network provider and use that provider’s 

core to serve its public safety users as long as that network core 

complies with industry standards and is interoperable with AT&T’s 

network. If states are required to use a network core provided by 

AT&T, then that means that AT&T must provide service to their 

public safety users. 

This is not the kind of opt-out provision that public safety had 

in mind. States should not be subjected to stricter limitations or 

harsher penalties or fees than AT&T. Competition is the reason 

why the United States has the most advanced commercial LTE networks in the world, and competition must continue to ensure public 

safety benefits from the tremendous innovation and advances in 

communications. If there is one thing that the public safety communications industry needs, it is competition at every level. 

FirstNet decided that a public safety broadband network, a dedicated one was not achievable, but, instead, chose a commercial solution. FirstNet should, therefore, ensure that this approach is implemented on several key principles. 

First, it should support vibrant and fair competition. It should 

include open and nonproprietary devices and applications that are 

available to all providers. It should ensure that interoperability for 

all networks—I’m sorry, let me say that again. It must ensure 

interoperability for all networks that satisfy a minimum public 

safety standard. It should create incentives, not penalties but incentives, for private sector involvement that encourages broader industry support, and it should ensure a level playing field for the 

states’ opt-out process. 

With that, I really appreciate the committee’s time, and I look 

forward to answering the questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. LeGrande follows:] 

45 


27974.029

The 

Digital Decision 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LEGRANDE, II 

FOUNDER OF 

THE DIGITAL DECISION, LLC 

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE 

HEARING ON 

"OVERSIGHT OF FIRSTNET: STATE PERSPECTIVES" 

REPORT TESTIMONY 

NOVEMBER l, 2017 

Good afternoon Chairman Blackburn and members of the Subcommittee. My 

name is Robert LeGrande and I am the former Chief Technology Officer of the 

District of Columbia and former Program Executive for the National Capitol Region's 

Interoperability Program. In this role, I led the District's Land Mobile Radio (LMR) 

network upgrade and I also led the development of the nation's tirst city-wide 700 

MHz broadband wireless network tor first responders. This network was considered a 

model for the nation and served as a test bed for how broadband applications can be 

shared securely among public safety agencies.' During my time in the D.C. 

Government, I also formed the Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety which, in 

partnership with other national public safety groups, started the campaign for 

additional spectrum to support a nationwide Public Safety broadband network.2 
46 


27974.030

The 

Digital Decision 

www.thedigitaldecision.com 

I left the D.C. Government in 2007 and formed "The Digital Decision. LLC". 

My firm leverages lessons learned in the District's successful LMR and 700MHz 

wireless broadband network deployments to help state and local governments as well 

as commercial customers prepare to deploy Public Safety broadband communications 

networks. Our clients include and have included the states of Pennsylvania, Texas, 

Louisiana, New York, Florida, Nevada, and Michigan, as well as Baton Rouge, LA, 

Fairfax County, VA, APCO International, Alcatel-Lucent, Verizon, Motorola, and 

QUALCOM. 

First, please allow me to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of this 

Committee, FirstNet, NTIA, FCC, DHS, State and Local governments, industry as 

well as the national public safety organizations who all worked very hard to get where 

we are today. I appreciate the committee's ongoing efforts to address this critical issue 

and thank you for the opportunity to present my views on "FirstNet". Given the 

complexity of this issue and time allotted, I will keep my comments brief and focus 

on three key areas: How we got here; What FirstNet is and what it is not; and 

What I recommend for FirstNet's future. 

"How we got here." It is important to remember that the reason that FirstNet 

was created was to address the communications problems that have plagued public 

safety for many years; a lack of interoperability and a lack of advanced broadband 

solutions that meet their unique needs. My team in the District built America's first 

2 
47 


27974.031

The 

Digital Decision 

www.thedigitaldccision.com 

public safety wireless broadband network because we needed more coverage, more 

capacity, and more control all at a better cost. I was involved in discussions with the 

Subcommittee as the legislation was being debated and noted, along with my public 

safety colleagues, that a dedicated public safety broadband network was needed to 

secure public safety's future. 

In defense of a dedicated network, I made a reference to my previous 

experience working on the Seawolf Class nuclear attack submarine in 1996, and 

contrasted that project with how we should deploy our next generation public safety 

broadband network. No one would disagree that our Navy is America's "first line of 

defense." Similarly, no one should disagree that our first responders and their 

communications systems are America's "last line of defense." We would never 

consider a U.S. Navy and Carnival Cruise Line public-private partnership in order for 

us to pay the operating costs of a nuclear attack sub. So, why would we rely on 

anything less than a fully-funded network dedicated to first responders? 

Of course, that was not possible given the costs of deploying such a network 

and the limitations of available funding. But, Congress was able to provide FirstNet 

with an investment of both money and spectrum to support the development of a 

public safety network and established provisions to encourage private sector 

investment and leverage the assets and capabilities of commercial providers. 

3 
48 


27974.032

The 

Digital Decision 

www.thedigitaldecision.com 

"What FirstNet is and what it is not": While many public safety officials, 

including myself, fought for a dedicated public safety broadband network, we 

understood it was necessary to partner with commercial providers. What we didn't 

expect is that what we'd get from FirstNet is simply access to AT&T's commercial 

network with public safety features and functions. While that may have been 

necessary for FirstNet to attract a commercial pminer, it also means we should view 

this network arrangement differently than had this been a truly dedicated network. It 

places even greater importance on ensuring that public safety has competitive options 

and that states have a viable means to opt-out ofFirstNet. 

Most people are not aware that the concept of an Opt-Out provision was 

originally envisioned well before the FirstNet legislation and was considered by the 

FCC as it attempted to establish a public-private patinership through an auction of the 

D-block spectrum. As the FCC was developing its rules, the Spectrum Coalition for 

Public Safety recommended an Opt-Out provision to ensure State and Local 

jurisdictions had the right to build and operate their portion of a nationwide public 

safety broadband network. As evidence to support a state-based approach, the 

Spectrum Coalition presented the FCC with details regarding the public safety 

700MHz broadband network we were operating within the District of Columbia. We 

had the capital to expand the network throughout the region, and a business case and 

operating agreement among the 19 jurisdictions that would save $9M annually. 

4 
49 


27974.033

The 

Digital Decision 

www.thedigitaldecision.com 

Given my experience in the District, Subcommittee staff asked me in early 

2012 to draft recommended State opt-out language for the FirstNet legislation. 

proudly offered a draft, and some of the provisions I proposed were used in the tina! 

legislation. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the State Opt-Out requirements 

recently provided to States by FirstNet adequately preserve that States' rights to make 

their own communications decisions and consider competitive offers from other 

network providers. This is especially troubling given that half of the FirstNet 

spectrum came from the State and Local governments. That sacrifice of spectrum 

makes State and Local Governments full "investors" in FirstNet, and it's critically 

important that their communications needs are adequately addressed. 

At a minimum, States should have the same ability as FirstNet to develop a 

public-private partnership that meets their needs. States should be able to choose their 

preferred network partner and be able to use that provider's Core Network to serve its 

public safety users as long as that Core Network complies with industry best practices 

and standards and is interoperable with AT&T's network. If States are required to use 

the Core Network provided by AT&T, then it means they must use AT&T to provide 

service to their public safety users. That is not the kind of Opt-out provision that 

public safety had in mind when it recommended such provisions be included in the 

law. States should be on equal terms in building and operating their own state 
50 


27974.034

The 

Digital Decision 

www.thedigitaldccision.com 

networks, and should not be subjected to stricter limitations or harsher penalties or 

fees than AT&T. 

One word best describes the reason the United States has the most advanced 

commercial L TE networks in the world; that word is "competition". The fierce 

competition that exists within the wireless industry has yielded tremendous innovation 

and advances in communications that benefit both public safety and the general 

consumer. If there is one thing that the public safety communications industry needs, 

it's competition at every level. The lack of effective competition in this area is the 

reason that public safety's land mobile radio systems still suffer from high costs and 

limited innovation. 

I do not believe it serves public safety well that FirstNet has linked itself so 

closely to a single network provider. At conferences around the country, you cannot 

tell a FirstNet representative from an AT&T one. FirstNet should not be in the 

business of promoting a particular commercial provider. It should focus on its central 

mission which is to represent the interests of public safety. And, that should include 

ensuring that states have a viable means to opt-out should that be their decision. 

What I recommend for FirstNet's future: FirstNet decided that a dedicated 

public safety broadband network was not achievable, and instead chose a Commercial 

Carrier solution. While that approach may be the most effective way to address 

6 
51 


27974.035

The 

Digital Decision 

www.thedigitaldecision.com 

public safety's needs given the limited public resources available, FirstNet should 

ensure that this approach is implemented based on several key principles: 

• ft should support vibrant and fair competition; 

• It should include the use of open and non-proprietary devices and 

applications which are available to all providers; 

• It should ensure interoperability for all networks that satisfy a minimum 

public safety standard; 

• It should create incentives for private sector involvement that encourage 

broader industry support ; and 

• It should ensure a level playing field for the State Opt-out process so that 

states are assured of their legislatively guaranteed right to make their 

own communications decisions. 

These adjustments to FirstNet's current approach will result in increased 

innovation and competitive pricing for the public safety industry. Simply put, let's not 

alter the tried and true laws of open and fair competition for the FirstNet marketplace. 

We need to look no further than the problems with the public safety communications 

of the past to see what we do not desire for public safety's future. 

ln conclusion, the FirstNct Board and Staff have done a good job in recognizing 

the potential for leveraging commercial investments and innovation to secure public 

safety's future. But, we must be sure that FirstNet leverages all of the benefits that a 

7 
52 


27974.036

The 

Digital Decision 

www.thedigitaldecision.com 

competitive communications marketplace has to otrer. And, we must ensure that it 

achieves the primary goal that Congress set out to achieve effective, reliable, and 

interoperable communications for first responders. I commend this Subcommittee for 

its efforts to address these critical issues, and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to 

share my recommendations. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

8 
53 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. That concludes all 

of our opening statements, and we are going to move to the question-and-answer portion. 

For all of our colleagues that are here today, Mr. Doyle and I 

have discussed how we want to stay right to that 5-minute questioning. And if you get to the end of your 5 minutes and you have 

got a question, if you will submit it for a written response, that will 

help us to be mindful of everyone’s time and finish the hearing 

prior to votes being called. 

So, I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. Sambar, I want to come to you first. Cybersecurity and cybersecurity measures are something we continue to talk about here 

in this committee. So, as you are looking at this network and the 

buildouts and the integration, do you all have a strong cybersecurity plan? What type of encryptions or firewalls do you have that 

will prevent some malicious cyberattacks? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the question. 

I will start with Mr. LeGrande’s point that he just made on 

interoperable cores. I think that feeds right into your question. 

Part of this is a nationwide interoperable network. Part of the 

strength in that nationwide interoperable network is reducing what 

I call seams or vulnerabilities as much as possible. When you try 

to have cores interoperating and force interoperability between 

cores, you introduce seams. That is why the interpretation of the 

law that was passed, the RFP that was issued, and the FirstNet 

Authority, as I have said publicly recently, core-to-core interoperability is not something that they are interested in because they 

don’t want to introduce those vulnerabilities. So, that is really the 

first step in cybersecurity. 

Next, beyond that, we are building a separate public safety core. 

So, to say that this is going to be traffic on our commercial core 

is not correct. From a technical standpoint, we are building a separate interoperable public safety core network, which means all of 

the traffic for first responders that flows across this network will 

be on that core, not on our commercial core. So, that is the next 

level of security. That core network will be encrypted from end to 

end, and we have designed that encryption, at the direction of the 

FirstNet Authority, to comply with various state and federal requirements. 

And then, the last piece of this—well, there is actually another 

one. I could probably go on for 10 minutes, but I want to—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. No, I have only got 5. That is OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAMBAR. I understand. So, I will respect your time. 

The next piece is the device itself in the first responder’s hand. 

So, we do self-certification on all of our devices, but the FirstNet 

Authority has a lab in Boulder, Colorado, where they will also be 

certifying the devices. 

Then, the applications on the device, oftentimes vulnerabilities 

are introduced to a device through the applications on a device. 

That is why we have set up a public safety app store specifically 

for public safety—you have to authenticate to get into this app 

store; it is not open to the public—where we can validate the security and functionality of those applications. 

54 

And then, the last piece of this, the Security Operations Center. 

So, AT&T operates a Global Security Operations Center. We are 

standing up a separate Security Operations Center, roughly 100 

people that will do nothing but 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 

days a year, monitor the traffic on this core network, the first responder traffic. 

So, as you can see, multiple steps that we are taking to ensure 

cybersecurity is job 1 on this network. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Stevens, I want to come to you and 

Mr. Moran. 

There are several of us on this panel that have rural areas, and 

I am sure Mr. Loebsack is going to talk to you about some of this. 

And when we look at the expectation of buildout schedules, you 

talked a little bit about the timeline on the RFP end. So, on the 

expectation of the buildout schedule for these rural and remote 

areas, as you are reviewing proposals, do you think that we should 

be confident they are going to be able to make these schedules? 

Should we be apprehensive? Should we change how we are reviewing and monitoring some of this ourselves? What do you think the 

expectation is here? And is FirstNet being helpful to the process or 

not? 

Mr. STEVENS. The State of New Hampshire certainly is a rural 

state and it is divided by a number of different sections. The southern part of New Hampshire is considered really metropolitan Boston. We have a major rural area in the western part of the state 

and in the northern part of the state. 

When we originally looked at the maps that were being provided 

by FirstNet early on in the process, much of the northern part of 

the state was ruled out as far as development was concerned. In 

fact, FirstNet said to us at that point in time that primarily they 

would be looking at building out from Manchester and Nashua, 

which are the two largest cities in New Hampshire. 

Now, since that time, we have had a number of meetings in regards to buildout and price. I will have to say that the meetings 

that we had with AT&T and FirstNet were extremely constructive, 

and we felt that the buildout was much larger than we had originally sought from the original plans. However, what we were able 

to ascertain from our alternative plan was the alternative plan was 

providing for us statewide coverage from the northern part of New 

Hampshire to the southern tip and east to west. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. Poth, I am going to submit a question for the record for you 

on NTIA. I want to get some answers there. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And, Mr. LeGrande, I will submit one to you 

having to do with your work as state and local authorities. We 

have got a couple of points there. 

The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Moran, you look like you are a much younger, better-looking 

version of former Congressman Jim Moran. Are you related to him? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MORAN. I am not sure. Will you accept my comments based 

on my answer? 

[Laughter.] 

55 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We could tell by your voice the minute you 

started to talk. 

Mr. DOYLE. Welcome. Tell Jim we say hello. 

Mr. MORAN. Will do. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Poth, if a state opts out and contracts with a 

third party and the network fails or fails to meet its obligations, 

what are the risks and what are the obligations to FirstNet and 

other states? 

Mr. POTH. That is a great question, and thank you for that. As 

you point out, if a state that has opted out at any path along the 

way of that 25-year period is unable to continue because of the contractor, or for whatever reason, we are going to instantly start 

working with that state to try to minimize the impacts to that state 

and, most importantly, to public safety in that state, to reconstitute 

the network and try to move it forward. 

As you mentioned in your opening statement, this is a very complicated network with a lot of moving parts. And if a state that 

opts out—and we are fully supportive of that—has those problems, 

then we are going to have to figure out ways to recover costs. 

FirstNet will not have the cost. AT&T is not obligated to put any 

money into that to help recover the cost in that state that has run 

into the problem. So, we are going to be working with the state on 

how to quickly minimize. 

If they have, for example, received some grant funding, from 

NTIA that hasn’t been completely expended, that may be an opportunity to use some of those funds to help get the network back to 

a point where it is, once again, nationwide and operable. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Stevens, I understand Rivada has conducted projects here 

and around the world and has some valuable experience, but I also 

understand that Rivada is not currently operating a live radio access network in the United States or, for that matter, anywhere 

else in the world. I understand they made you an offer you couldn’t 

refuse, but I am just curious, are you a little bit nervous contracting with a company that doesn’t currently operate a network 

anywhere in the world? 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, based on the information that we have been 

provided through the alternative plan, and with the safeguards 

that we have enacted through the negotiation with Rivada as far 

as having performance and surety bonds in place, we feel that, as 

we move forward and actually develop a service contract, if, in fact, 

there should be a decision in New Hampshire to opt out, then we 

feel that New Hampshire is confident that we would be able to continue and provide a statewide application to FirstNet for all our 

first responders. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Let me ask Mr. Sambar and you, Mr. Stevens, we have seen, 

with the recent devastating hurricanes in Texas, Florida, Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands, as well as what has happened in California with the wildfires, that communications can go down during 

disasters because of a lack of electricity and for other reasons. I 

would think a state would want to be assured that the FirstNet 

network is supported by a carrier with the wherewithal and the experience to recover communication services during disasters. 

56 

Let me ask you, what experiences does Rivada have in restoring 

communications during hurricanes and fires and other natural disasters of this magnitude? And I would ask Mr. Sambar the same 

question. 

Mr. STEVENS. Are you asking me, sir? 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEVENS. The only thing that I am familiar with in regards 

to communications that were set up based on a natural disaster 

was Rivada’s commitment to the State of Louisiana after Katrina. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Sambar? 

Mr. SAMBAR. So, from AT&T’s standpoint, Congressman, you are 

probably aware of the last four hurricanes, all the restoration efforts. I could go into details of tornadoes, wildfires in California. 

We have extensive experience. Our natural disaster recovery program has been funded at over $600 million over the past 20 years. 

So, we have a significantly large program. 

And I will note, just in the Q3 earnings that AT&T released last 

week, we noted a 2-cents-per-share earnings hit or earnings cost to 

AT&T based on the recent disasters just in the quarter. That 

equates to roughly $200 million in impact to AT&T. So, obviously, 

a large company with the wherewithal to absorb impacts like that 

is probably very important to this program, and we think we are 

that company. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I see, in the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish here, that I will not ask my other questions, but submit them 

for the record for answers. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Quick learners. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Lance, you are recognized, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Chair. 

Mr. Poth, as I mentioned in my opening statement, interoperability issues faced by the first responders on 9/11 was a significant 

factor in the creation of FirstNet. The law allows state and local 

public safety agencies to make their own communications decisions, 

regardless of the state’s opt-out decision. Consequently, it is likely 

that some public safety agencies will continue to use other network 

providers beside AT&T. Does FirstNet intend to establish agreements with other providers to enable interoperability across multiple networks and, if not, how would that have an impact on public safety communications? 

Mr. POTH. So, the current system will allow the interoperability. 

So, another carrier provider to public safety, those devices will be 

able to talk to a FirstNet/AT&T device. We are not going to be pursuing contractual relationships with other providers for that, since 

the interoperability is a requirement and it is a standard. 

We are also, as part of our statute, requiring open standards for 

the devices and applications, as Mr. Sambar mentioned earlier, for 

public safety. So, we think that that addresses the needs if a public 

safety agency all the way down to a local firefighter decides that 

the better solution for them is to go with another solution set other 

than the FirstNet one. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

57 

Mr. Sambar, would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. 

So, I would say, to make it brief, there are international standards which govern the wireless industry around the world called 

3GPP standards. We have committed to FirstNet Authority, which 

they asked us to commit to, that we will maintain those standards. 

We have for the past 40-plus years in the wireless industry and we 

will continue to do so. 

It is the reason that, when I text you on your phone, regardless 

of what provider you have, we can get a text across with no problem. We can send an email. We could talk to each other. And it 

works that way around the world. 

We will continue that. We are very interested in open interoperable. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

And, Mr. LeGrande, could you please comment on what the public safety implications would be in the case of failure to enable 

interoperability? 

Mr. LEGRANDE. Well, we need no, unfortunately, looking further 

than what happened in New York. That was tragic. 

And when I started my work here in Washington, D.C., believe 

it or not, in 2001 we didn’t have any public safety communications 

at all in the WMATA tunnel systems. That was a program that I 

led—I think there is a member of the fire department here—proudly, with Chief Ramsey and Chief Thompson. 

I think it is important to note that what Mr. Sambar was referring to with regards to interoperability and 3GPP standards, yes, 

carriers have interoperability that they do every day. There are 

partners that AT&T has around the world. Core-to-core interoperability is what they do as a standard practice. 

What I am advocating for is to make sure that we have established a swim lane internationally and nationally how carriers operate, and that we should not alter that because we have a commercial system that we are leveraging. We are not leveraging a 

dedicated network only for public safety. It is a shared network 

with the public. Now it is segregated at the core, as he mentioned, 

but it is certainly shared at the RAN, which is the lower part of 

the architecture. 

I don’t want to be too technical. I don’t want to go too far on this 

answer. But it is important that we continue to allow the carriers 

who exist to fight for public safety’s business. The bottom line, the 

biggest barrier of entry—and I have been around the country talking to folks, sir, and Frank Gianetti in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 

where I am from—the biggest barrier to entry is cost. And the best 

way to drive down cost and to drive up innovation is competition. 

And, oh, by the way, to ensure that the carriers follow the way 

they have already done business, which is to interoperate through 

those standards, and core-to-core is a part of that. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. LeGrande. 

And, Chair, I yield back 50 seconds. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. There you go. 

Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes. 

58 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have abused the 5- 

minute rule in the past. I promise I won’t do it this time. Thank 

you very much. I readily admit that. 

[Laughter.] 

I really appreciate this hearing today. 

Mr. Moran, I had the same thoughts—thank you very much for 

being here today—about your relation. 

I do greatly appreciate FirstNet’s vigilance to ensure that rural 

areas of the country gain access to the nationwide public safety 

broadband network, including by specifying a 15-percent geographic requirement for the prime contractor to partner with existing rural telecom providers. And we have a lot of those folks in 

Iowa. We do all over rural America. 

So, to Mr. Sambar and to Mr. Poth, where is AT&T in its 

progress toward that 15-percent geographic requirement? Is there 

any public information that AT&T and/or FirstNet can share with 

us on this issue? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Thank you, Congressman. 

The 15 percent is a requirement contractually between AT&T 

and the FirstNet Authority. I will tell you, the network build is just 

beginning. So, I can’t give you a number today because we haven’t 

actually built it yet. But I have no problem in the coming months 

and years of providing that information, whether it is in this forum 

or in a different forum. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes, we would like to keep track of that as we 

are progressing. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes, and we are happy to. What I will tell you is 

that, based on the network designs that we have today—and again, 

only half, just over half of the states have opted in—but should all 

of the states opt in, or close to all of the states, we actually think 

we will exceed the 20 percent mark. So, 15 percent is the bare minimum that we need to attain. We are actually looking at over 20 

percent at this point. So, we are very confident in our ability to hit 

that target and use those rural providers. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. As you both know, Iowa has opted in. 

Mr. POTH. Right, right. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Thank you. 

Mr. POTH. And it is important to note, also, that in our contract 

they are required to build out rural in each phase of the contract. 

They can’t wait until the other areas that they wanted to build or 

built and, then, start rural. The next phase they have to have 20- 

percent rural buildout; the phase after that, 60 percent; 80, and all 

the way up to 100 percent. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. So, how do we define a rural partner in situations 

like this? How does AT&T define it or FirstNet define it? 

Mr. SAMBAR. I am going to give the quick answer, and he will 

give the detailed answer. We define it based on their definition, 

and he will tell you their definition. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. SAMBAR. You are the boss. 

Mr. POTH. So, we required in the RFP that they identify rural 

TELCO partners in each of the states that they had intended to 

partner with. And then, that is what we are measuring them 

59 

against, to make sure that those relationships have, in fact, been 

consummated. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. So, it is determined at the state level who rural 

is then? Is that—— 

Mr. POTH. No, not at the state; at AT&T who, as all the bidders 

had to, identified rural partners in each of the states. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Mr. POTH. Some have multiple TELCOs that they may be using. 

We are measuring them against what they committed to in their 

proposal. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I have to throw it back to you, Mr. Sambar. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Sure. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. So, how do you define rural? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Sir, I think you are looking for a definition of the 

word ‘‘rural’’? 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes, right. 

Mr. SAMBAR. FirstNet Authority defines, because we were curious when we signed the contract, FirstNet defines it based on the 

Rural Electrification Act. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Mr. SAMBAR. And it is 20,000 population in a given geography. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. OK. 

Mr. SAMBAR. So, we are following that definition. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. OK. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And to you, Mr. Sambar, does AT&T’s rural partnership efforts include only wireless networks and towers or is 

AT&T also planning to leverage fiber-back, all assets? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes, sir, it will be wireless, wire line. That includes 

cable, microwave, and fiber. So, it will be all of the above. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. OK. Great. Thank you. 

Still some time left, Madam Chair? 

It will be essential that FirstNet is able to roam onto existing 

rural networks before the MPSBM is available. Mr. Poth, how are 

you ensuring that devices are developed that can successfully roam 

onto Tier 2 and Tier 3 rural wireless networks? 

Mr. POTH. That is a great question. I think I will defer to Mr. 

Sambar since they are the ones that have to implement the technology. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. A lot of deference today. 

Mr. SAMBAR. We do defer back and forth, don’t we? 

[Laughter.] 

So, the way the wireless world operates today is you have no 

issue when you go into different areas around the country—and I 

travel every week—whether it is a rural carrier in one area, and 

depending on what the backhaul is or the fronthaul with the wireless network; it doesn’t matter. We will continue to do the same 

thing on the FirstNet network. 

And again, it is based on the 3GPP standards that I mentioned 

earlier. Those are international standards. So, whether you are on 

a domestic wireless network owned by AT&T or a rural provider 

or international—say you are in Mexico, South America, or somewhere in Europe—you will be able to roam on any provider’s network and it won’t be an issue. 

60 

Mr. LOEBSACK. OK. And again, respecting the Chair’s request 

that we finish up in a timely fashion, I do have a question about 

affordability, but I think we can probably submit that for the 

record. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

And, Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am wondering how Loebsack got all my questions. How did you 

get my questions over there? 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I lucked out. I was before you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Yes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Not normally am I, but—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is almost word for word. So, he covered a lot 

of the rural concerns that I had. 

But I guess I would want to follow up with the question of overbuilding that may occur. And that would be to Mr. Sambar. How 

do you protect from what we have seen, overbuilding in other areas 

and other aspects of communication? So, what about overbuilding? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. 

I should have started off my comments with rural, which everywhere that I have traveled over the last year and a half around the 

country, whether it is a governor or the governor’s staff, public 

safety entities, some of the gentlemen back here, the first responders—thanking them for coming—but some of them have mentioned 

it to me. You need to cover rural areas. So, we have gotten the 

message loud and clear. We absolutely understand that. 

We are embarking on an aggressive build plan to build out rural 

areas. Some of that will be AT&T building it, and some of it, that 

would be considered us building. And in some cases we will be 

using rural providers to build that out. 

The topic of overbuilding, the 15 percent was set because they 

believe that is an attainable goal. If our goal was to go and overbuild repeatedly, we would never hit the 15 percent and we surely 

would not a hit a 20-percent number, which is what we are projecting. 

There will be some cases where we can’t come to commercial 

agreement with a rural provider, but in those cases we will look 

to other rural providers to see if they are interested, so that we can 

maintain that percentage with rural. So, our goal is to use rural 

providers as much as possible. In many cases their economics are 

better than ours, and it just makes sense for us to do that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you. 

Let me go to Mr. Stevens from New Hampshire. I pulled up the 

FirstNet website. So, maybe you can help explain this to me. 

The state has released a plan, and the state plan’s review is 

under consultation. Is that how you view that? 

Mr. STEVENS. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, part of this plan is your opt-out? That is part 

of the plan that you have submitted to FirstNet? Or using an outside provider other than AT&T? 

Mr. STEVENS. No. We are in the process of reviewing all aspects 

in regards to opt in and opt out. No decision has been made by 

New Hampshire at this point in time. And basically, we are comVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:40 May 30, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-71 CHRIS
61 

paring the two plans, the alternative plan and the state plan provided by FirstNet, to ascertain what is best for New Hampshire. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. LeGrande, AT&T and its partners did a bid for this to 

FirstNet, and then, obviously, they won the bid. In your opening 

statement are you proposing that the bid specifications should be 

now modified? 

Mr. LEGRANDE. No, I am not suggesting that the bid should be 

modified. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. As far as the responsibilities, the agreements, and 

what they are supposed to do? 

Mr. LEGRANDE. No. What I am suggesting, just so we are clear, 

that FirstNet, if we were to join a dedicated network, meaning 

when I say ‘‘dedicated,’’ I mean—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, we have got it. We have had that debate here. 

We did this because we didn’t have the money and we wanted to 

leverage the success of the private sector. 

Mr. LEGRANDE. In fact, the exciting thing about it is there is a 

real opportunity where FirstNet can say, well, OK, I agree that you 

may not want to establish any contracts or agreements with the 

other carriers, but certainly try to meet with them to bring them 

and incent them. Take out the penalties from AT&T; incent them. 

When I was a CTO here, my biggest problem is I couldn’t get 

these guys in my office because we are a small market piece now. 

The great thing about it, the great thing about what is going on 

with FirstNet is they have created an opportunity where FirstNet 

can act as a regulatory—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I only have 50 seconds left. 

Mr. LEGRANDE. Right. Sorry. I’m sorry. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, I know you are very passionate. 

Mr. LEGRANDE. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I appreciate it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Sambar, do you feel that some of these proposals may provide different goals and objectives than what was laid in the original bid? 

Mr. SAMBAR. I can’t speak for the states and their goals and objectives. Over half of them have opted in, so they are completely 

aligned with our goals and objectives. When we go into the states, 

we negotiate with them on where they want additional infrastructure, where they want generators, what areas they want covered. 

And we leave the decision largely up to them. So, I think our goals 

are 100-percent aligned. 

I think there are some states that may have other goals in mind, 

not just a first responder network, but monetization, for example, 

to get money for the state budget. That is not what this is about. 

This is not a rural broadband initiative. This is for first responders, 

which does overlap into rural, thankfully. But I think we need to 

focus on first responders. That is what we are building this for. 

This is not a money-making scheme. This is not a spectrum deal. 

This is for first responders for the next 25 years. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

62 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

FirstNet implementation is essential for creating a state-of-theart nationwide public safety network, and this is critical during 

emergencies. This week marks 5 years since Superstorm Sandy 

swept through my district, and the lessons of that storm are as applicable today as they were then. And 5 years later, I can say there 

are three things we need to focus on to make sure we are better 

prepared for the next major storm. 

First, we need to keep our networks online during these emergencies, and that is why I drafted the SANDy Act to give our network operators the resources they need to repair our networks during disasters. And that is also why I worked with the wireless industry to create the Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative 

Framework, to ensure people can call for help during an emergency, even if their network goes down. 

And second, we need to upgrade our 911 networks to be more secure and resilient and to handle the information required of a 21st 

century network. Among other things, that means ensuring that 

911 knows your location when you place a call. 

And third, we need to get FirstNet operational as quickly as possible to give our first responders the tools they need to better protect us and coordinate emergency responses. 

I wanted to mention specifically that New Jersey was one of the 

first states to opt in, which makes sense, given JerseyNet’s success 

as a proof-of-concept for FirstNet as a whole. 

So, I wanted to ask Mr. Poth, are there lessons learned from 

New Jersey’s experience that can benefit the nationwide network? 

Mr. POTH. Absolutely, and New Jersey was a great example. The 

state did opt in. We have been working with them for years. But 

what actually happened with the recent hurricanes down in Florida, New Jersey, who had already opted in with their assets from 

JerseyNet, asked if they could respond down to Florida to help another state using those assets. So, the nationwide response for public safety was happening in real time. So, I think that was a great 

example of taking advantage of an early builder and of New Jersey’s ‘‘can do’’ attitude, that really helped Florida with FirstNet assets that were residing in New Jersey. And we hope to see that 

that model replicates itself throughout the country. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, thank you. 

I wanted to clear up some questions about the bipartisan law 

that we passed in 2012 that established FirstNet. First, when Congress passed the law, we made clear that states could opt out of 

the wireless portion of the network, but they are prohibited from 

building a different core of the network. 

So, again, Mr. Poth, is that your understanding of the law as 

well? 

Mr. POTH. Yes, and, as it was discussed earlier, one of the other 

complications with any additional cores is around that cybersecurity. That is something that we cannot have any leniency. This 

must be a robust, secure network. But a single core is the intent, 

and that is what we are executing to. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, thank you. 

The second thing, when we passed the law, some of us were concerned about the way states divert 911 fees to other projects. And 

63 

to stop that from happening to FirstNet, we required all fees raised 

by the states to be invested only back into the network. 

So, let me ask Secretary Moran, if I can, can you walk us 

through the financial considerations you took into account when 

Virginia decided to opt into the network? 

Mr. MORAN. Well, first of all, in Virginia we don’t raise fees. So, 

it’s a low-tax state, very competitive for business. 

[Laughter.] 

So, Mr. Congressman, it was at no cost. That was one of our primary reasons for opting in, was that it was at no cost to the Commonwealth. In assessing and evaluating the options for the state 

to build out the network, it would have been cost-prohibitive. And 

obviously, our primary responsibility, as yours is, is to provide that 

dedicated network to our first responder community. So, we saw 

the no cost being one of the primary factors to make that decision. 

So, there is no cost to the Commonwealth. 

Mr. PALLONE. I don’t know if anybody mentioned it; you look a 

lot like your brother, but you sound just like him when you spoke. 

Let me ask Mr. Sambar, going back to the three priorities I mentioned earlier—next-generation 911, network resiliency, and 

FirstNet—as the only carrier testifying today, what are you doing 

to further these goals? 

Mr. SAMBAR. So, your three goals, I will hit them in order. 

Networks online. If you use Hurricane Harvey in Texas as an example, at anytime we had no more than 4 percent of our network 

down at any given time throughout Texas. That is when the hurricane hit through the week following with the floods. So, we are 

pretty proud of our ability to keep networks online, and that is 

hundreds of thousands of people working very hard to keep the network going. 

Secondly, the 911 networks. AT&T is one of the largest carriers 

investing in the 911 networks or next-generation 911 in the United 

States. And we feel really good about the natural synergies between the next-generation 911 that we are offering and the 

FirstNet network, and the ability to go from the call that the citizen is making into the 911 PSAP and out to the first responder 

over the FirstNet network. There is some real natural synergies 

there that work really well. 

And then, getting FirstNet up and operational, and that is possible by a big carrier like us. We do start with our commercial network as the foundation. So, states that have opted in, we already 

have subscribers signing up for FirstNet. They do start on our commercial core and our commercial network. They will graduate in 

March of next year to the FirstNet network, but we want to get it 

up and operational as soon as possible. We don’t want states to 

have to wait 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Mr. SAMBAR. So, I think that hits all your priorities, Congressman. 

Mr. PALLONE. It does. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

64 

And it is a really important hearing. I represent a district in 

Ohio that is very, very needy in terms of broadband. There are 

many places throughout my district where we have high school 

children who have to go to the neighboring town to get to a Tim 

Horton’s or a Panera Bread, where there is wifi, so that they can 

do their homework assignments, or to a public library to get to a 

computer. Some schools even give out laptops, but the students 

don’t have any connectivity to the outside world with which to do 

their work. So, it is a really, really important issue for me. 

And when you think about the opportunities and the economics 

of it, companies aren’t going to come into a region and set up facilities if they can’t get access to their customers, to their suppliers, 

recruit employees, et cetera, et cetera. So, the urban/rural divide is 

a very real thing from a broadband perspective. 

Mr. Sambar, first of all, thank you for your service. I appreciate 

that. I have a number of Navy SEALs in my district back in Ohio. 

I could probably throw their names out there. And I worked for Admiral Tom Steffens. I don’t know if you remember him. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But he was my last boss when I was on active 

duty at Special Operations Command. 

So, thank you for your service. 

The buildout of rural broadband, obviously, is a priority of mine. 

I have held multiple roundtables in Ohio to discuss with stakeholders the benefits and challenges of broadband deployment. 

If a state such as Ohio opts into FirstNet, how will it impact the 

broadband buildout in rural areas? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for your service as well, especially helping my brothers and sisters at the Special Operations Command. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You bet. 

Mr. SAMBAR. I appreciate that. 

So, as I mentioned earlier, it is not a rural broadband initiative, 

but the benefits for rural customers and those in rural areas are 

unbelievable when it comes to FirstNet. And I will give you a specific example. I won’t give you the state. 

But a state in the South that has opted in, one of the main requirements that they put on us was they said, ‘‘We want every 

school in our state covered with coverage, wireless coverage.’’ And 

they are not all today. They told us specifically which schools were 

not covered, and we went out and did wireless surveys to ensure 

that they were. And they said, not only do first responders go to 

those areas, but in a lot of those areas those are the severe weather 

centers where people evacuate to. So, we said, absolutely, and we 

fulfilled that requirement for the state. 

So, this goes back to the flexibility of the program and the ability 

of the states to negotiate where they want the incremental coverage. The public-private partnership between us and the FirstNet 

Authority makes it possible. You noted the challenging economics 

in some cases to cover rural areas. The economics of this program 

make that less challenging and easier for us to do, so that we can 

fulfill the requirements and the desires of the states. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure, and I am sure I don’t have to tell you and 

the rest of the panel how important first responders being linked 

65 

in is to a rural community. I mean, it takes a long time sometimes 

to get from point A to point B when something goes down, whether 

it is a natural emergency or criminal activity, or whatever, an accident, whatever that may be. Having first responders as a part of 

that is critically important. 

For the entire panel, first and foremost, we must provide our 

first responders with a reliable network and the tools they need to 

prepare for and respond. We just talked about that. Can you describe the benefits for first responders in rural areas if the state 

chooses to opt into FirstNet? Let’s just go down the line here. 

Mr. POTH. Through our exhaustive proposal process, we set out 

a solution to do just that for public safety, all 56 states and territories where there is rural or urban. And we are absolutely confident that through the solution that we have picked, based on public safety’s feedback and the solution provider, in this case AT&T, 

we will be able to meet that objective. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Anybody else care to address that one? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Sure. I will give you 10 seconds of your 17 seconds. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. SAMBAR. The benefits to the state of jobs and infrastructure, 

the rural broadband benefits to the state, and then, features like 

priority, preemption, mission-critical voice, all those things that 

public safety has been asking for for years. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you view it as a negative? If a state chooses 

to opt out, will it be a negative impact to first responders if a state 

opts out? 

Mr. SAMBAR. I think there are some significant challenges if a 

state chooses to opt out. Of course, we will be happy to work with 

them. That is our charter, and we will do everything we can to be 

interoperable with that state. But there are some challenges as far 

as the time it will take them to build it out, the reliability/redundancy of that network, interoperability, security of that network. 

There are some significant hurdles that they need to get over. 

Again, we are happy to work with them, but I think there would 

be a lot of concerns there. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Well, thank you, gentlemen. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you to all of the witnesses and to the first responders 

here. With all due respect to everyone else in the room, including 

myself, I think you are the most important ones here. 

When the 9/11 Commission made its recommendations to Congress, which is a very long time ago now—we have been at this for 

some time; it was 16 years ago that the country was attacked— 

there was one recommendation that Congress had not made good 

on, and it was to build a nationwide interoperable public safety 

network. And I was bound and determined that we would get that 

done. I am proud of the legislation, proud that we moved ahead, 

and that the Congress passed it. 

But I think that, in light of what the country has undergone in 

just the last handful of months, and most recently in my home 

State of California—I spent last Saturday from 6:30 in the morning 

until 9:30 at night touring, meeting with the public officials, public 

66 

safety officials, first responders, victims, in Sonoma and Napa 

Counties. 

I really think that we need to go back to the air raid system because there really wasn’t anything that worked or very, very little. 

And this is the second decade of the 21st century. So, we have a 

lot of work to do. 

In California, relative to AT&T’s existing coverage throughout 

the state and the interoperability of the public safety broadband 

network with other cellular networks, how is AT&T dealing with 

coverage areas where you are not the dominant carrier in that 

area? Just very quickly. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes, Congresswoman. 

So, we are in the process of negotiating with California. As you 

know, they haven’t opted in. 

Ms. ESHOO. I know that. 

Mr. SAMBAR. We are in the process of negotiating. 

Ms. ESHOO. They have some problems with you. But how are you 

dealing with coverage areas where you are not the optimum and 

others are? 

Mr. SAMBAR. So, we have given them a significant number of 

sites that they can move around in the state and give us priority 

areas, so that we can cover those areas that are not covered today 

where other carriers are dominant. In those areas where other carriers are dominant—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Now wait a minute. What does that mean? 

Mr. SAMBAR. That means we are—— 

Ms. ESHOO. You want the state to tell the ones that are more 

dominant than you what? 

Mr. SAMBAR. No. 

Ms. ESHOO. Tell me how that works. 

Mr. SAMBAR. We are going to build big cell towers in the places 

where we don’t have coverage, so that we can cover ubiquitously 

throughout California to give them the coverage they are asking 

for. California has come to us and said, ‘‘We need coverage in these 

areas.’’ 

Ms. ESHOO. OK. All right. 

Mr. SAMBAR. And we said, OK, we will build those areas out. 

Ms. ESHOO. How are you going to ensure interoperability with 

the public safety network with the jurisdictions that use other networks? 

Mr. SAMBAR. So, just like we do today, if you have a different 

carrier than I have on my phone, we can talk to each other. That 

is called interoperability. And we will maintain that in the future. 

This will not be a locked-in proprietary network. 

Ms. ESHOO. Why are there penalties? Did the Congress do that 

or is it part of your contract? It is my understanding that in California’s case, I think relative to the RAN, the penalty would be in 

the area of $15 billion. Who came up with that? How do you make 

that determination? 

Mr. POTH. No, that—— 

Ms. ESHOO. And why are there penalties? 

Mr. POTH. Excuse me. There aren’t any penalties right now. What that $15 billion—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, that doesn’t make me feel too good. 

67 

Mr. POTH. Right. 

Ms. ESHOO. You just said ‘‘right now’’. Are there going to be? And 

where did this $15 billion, approximately, come from? 

Mr. POTH. So, that was FirstNet’s attempt at trying to make sure 

in our full transparency. So, in the State of California, as we talked 

about earlier, if they opt out and they have a problem where they 

have to default and they are not able to continue to work, the estimates could be as high as that number. 

Ms. ESHOO. But I don’t understand. Is this a penalty for not opting in? 

Mr. POTH. No, absolutely not. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, what is it for? 

Mr. POTH. So, we have tried to share with the states what we 

thought, because of this very involved, complex project, if we had 

to reconstitute the network from zero after a state, implementation 

didn’t work, that it could be as high as that. That is where I have 

said earlier, and I qualified, we are working with every state, including California, to minimize any of those impacts. And hopefully, they would never even get to that point. 

So, in our zeal to make sure that—— 

Ms. ESHOO. But why even talk about penalties? Obviously, if 

something doesn’t work, the state is going to be responsible and 

has to build up a system. 

Mr. POTH. That is what that number is. It is not a penalty or 

fine if someone opted out and weren’t able to complete it. 

Ms. ESHOO. Let me just ask—thank you for your leadership—— 

Mr. POTH. Right. 

Ms. ESHOO. Did you say, Mr. Sambar, that AT&T does not make 

any money on this? 

Mr. SAMBAR. No, I—— 

Ms. ESHOO. You said, ‘‘We are not in this for profit.’’? 

Mr. SAMBAR. We are a—— 

Ms. ESHOO. It is a wonderful notion, but it is a real—— 

Mr. SAMBAR. That would be nice, it would be nice if we were a 

philanthropist, but—— 

Ms. ESHOO. It is a stunner to me. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes, we have shareholders that we are accountable 

to. So, yes, we do have to make a profit off of it. So, it is profitable. 

Ms. ESHOO. But why did you say it is not—— 

Mr. SAMBAR. It is a public-private partnership, and our primary 

commitment going into this wasn’t to make money. 

Ms. ESHOO. All right. All right. Yes. Well, OK. Good. 

It is great to have a Moran here. 

[Laughter.] 

Either over there or at this part. It is just wonderful. Thank you 

for your leadership in the state. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

There is nothing wrong with making money. It is capitalism. 

I want to thank you, Chair, for yielding and for holding this 

hearing. And given the events that unfolded yesterday in New York 

68 

that are currently being investigated as a terrorist attack on our 

country, I think this hearing is especially timely today. 

Broadly speaking, we need to get this system operational and 

running efficiently, so that we can respond to both natural disasters and, frankly, the next attack that is going to happen in the 

future. We know this is a generational fight we find ourselves in 

the middle of. It will probably last for the rest of my lifetime. 

But, in that vein, Mr. Sambar, during recent emergencies, cell 

towers have become overwhelmed by the volume of calls and texts. 

Will first responders avoid similar communications hurdles using 

the network that AT&T and FirstNet are planning to deploy? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Thank you, Congressman. 

Yes, that is exactly one of the primary purposes of this network. 

It is so that first responders are not on the typical commercial networks, subjected to the same congestion that they would be otherwise subjected to on a commercial network. 

So, there are two features called priority and preemption. Priority means that their data goes faster than anyone else’s. So, if 

they are trying to get a picture of a subject to another first responder to let them know what is going on, if they are trying to 

get a picture of a fire to a fire captain, so that he knows the nature 

of the fire, how many engines he needs to send, that data will go 

uninterrupted through the network. That is priority. 

Preemption, the next one, means that, if a first responder is trying to get on the network and it is congested, which can happen 

any time you have a crowd of people in an area, preemption will 

actually move someone on our commercial network off to another 

frequency band on our commercial network, and allow that first responder on immediately. The only call that it won’t preempt is a 

911 call. So, we will not take regular commercial citizens and kick 

them off if they are on a 911 call, but it will preempt other users 

off. So, they will have an uninterrupted network experience. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Excellent. That is really good to hear. 

Switching gears a bit, Mr. Poth, with regards to the lease terms 

that FirstNet sent to the states, is there a process for appealing 

FirstNet’s terms or are these effectively ‘‘take it or leave it’’? And 

how did you develop those terms? 

Mr. POTH. So, the spectrum management lease is just a draft. 

We tried to provide that information early, so the governors and 

their teams could review what would be a working document that 

we would negotiate probably 2 years from now. Unfortunately, 

based on the statute and the regulatory requirements that first go 

into the FCC for approval of an alternative plan, then to NTIA, literally, it would be probably about 2 1A1⁄2 years. So, this was just 

a draft of some of the concepts that are important as the licenseholder, FirstNet, to be able to lease that portion of the spectrum 

to a state. So, absolutely, we are going to work with the states now 

and through this entire process to make sure that they feel comfortable and their questions are answered. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So, it is not ‘‘take it or leave it’’? You are saying 

this is an early draft and—— 

Mr. POTH. Yes, this is a working draft because we wanted to provide—we didn’t want states to get through a 2 1A1⁄2 year process 

69 

and, then, start looking at terms and say, ‘‘Well, why didn’t you tell 

us this 2 1A1⁄2 years ago?’’ 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK, and I understand that NTIA has yet to issue 

a Notice of Funding Opportunity, which would, presumably, provide the states with detailed information regarding the process that 

NTIA intends to use in its review for state applications for spectrum and construction grants. States now have less than 2 months 

to make a decision on opting in or opting out, and they are missing 

some pretty important data. When is NTIA going to release that 

notice? 

Mr. POTH. Talking to NTIA as recent as yesterday, they have 

published those into the system and it is going through clearance. 

So, they hope within the next few days it will come out, that guidance. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Hopefully. That would be good. 

And last, let me ask you, in the FirstNet press release dated 

June 19th of this year it stated that the FirstNet state plan ‘‘comes 

fully funded and will require no additional resources for the states 

to deploy or operate the network.’’ It would seem, then, that opting 

into FirstNet is more economic for states than opting out. However, 

there are still some unanswered questions with respect to processes 

and determinations that have been made. In order to fully ensure 

that FirstNet is the best and most economic option, we do need 

more answers. So, will you commit here today that you will work 

with Congress, the states, and stakeholders, to provide these answers to the best of your ability? 

Mr. POTH. Absolutely. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Excellent. 

Mr. POTH. We have met with some states over 30 times over this 

process, and we are going to continue to do that for the life of this 

program, to make sure that all their questions are answered, no 

matter what. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Great. 

And to the five of you, thank you for being in here. Thanks for 

giving us your time. 

And with that, I will yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McNerney, you are recognized. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I just want to say to the Chair that I appreciate enforcement of the 5-minute rule, being on the lower end 

of the committee here. 

Mr. Poth, we have recently seen a series of natural disasters in 

California, flooding, earthquakes, and wildfires, including the devastating wildfire we had a couple of weeks ago in which 120 cell 

phone towers, cell towers, were down and destroyed. In planning 

and building out and hardening this system, the resiliency of the 

system, how does FirstNet plan to account for those types of disasters? 

Mr. POTH. We require of AT&T via the contract that the installations are public safety hardened. And how we are measuring that 

is against reliability and up time. But, even with that, unfortunately, Mother Nature, in particular, no matter what hardening is 

done, can affect those towers. 

70 

One of the other requirements that we have is—and Mr. Sambar 

alluded to it—deployables and the ability to quickly recover into an 

area. They are contractually obligated throughout the 56 states and 

territories in those areas where their existing assets go down to restore the network as quickly as possible. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Mr. POTH. And we are going to hold them to that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Sambar, do you plan to provide ways to ensure that communication continues when cell towers go down during the process, before the minis can be in place? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Absolutely. As Mr. Poth mentioned, reliability and 

up time on the network is our priority. So, whether that is something happens to the tower, which that will always happen—you 

can’t keep a tower from burning up, right? That is going to happen. 

But the deployables, as you mentioned, I actually have a picture 

of one here in the wildfires in California. So, this is a mobile, 1- 

ton truck that you pull out—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, you are saying that that can be in place almost immediately? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes, it is. You can see the fire in the background. 

So, this was actually put up immediately after the fire passed 

through, burned the tower down. We drove this in, so that the first 

responders in the area had communications. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. Device security, which you have already responded to, to a certain degree, to the chairwoman’s questions, it is very important to me. I introduced a bill, the Securing 

IoT Act, which requires that cybersecurity standards and certifications be established for wireless devices. What cybersecurity or 

industry standards or guidelines is AT&T considering in developing 

FirstNet? 

Mr. SAMBAR. So, similar to my response earlier, just to recap, the 

cybersecurity starts at the device level, the applications on the device as well as the device itself. So, AT&T will be certifying all the 

devices. The FirstNet Authority has a lab in Boulder, Colorado. 

They will certify the devices as well. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, what standards are they using? 

Mr. SAMBAR. AT&T has our own proprietary standards. FirstNet 

has developed their own proprietary standards that they will be 

certifying the devices based on. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, is there any acceptance of those standards? 

Mr. POTH. Yes, and what the FirstNet standards were drawn 

from is with NIST, the Department of Justice, OMB, DHS, and 

some of our fellow federal agencies to make sure. We are also capitalizing and requiring that AT&T bring private sector best practices to bear on the cyber approach, too. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, I understand that volunteers, first responders, can bring their own devices? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. What steps are going to be taken to make sure 

those devices are cyber-secure? 

71 

Mr. SAMBAR. So, they can bring their own devices, and it is up 

to them what device they use. If they are purchasing an AT&T device, again, it will be certified and they will know that. The applications on that device are definitely a point of vulnerability, and 

we will be certifying all the applications, putting them into a public 

safety application store, so that they can ensure that an application 

in that store is secure from a cybersecurity standpoint, as well as 

it functions correctly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. LeGrande, do you believe that FirstNet with AT&T can ensure competition at every level? 

Mr. LEGRANDE. I think they have the opportunity to do that. I 

think we should not treat this like it is, again, a dedicated public 

safety broadband network. I think we set up a competitive environment, in that FirstNet leverages its position to, again, incent other 

carriers. To wildfires, to the hurricanes, the bottom line is what is 

in the best interest of public safety is all the carriers competing to 

drive down costs and create the best possible environment. So, I 

think they are in a very good position to do that, yes. That would 

be my answer. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do they need additional incentives to make sure 

that they assure competition? 

Mr. LEGRANDE. I think that FirstNet has the opportunity to 

reach out beyond AT&T. They have got their contract with AT&T 

continuing. I am not questioning that. But there is an opportunity 

to embrace the other carriers and say, ‘‘Look, if you come up with 

these levels of standards and you bring your networks up to this, 

then we can have all of these guys competing.’’ Because, again, the 

best thing for public safety is low cost and greater innovation, and 

competition is what gets us there. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thirteen seconds. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You are doing well. 

Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I will 

stay under the 5 minutes as well. No guarantees, though I will try. 

Thank you again for having this hearing. 

Governor Scott, my State of Florida has issued a Notice of Information to review the FirstNet proposal as compared to other options the state may have. While we do not know the outcome of 

this inquiry, I do support the governor’s due diligence to subject the 

proposal to competition in the marketplace and ensure it is right 

for our state. 

My question is to Mr. Sambar. I am a representative of a coastal 

community in the Tampa Bay area, and it is subject to hurricanes, 

as you know, with limited evacuation routes, unfortunately. I am 

intrigued by the shifting of first responder priorities you discuss in 

your written testimony. Can you elaborate on the benefits of the selective ability to at-risk communities such as mine, please? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Absolutely, and I believe you are referring to the 

priority and preemption services. Those are actually features that 

will be in the network. Priority exists today. We have been providing that to commercial customers for 2 years now. 

72 

Preemption is a new feature that will only be available for first 

responders, and that will be by the end of this year. Preemption 

is really the one that first responders have been asking for. And 

that provides the ability in an area where a network is congested, 

if it is a coastal community, prior to, during, and after a storm, and 

there is a significant amount of congestion. Maybe some of the towers aren’t working properly. There is a limited amount of bandwidth. It ensures that first responders have first rights to that 

bandwidth. So, they can actually move others off of a network, and 

they will have a seamless network experience wherever the network exists. So, a terrific benefit for first responders who have been 

asking for it for a long time, and we are going to be providing that 

to them very soon. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. Stevens, under the 2012 act that authorized FirstNet, Congress directed FirstNet to develop a plan for each state to deploy 

the network. From your perspective, has there been sufficient engagement from FirstNet with the states? 

Mr. STEVENS. Yes. We have had good conversations with 

FirstNet along with AT&T along the process. However, we took advantage of the opportunity that the law provided that we would go 

down the road by developing an alternative plan. As you said, sir, 

New Hampshire has done its due diligence and we have two viable 

plans that we are looking at for comparison. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you. 

And I will yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Matsui, you are recognized. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank the witnesses for being here today. 

As you know, the FirstNet contract requires a 25-year performance period. That means that the life cycle of this contract will see 

the deployment of next-generation wireless broadband networks for 

both consumers and first responders. 

Mr. Sambar, could you discuss how auctions that would deliver 

spectrum suitable for 5G networks also could be critically important for the continued upgrades necessary for the first responders 

on your network? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that question because, when the RFP was initially written by the FirstNet 

Authority, it spoke to the Band 14 spectrum, that one piece of 20- 

megahertz spectrum that was allocated, and putting up that spectrum and making that available to public safety. And we changed 

it around a little bit, and we said, yes, we will do that and we are 

going to cover a significant percentage of the population with it, 

but we are also going to make available all of our spectrum bands. 

So, as we move into a 5G world, millimeter wave technology, 

small cells on street corners, the first responder may connect to 

Band 14 on a tower a quarter mile or a half mile away, but they 

may connect to the street corner small cell, which is a 5G small 

cell. It may not be Band 14. It may be something else, but it may 

give them 10 times the speed that they would have had on the 

Band 14 connection a quarter or a half mile away. So, we are really 

73 

opening up our network, so that first responders have the best possible connection. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. OK, great. 

Mr. Moran, what is the importance of deploying next-generation 

wireless broadband networks to states? 

Mr. MORAN. Well, it is critically important, as has been noted 

throughout this hearing, to provide our first responders the latest 

and greatest technology. It is critical to responding to what is an 

expanding and even more dangerous threat environment. Being in 

this position, recognizing whether it be natural disasters or hurricanes and tornadoes, to now more manmade disasters, if we can 

provide our first responders with the technology, and the firefighters the location technology, they can be in a building and be 

located immediately, as well as the victims that might be present. 

I mean, it is critically important. 

So, that is why we opted in, because we just saw the positive 

benefits and with no cost. And so, though we thoroughly reviewed 

the decision, we think it is the right decision. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. McNerney talked about the wildfires that cut through northern California, which we visited this last weekend. In my district 

we also have quite a few flooding risks also. And California is currently in a review process and considering how to evaluate its decision. 

Mr. Poth, what network assets will FirstNet be able to provide 

that will assist first responders in my district to meet such a diverse set of emergencies, such as fires and extreme flooding? I 

mean, we have both. 

Mr. POTH. Right. 

Ms. MATSUI. And maybe in earthquakes, too. So, you never know. 

Mr. POTH. And that is part of the process that the state is looking at right now and the proposals that we have on the table that 

AT&T is working with. The state has also identified those areas 

that are high risk to them because they are responding to those 

areas. Based on that feedback from public safety, the people that 

are actually having to do the work, is what is informing AT&T’s 

solution as to where to put fixed assets or to ensure that there is 

closer responsive deployables. 

Ms. MATSUI. All right. OK. Thank you. 

Now, with FirstNet having delivered plans to states at the end 

of September, governors and state single points of contact are currently reviewing FirstNet’s maps of wireless broadband coverage. A 

critical piece in the success of FirstNet is its ability to provide public safety officials and first responders with access to communications in even the most rural and remote areas of our states and 

districts. These maps must represent where coverage does and 

doesn’t exist, so these areas are not left behind. 

Mr. Poth, what steps did FirstNet take to ensure these coverage 

maps are accurate? And is it possible to use the lessons learned 

from that effort to furnish the committee’s larger efforts to gather 

more accurate broadband data? 

Mr. POTH. Yes. So, we have been, for the last 3 years, in particular, but since the inception of FirstNet, working with all the 

states to understand their coverage, their perception of coverage, 

74 

and what the actual coverage they believe. Now, with the plans, we 

delivered earlier, 3 months prior to the actual September date, 

drafts of those plans with the coverage, so that they could start 

seeing it to validate against what they know. And that is what has 

been driving a lot of the conversations as to where they want it to 

go and what they need to do. 

We are using those coverages, and, ultimately, it will be a buildout. It is not going to be day one where all the coverage needs are 

met. It won’t even be met by year five, but it will continue to grow. 

And that is what the states are looking at. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Thank you very much. 

And I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Ms. Walters, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MIMI WALTERS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to the subcommittee for holding this hearing and 

for our witnesses for their testimony, 

My home State is California as well, and I know that many of 

my colleagues have discussed that we are particularly susceptible 

to widespread natural disasters, including wildfires, earthquakes, 

and flooding. As you all know because we have been discussing it 

in recent weeks, California experienced the most devastating 

wildfires in the state’s history. Forty-three people died, nearly 

9,000 structures were destroyed, and it will take years for the 

areas impacted by the fires to fully recovery. Canyon Fire 2, which 

occurred in my district, required the evacuation of thousands of 

residents. 

California is vulnerable to both natural disasters and terrorist 

attacks. Given the size of the state and its large population, it is 

critical that California’s first responders have a reliable public safety network. 

And one of the problems of sitting in this front row is that many 

of your questions get asked already because you are low man on 

the totem pole. So, I am going to ask Mr. Sambar, do you have any 

comment on the testimony you have heard here today from your 

colleagues or the statements filed by others in this hearing? 

Mr. SAMBAR. Generally speaking, I appreciate the dialog. There 

was some testimony submitted by Verizon at the beginning, and I 

know it was not read out today. But there are a couple of points 

in there that I think are important to address in front of this committee. 

One is the interoperability of core networks. I think we have beat 

that horse to death. But serious reasons why cybersecurity becomes 

an issue when you interoperate the cores. And that won’t be allowed, it doesn’t sound like, not by our rules, but by others, including the original legislation. 

There is also a portion of this testimony where—and I will quote 

from it real briefly here—‘‘The FirstNet RFP was established as a 

spectrum deal’’. And further quoting, ‘‘We have never had an interest in FirstNet’s spectrum and could not justify the investment required to build out spectrum that we had no intention of using 

commercially.’’ So, this is from Verizon’s testimony. 

I personally take exception to this. So, it was noted earlier my 

military service. I spent 23 years between active and Reserves in 

75 

the military. This job and this task is personal to me. This is not 

a spectrum deal. 

To the Congresswoman’s point earlier, AT&T is going to make 

money off of it. We are a for-profit company. I am not trying to hide 

that fact. But this isn’t about the spectrum and a spectrum deal. 

This is about serving first responders, the folks that are behind me. 

We are building something really special here, and we are giving 

them something they haven’t had in a long time, that the 9/11 

Commission said that they needed, that you said that they needed. 

And that is what we are doing here. 

So, I just want to set a level playing field and let everyone know 

this isn’t a spectrum deal. That is really not the right way to talk 

about this. We feel very passionately about that. 

Mrs. MIMI WALTERS OF CALIFORNIA. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. SAMBAR. Yes. 

Mrs. MIMI WALTERS OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Poth, in addition to having to cover termination fees, in the case of California, as it was 

reported, to spend $15 billion, are there any potential risks of a 

state opting out of FirstNet? 

Mr. POTH. The risk is not whether they opt out or opt in. If they 

opt out, we are going to do everything we can to make them successful. The risk is that the state that pursues an opt-out truly has 

a robust solution with financial sustainability. Twenty-five years is 

a long time, and this is a very complex project. Billions of dollars 

are being spent. We are investing; the Congress has allowed us to 

invest $6.5 billion in the spectrum. So, this is not a trivial exercise. 

And the length of the program and the complexity create a risk, 

but it is something that FirstNet realizes and we will work with 

the state, whether they opt in or opt out, for the next 25 years to 

make them successful. But the integration and the complexity and 

the delays of an opt-out state just by statute complicate matters 

certainly. 

Mrs. MIMI WALTERS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Engel, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you to all the witnesses. 

And let me start with Secretary Moran. Virginia was the first 

state to opt into FirstNet. And Virginia, like New York, has withstood some devastating and high-profile disasters over the years. 

So, let me ask you, now that Virginia has opted in, what additional 

tools will it have to respond to these disasters? 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I referenced the ability of Fairfax County and 

their fire, when they went to Houston to respond to Hurricane Harvey, and some of the additional technological benefits that are obtained from the FirstNet opt-in. 

But I would say, I very much appreciate this hearing because it 

has brought to mind all of the issues with respect to our opt-in decision, all the things we discussed. But we need to maintain vigilance, and I say ‘‘we’’ in terms of Congress has to be vigilant because this hearing has identified a number of ongoing discussions 

we are having with AT&T. 

76 

And I would second Mr. Stevens’ point that their availability to 

us has been excellent. And we have had those discussions, the 

rural concerns. But having access to what they are offering is critical to being able to respond to the ever-increasing and emerging 

threats. So, we just have to make sure that relationship with 

AT&T remains robust, so that we can have access to all what they 

have promised. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, talking about the various tools, when would 

you expect to see those tools come online? 

Mr. MORAN. Congressman, one of the reasons we adopted so 

quickly in July is because Fairfax and other localities that already 

had access to AT&T could immediately gain access to the expanded 

broadband capabilities. And so, some of that has gone on. 

Now, in full disclosure, AT&T does not have the coverage of 

other providers in Virginia. And so, it has to be a significant buildout of the AT&T services in Virginia for all of our localities to be 

able to benefit. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. Poth, I have a few questions for you. For states that decide 

to opt out, I understand that FirstNet will require those states to 

meet certain subscriber targets. I guess that is true, right? 

Mr. POTH. Yes. What we are trying to achieve is the purpose of 

this is for public safety, and we are not requiring the states, but 

the state’s contractor to make sure that the solution that they provide will meet public safety’s needs in that state and that they 

adopt to be able to take advantage of this nationwide interoperable 

network. 

Mr. ENGEL. How closely do the state requirements mirror 

AT&T’s requirements in the national contract? 

Mr. POTH. They are very comparable, absolutely. 

Mr. ENGEL. Comparable with what? 

Mr. POTH. We are not asking the state any more than what we 

require of AT&T currently, but it is under contract. 

Mr. ENGEL. What if a state falls short? What penalties will they 

face? 

Mr. POTH. We had the discussion a little. That is impossible for 

us right now to try to determine. We have tried to place a range, 

but we don’t know what the nature of a state that would have a 

default. We don’t know what the technology will even be, say, in 

year 12. So, the only thing that I can absolutely say for sure is that 

we will be working with the states during that entire time, and if 

there is a problem or a default, then we will work with them quickly to try to recover and restore that network at the minimal impact 

to all, on behalf of that state and public safety. 

Mr. ENGEL. Now FirstNet was started within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is part of 

the Department of Commerce. Am I correct about that? 

Mr. POTH. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes. So, the legislation that created FirstNet envisioned it being spun off to operate independently at some point in 

the future, is that true? 

Mr. POTH. Well, I am not sure it was ever intended to be completely spun off, but we are an independent authority and we work 

77 

very effectively with our partners at NTIA and Commerce and all 

the other federal agencies. 

Mr. ENGEL. So, can you briefly discuss the pros and cons of 

FirstNet operating as an independent entity? 

Mr. POTH. Well, we have had a lot of flexibility and speed to deployment that we like to say because of this procurement. Although 

people may argue it has been impossibly long since the statute was 

passed, we have accomplished a great deal in a short time, and we 

attribute a lot of that to the independence, that we are able to 

work within the rules and requirements in the federal government, 

but in a much more quick and nimble way. 

Mr. ENGEL. Are we reaching that point in the near term as an 

independent entity? 

Mr. POTH. I don’t see a particular need right now because I think 

we are addressing all the needs to make the states and public safety successful, and we are certainly in a position to make AT&T successful within the constrains of the contract. 

Mr. ENGEL. So, what needs to happen first if we are not there 

yet? 

Mr. POTH. I think the thing that we need to do is we have got 

to execute. We have got to make sure, on behalf of the federal government and public safety throughout this country, that the promise is actually fulfilled. And we think we have a good way of 

achieving that through this contract. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Before I conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter a list of documents into the record: an op-ed from Thomas Manger; a letter 

that was submitted by Mr. Doyle by Verizon; a letter from Governor Sununu of New Hampshire to his fellow governors; Governor 

Sununu’s FirstNet Executive Order; a letter from the Competitive 

Carriers Association; chairman and ranking member’s statements 

for the record; Mr. Sambar’s picture—we need that—of the mobile 

tower in front of the wildfire, and the International Association of 

Fire Chiefs’ letter. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Seeing there are no further members wishing 

to ask questions for the panel, I want to thank all of you for being 

here today. 

Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that they have 

10 business days to submit additional questions for the record. And 

I ask that witnesses submit their responses within 10 business 

days. Seeing no further business before the subcommittee today, 

without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

78 


27974.037

October 31, 2017 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

verizon" 

Dear Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Verizon appreciates the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with its 

perspective on "Oversight of FirstNet: States Perspective." 

Verizon has a long-standing commitment to support and serve the public safety 

community. Each and every day, we provide first responders with high quality voice 

and data services to meet their communications needs. More than two thirds of police, 

fire, and emergency medical service personnel across the nation- in communities both 

large and small- rely on Verizon's advanced networks, product enhancements, and 

service commitment to help them protect and serve the public. And, in times of 

disaster, Verizon is there to provide public safety agencies with the assistance they 

need in their efforts to prepare for and respond to whatever emergencies occur. 

It is no accident that Verizon is the preferred network provider to public safety 

agencies across the country. It is because we make the investments necessary to 

ensure that our networks are reliable and resilient and meet the "public safety grade" 

standard that is so important to first responders. Put simply, first responders have the 

confidence that Verizon will be there when it matters, and for public safety, reliable and 

effective communications always matter. 

Given Verizon's strong commitment to public safety, we are pleased to file this 

written testimony for the record to assist the Subcommittee in its efforts to evaluate the 

current progress of FirstNet. Verizon has long recognized the unique and critical nature 

of public safety communications, and it has been a strong supporter of efforts to provide 

first responders with the most effective communications possible. 

In passing The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Congress 

provided FirstNet with the framework, spectrum, and funding to ensure that public 

safety's need for reliable and resilient communications was effectively addressed. As 

FirstNet began to implement Congress' mandate, Verizon offered its expertise and 

guidance on what we believed would be most effective. We believed that a state-centric 
79 


27974.038

approach was much more likely to meet public safety's unique requirements than a onesize-fits-all approach. We recommended a framework that would promote state- or 

regional-based partnerships with a requirement that the resulting state or regional 

networks be required to intemperate in order to create a nationwide network for public 

safety's use. 

Verizon made these recommendations because it recognized that the 

communications needs of the public safety community and the assets and capabilities 

of prospective commercial partners often vary from one state or region to another. 

Recognizing these differences, state officials should have the flexibility and authority to 

establish those partnerships that best meet their own requirements. Verizon believed 

then, as it does now, that a flexible, pro-competitive approach for establishing a 

nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network is in the best interests of 

public safety. 

Ultimately, FirstNet awarded a contract to a single network operator. Moreover, 

instead of a network dedicated to public safety, it decided to support a commercial 

solution that relies heavily on monetizing the value of the 700 MHz spectrum licensed to 

FirstNet. For all intents and purposes, the FirstNet RFP was established as a spectrum 

deal, with the winning bidder required to commercialize the 700 MHz spectrum in order 

to fund the construction of a network. While Verizon understands the reasoning behind 

this decision, we chose not to respond to the FirstNet RFP. We have never had an 

interest in FirstNet's spectrum and could not justify the investment required to build-out 

spectrum we had no intention of using commercially. 

While Verizon understands FirstNet's decision to select a single network partner, 

we also recognize that FirstNet has a statutory mandate to ensure that states have a 

meaningful opportunity to make their own communications decisions including the ability 

to construct their own networks should they not wish to use the network built and 

operated by FirstNet and its commercial partner. These "opt-out" provisions allow 

states to use the spectrum and federal funding provided to FirstNet by Congress to 

support the deployment and operation of state-based networks should they choose to 

opt-out of the FirstNet network. 

Verizon remains committed to serving the public safety community, and we 

intend to continue to do that across the country, regardless of whether particular states 

choose to opt in or opt out of FirstNet. It is critically important, however, that states 

have viable competitive alternatives in either case. Promoting competition and 

preserving the rights of states to make their own communications decisions, including 

building their own state-based networks, are two important tenets of the legislation 

enacted by Congress. While the law does not require states to participate in the 

FirstNet network, the opt-out provisions guarantee that states have a meaningful 

opportunity to participate in the establishment of the network while taking on the 

responsibilities for deployment within their states. 
80 


27974.039

In order for such an option to be meaningful, however, it must allow states to pick 

their own commercial partner, or partners, and to establish their own public-private 

partnership in a manner comparable to FirstNet. It must also allow states and their 

commercial partners to develop network architectures and service arrangements that 

are viable and sustainable over the long term. 

Critical to the viability of such an option is the ability for a state to use its own 

core network, or one deployed by its preferred commercial partner. States should not 

be required to use the core network deployed by FirstNet and its commercial partner, as 

such a requirement would have several negative implications. First, since the core 

network defines the service arrangement with the customer, being forced to use AT&T's 

core network would effectively require that the state use AT&T to serve its public safety 

users and prohibit them from using their preferred public safety service provider. A 

requirement to use AT&T's core network would also put the state in the untenable 

position of being driven by the interests and decisions of FirstNet's commercial partner. 

For example, any changes to the core network made by AT&T would trigger 

corresponding changes to the radio access networks deployed by the state's network 

partner. Any change that the state's partner would wish to make to the state's network 

would have to first be authorized by AT&T. These conditions are unlikely to be 

supported by any prospective state commercial partner. 

Ensuring interoperability between a state network and the FirstNet network is, of 

course, an important requirement for any state that opts out. Indeed, the law requires 

that states opting out of FirstNet demonstrate how they will achieve interoperability in 

their alternate state plans, which must be submitted to the FCC for approval. The FCC 

recently released the standards it will use to determine whether or not an alternate state 

plan is interoperable with FirstNet. The FCC's decision considered input from many 

parties, including state officials, Verizon, and others that sought clarification on the 

ability for States to utilize their own state network core. The FCC stated it would not 

reject a plan that includes the use of a separate state core network, but it declined to 

find that such a core network was expressly permitted because it believes that decision 

is outside the scope of its authority. Verizon believes it is important for Congress or 

NTIA to make clear that the law permits a state wishing to opt-out to have its own core 

network, as such a finding is imperative to a state having a viable means to opt-out. 

Even if no state decides to opt-out of FirstNet, it is important that public safety 

agencies across the country have competitive options and that other public safety 

networks used by those agencies are interoperable with FirstNet. Enabling competitive 

alternatives for public safety is vitally important to ensuring continued innovation, 

increased reliability, and competitive pricing. A public safety market that provides 

agencies with only one choice of network provider is unlikely to achieve those 

objectives. 

Verizon's commitment to public safety is not predicated on whether or not a state 

chooses to opt-in or opt-out of FirstNet, and we are prepared to work with every state 

regardless of its opt-out decision. In order to best satisfy public safety's unique 
81 


27974.040

requirements, Verizon announced earlier this year its intention to make substantial 

investments in new network capabilities and enhanced products and services for public 

safety. This commitment includes building and operating our own private core network 

dedicated to public safety communications, making priority and preemption services 

available to our public safety customers, and investing in new applications and 

capabilities including mission-critical voice communications that will interoperate with 

existing Land Mobile Radio networks. Put simply, Verizon intends to provide the same 

advanced features and capabilities that AT&T has promised to provide to FirstNet. 

Recognizing that all public safety users have the choice to purchase services 

from the provider that best satisfies their requirements regardless of the State's opt-out 

decision, Verizon's public safety solution will be available to all states and all public 

safety users throughout the country. Moreover, it does not require access to federal 

funding provided to FirstNet, and does not require state funding to support network 

deployment Along with a variety of enhanced products and services designed to meet 

public safety's unique needs, Verizon will also make available multi-band devices that 

provide access not only to Verizon's own reliable broadband network, but to Band 14 

spectrum and enable full interoperability with any Band 14 radio access network (RAN) 

deployed by FirstNet or a State that decides to opt-out 

Verizon believes that FirstNet has yielded significant benefits for public safety by 

focusing attention on the importance of mission critical communications for first 

responders and establishing a framework that leverages commercial investments and 

innovation. However, that goal cannot be fully realized unless the FirstNet framework is 

implemented in a way that preserves the robust competition that exists today for 

wireless public safety consumers and that will yield significant benefits for public safety. 

Competition and interoperability are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in the context of 

FirstNet, they are both vitaL Both can be achieved, and both must be achieved if 

Congress' vision of effective, reliable, and interoperability communications is realized. 

Verizon is committed to work with Congress, NTIA, FirstNet, and the public safety 

community to make that happen. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with Verizon's 

perspective on the efforts of FirstNet to meet the critical communications needs of 

public safety agencies around the country. 

Respectfully, 

Donald Brittingham 

Vice President- Public Safety Policy 

Verizon 

1300 I Street NW, Suite 500E 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 515-2477 

Donald.C.Brittingham@Verizon.com 
82 


27974.041

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

CHRISTOPHER T, SUNUNU 

Governor 

October 23, 2017 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Dear fellow Govemors: 

lam writing with an important message regarding your state's decision on the development of a high 

speed wireless broadband network for public safety. We all have an important decision to make before 

December 28, 2017 - whether to opt in to the plan offered by AT&T on behalf of the First Responder 

Network Authority ("FirstNet") or opt out and pursue the development of an alternative plan. In brief, I 

believe there are some very important questions that still need to be answered, and l urge each of you to 

hold off on making a final decision while we seek further information from Federal officials. 

As you may have heard, on October 5'11 New Hampshire's Statewide Interoperability Executive 

Committee unanimously recommended that New Hampshire opt out of the FirstNet plan and 

contract with Rivada Networks, LLC for the development of an alternative plan. After receiving this 

recommendation, on October 16th I issued an executive order (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to establish a 

FirstNet Opt-Out Review Committee to carefully review the regulatory and financial risks of pursuing an 

opt-out plan, 

In the coming weeks, our Opt-Out Review Committee will conduct a thorough legal and financial due 

diligence review, which will include seeking clarification from Federal officials on fees and penalties that 

may be imposed by FirstNet in the event that an opt-out is unsuccessfuL Our initial review of these fees 

and penalties has raised some serious questions, and I believe each of us must have the answers to these 

questions before we make our final decision. Our first responders and all of our citizens deserve nothing 

less. To this end, we have recently been informed that the U.S, House Communication and Technology 

Subcommittee will be holding a hearing on November 1" to seek answers to some of these questions. 

l strongly encourage each of you to pause and work with us as we seek further answers from Federal 

officials, We are hoping to complete our due diligence by November 21'1

• Whether you ultimately decide 

to opt in or opt out, l believe that we will all benefit by a collective insistence that each state receive the 

information it needs to make a fully infonned decision, If you have further questions regarding our 

efforts, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly or to have your staff contact my legal counsel, 

John Formella, at 603-271-212L 

Christopher T. Sununu 

Governor 

107 North Main Street, State House· Rm 208, Concord, New Hampshire 03301 

Telephone (603) 271·2121 • FAX (603) 271-7640 

Website: • Email: gove:rru>rsun.un.u@ml:t.gt>V 

NH 1·8(10-7:311-~1904 
83 


27974.042

An order establishing the FirstNet Opt-Out Review Committee 
84 


27974.043

STATE OF NEW BAMPSIDRE 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

CHRISTOPHER T. SUNUNU 

Governor 

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BY HIS EXCELLENCY 

CHRISTOPHER T. SUNUNU, GOVERNOR 

Executive Order 2017-08 

An order establishing the FirstNet Opt-Out Review Committee 

WHEREAS, the First Responder Network Authority ("FirstNet") was created by the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of20l2 (the "Act") to provide emergency responders with the first 

high-speed wireless broadband network dedicated to public safety; and 

WHEREAS, under the Act, FirstNet is charged with developing a plan for each state for the 

development of a high speed wireless broadband network for emergency responders; 

WHEREAS, the Act provides that each state, including the state of New Hampshire, may either 

"opt-In" to the F!rstNet plan or "opt-out" of the FirstNet plan and pursue the development of an 

alternative plan; and 

WHEREAS, the Act gives the Governor of New Hampshire the authority to determine whether 

New Hampshire will opt-in to the FirstNet plan or opt-out and pursue an alternative plan; and 

WHEREAS, the state ofNew Hampshire has entered into a no-cost contract with Rivada 

Networks, LLC ("Rivada") in August of 2016 which gives Rivada the exclusive right to negotiate a 

contract for the development, provision and implementation of an opt-out plan for the state of New 

Hampshire if the state of New Hampshire decides to opt-out of the FirstNet plan; 

WHEREAS, the Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee (the "SIEC") reviewed the 

New Hampshire opt-in plan presented by FirstNet and the New Hampshire opt-out plan presented by 

Rivada; and 

WHEREAS, the STRC conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the technical aspects 

of the FirstNet opt-in plan and Rivada's opt-out plan, including spectrum, coverage, cost, devices, and 

governance; and 

WHEREAS, by a unanimous vote on September 6, 2017 (15 yes, 2 abstentions) and a report 

dated September 6, 2017, the SIEC recommended to the Governor that the Governor choose to opt-out of 

the FirstNet plan and negotiate a contract with Rivada for the provision and implementation ofRivada's 

opt-out plan for the state ofNew Hampshire; and 

107 North Main Street, State House· Rm 208, Concord, New Hampshire OSliOl 

Telephone (003) 271·2121 • FAX (60S) 271-7640 

Website: http://www.governor.nh.gov/ • Email: govemorsununu@nh.gov 

TDD Acce11s: Relay NH 1-000·7Sll·2964 
85 


27974.044

WHEREAS, the pursuit of an opt-out plan may subject New Hampshire to financial risks if 

necessary regulatory approvals are not received or ifRivada is unable to successfully provide and 

implement its opt-out plan; and 

WHEREAS, the decision of whether to opt·in or opt-out requires, in addition to the SIEC's 

technical review, a thorough review of both (1} the regulatory and financial risks of the pursuit of an optout plan and (2) the financial viability ofRivada's opt-out plan; and 

WHEREAS, the deadline for the state of New Hampshire to decide whether to opt-out of the 

FirstNet plan is December 28, 20 17; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CHRISTOPHER T. SUNUNU, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF 

NEW HAMPSHIRE, by the authority vested in me pursuant to part II, article 41 of the New Hampshire 

Constitution, do hereby order, effective immediately, that: 

I. There is established the FirstNet Opt-Out Review Committee to review ( l) the regulatory and financial 

risks to the State of New Hampshire associated with the pursuit of an opt-out plan and (2) Rivada's 

financial capacity to achieve the successful provision and implementation of its opt-out plan. 

2. The Committee shall meet as necessary and shall submit a report containing a summary of the results 

of the Committee's review and the Committee's recommendations to the Governor on or before 

November 21,2017. 

3. The Committee shall consist offive members appointed by and serving at the pleasure ofthe Governor. 

4. The Committee's review and report shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

a) A review and summary of all regulatory approvals required for the successful pursuit of an opt· 

out plan and an assessment of the prospects for obtaining those approvals for Rivada' s opt out 

plan; 

b) An assessment of the financial risks to the State of New Hampshire in the event any necessary 

regulatory approvals are not obtained; 

c) A summary of any stipulations, conditions or other provisions that the Committee feels should be 

included in a potential final contract with Rivada; 

d) A due diligence report on the financial viability ofRivada's opt-out plan; and 

e) An assessment of the financial risks to the state of New Hampshire in the event that Rivada is 

unable to complete the provision and implementation of its opt-out plan. 

Given under my hand and seai at the Executive 

Chambers in Concord, this 16th day of October, in the 

year of Our Lord, two thousand and seventeen, and the 

independence of the United States of America, two 

hundred and forty-one. 

107 North Main Stre<)t, State House • Rm 208, Concord, New Hampshire 03801 

Telephone (003) 271·2121 • FAX (608) 271.7640 

Website: http://www.governor.nh.gov/ • Email: govemorsununu@nh.gov 

TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800·7311·2964 
86 


27974.045

cca 

-

November 1, 2017 

rural. 

regional. 

nationwide. 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

The Honorable Mike Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

2322A Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Competitive Carriers Association commends the Subcommittee for its continued oversight of FirstNet, the 

nationwide public safety broadband network created as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 

of 2012. CCA members serve many of the most rural and remote parts of the country, and have a keen interest 

in ensuring that the states in which they provide service have the opportunity to select the best partners for 

deployment and ongoing operation of the critically important nationwide interoperable public safety broadband 

network (NPSBN). CCA appreciates the challenge ahead and hopes to work with FirstNet to provide innovative 

services for our nation's first responders. 

Device fnteroperability 

lnteroperability was a fundamental principle for the creation of FirstNet. Limiting device interoperability will 

defy the value of the NPSBN to the detriment of public safety and consumers. Non-interoperable devices could 

leave a first responder without a connection, even in areas where other commercial networks are operational, 

and eliminate opportunities for greater redundancy and reliability when most needed. 

It is troubling that today devices still are being manufactured and marketed for use on the FirstNet network that 

are compatible only with AT& T's boutique Band Class 17, a subsection of the interoperable Band Class 12. 

Further, some of these devices may not be compatible with the public safety spectrum in Band Class 14. This 

will result in limited roaming opportunities. Further, this could result in first responders utilizing devices sold 

for use on FirstNet unable to access a connection, in areas outside of AT& T's commercial network (deployed on 

Band Class 17), where the public safety broadband network has been deployed on Band Class 14 spectrum. CCA 

has long argued for greater device interoperability where technically feasible. Any attempt to deploy a noninteroperable network or devices for FirstNet fails public safety and could unnecessarily put lives at risk. 

Partnerships 

In establishing the nationwide public safety broadband network, Congress noted the importance of rural 

coverage, statutorily requiring that rural coverage milestones be met as part of each phase of network 

deployment. To facilitate this rural coverage, Congress directed that "[t]o the maximum extent economically 

desirable, such proposals shall include partnerships with existing commercial mobile providers to utilize costCOMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION 

805 15th St NW, Suite 401 I Washington, DC 20005 I ccamobile.org 
87 


27974.046

effective opportunities to speed deployment in rural areas." More recently, a Government Accountability Office 

report released on June 20, 2017, noted concerns raised by stakeholders related to providing coverage in rural 

areas. 

To meet these goals, CCA continues to urge FirstNet to work collaboratively with competitive carriers that 

provide service in rural and remote areas, including to state and local public safety officials. The use of existing 

infrastructure and the time and cost savings that comes with this may be frustrated by terms that limit true 

partnership. These actions could delay and reduce services for public safety users, and result in AT&T using 

spectrum and funding provided by Congress for public safety use to eliminate commercial competitors. 

Transparency 

Understanding that state plans have been subject to nondisclosure agreements and uncertainty regarding future 

spectrum lease agreements, it is important that First Net, and its vendor AT&T, provide as much transparency to 

industry and potential partners as possible. Some states have cited the proposed levels of spectrum, 

termination and minimum subscription fees as significant deterrents to pursuing opt-out, even when the state 

finds FirstNet's plan to be deficient and potentially inferior to other alternatives. Lack of further information 

regarding spectrum pricing and any potential future fees or penalties on states or commercial partners 

threatens to curtail partnership opportunities, future revenue sources for FirstNet, and the competition 

necessary to ensure accountability that public safety users have the latest services and devices through the 

course of the 25-year contract. 

CCA members are committed to providing service in some of the hardest to reach geographies in the nation, 

including providing connections to public safety officials. CCA appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the 

record fortoday's hearing and looks forward to continued work with the Subcommittee, Congress, and FirstNet 

on these important issues to further public safety services and innovation in the industry and to ensure a 

successful implementation of the NPSBN. 

Sincerely, 

Steven K. Berry 

President & CEO 

Cc: 

The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Ranking Member, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 
88 


27974.047

INTERNATIONAL AssociATION oF FIRE CHIEFS 

PrtJI!idin<g leadership fOr tbefire and emcrgcm:y services since 1873 

402) F.'IIR RinGE DRIVE" Fi\!RFAX, VA 21.o_u-z868 •TEL: 705/273-0911 • PAx: 703/273·~)36J • wwv.'.ial'c.org 

November I. 2017 

The Honorable Marsha Blackbum 

Chainnan 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Communications and Technology 

U.S. llouse of Representatives 

Washington. D.C. 201515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking member Doyle: 

The Honorable Michael F. Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

U.S.Ilouse of Representatives 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

On behalf of the nearly 12.000 members of the International Association of Fire Chic!s (lAFC), this letter 

provides the views of the IAFC on the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). ]thank the 

subcommittee fi.1r this opportunity to provide a public safety perspective on the need for a nationwide 

public safety network and to examine the real progress that FirstNet has made. 

The Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012 (P.L. Il2-96) established FirstNet as an 

independent authority within the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration. Under the act, rirstNet is tasked with building, deploying, and operating a 

self~ funding, sustainable. interoperable broadband network for public safety entities across the country 

and within U.S. territories. 

FirstNct's goal of building the nationwide public safety broadband network to meet the needs of first 

responders is a matter of critical importance for public safety. While the task will not be easy, the IAFC 

believes that FirstNct has developed the leadership. staff. and support from states, public safety. and 

other key stakeholders required to make this network a reality for first responders and the public who 

call on them for help in their time of need. 

As a veteran lire chief, and as a lire lighter who has responded to numerous incidents, I know firsthand 

the benefits that the Firs!Net broadband network stands to offer in terms of improving communications, 

coordination. and situational awareness during public safety operations. Just as smartphoncs have 

changed our personaiiivcs. FirstNct devices and applications ultimately will change the way public 

safety operates. The ability for a single broadband communications network to be used to dispatch 

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, a medical helicopter, lire personnel, and other 

emergency responders from di!Terentjurisdictions all at the same time, while enabling video, text, and 

data communications at broadband speeds will save critical minutes when it matters most. 

As circumstances and technology continue to make our world smaller, situational awareness, real-time 

infonnation, and data are critical to the safety of America's lire and emergency service and the public 

we are sworn to protect. In terms of daily operations, America's lire lighters deal with an increasingly 

complex environment that requires ever-increasing amounts of information and data to keep citizens and 

themselves safe. The FirstNet network will make it possible to gain quick access to new tools and 

applications that provide location data and other vital information for firefighting. It will enable the 
89 


27974.048

exchange of real-time data and audio/video feeds on the fire ground to assist incident commanders with 

operational decision-making and maximize search and rescue and fire suppression effectiveness. 

The FirstNet broadband network will make a profound change in how EMS is practiced. In the field of 

EMS, it is important to arrive at the critical-condition patient's location and transport him or her to 

emergency care at the hospital within minutes. The FirstNet network will facilitate critical decisionmaking in real time in the field, which in turn will help save lives. 

Lessons learned from many events throughout the nation tell us that under emergency conditions, the 

nation's cellular carrier networks have quickly become overwhelmed and unusable for transmission of 

emergency data. The full development ofFirstNet's nationwide public safety broadband network will 

ensure that America's first responders can access vital information under all emergency conditions. 

Under the leadership of Chairwoman Sue Swenson, FirstNct is engaged with public safety daily and has 

sought input from the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC). The PSAC is a 43-member 

committee established by the law creating FirstNet to provide significant recommendations and advice 

to FirstNet on mission-critical issues. The PSAC meets several times a year and is assigned projects on 

the public safety needs for the broadband network. 

We believe FirstNet has worked hard to create opportunities for the public safety community to help 

shape the design of the network in the states and territories. For instance, FirstNet Board members, 

including Chair Swenson and executive-level staff, have traveled throughout the country reaching out 

and connecting with local and state public safety officials. 

As you are aware, FirstNet awarded the contract to AT&T in March of this year after conducting a 

competitive process. At this point in time, 27 states and territories have opted-in to the network. No 

states have opted-out and decided to build their own radio access network (RAN) core which must be 

interoperable with the FirstNet network. Governors have until December 28 to decide to opt-in, opt-out 

or make no decision, which effectively means to opt-in. 

The IAFC Board of Directors has adopted position statements supporting the nationwide broadband 

network, and recommending the states opt-in to the network. On June II, the IAFC sent letters to the 56 

governors of all states and territories urging them to opt-in to the network. The IAFC believes that if 

governors allow FirstNet to build out the RAN in their states, these decisions will result in the rapid 

delivery of services for the public safety community and financial stability for the states and their 

taxpayers. An 'opt in' decision by a governor is a low-risk option for the state, as FirstNet and its 

network partner will take on the financial, implementation and customer service responsibilities, as well 

as the maintenance and operation of the network over the next 25 years. 

In addition, opting in to FirstNet will result in the nationwide broadband network being built out in a 

much shorter timeframe. Once a governor decides to opt in and allow FirstNet to build out the network, 

AT&T has stated it will provide immediate priority access to its existing network for emergency 

responders. This will accelerate the buildout of the network in the state and nationwide, and provide 

public safety with their much-needed broadband network. 

If a governor decides to opt out and have the state build its own RAN, this will undoubtedly delay the 

delivery of service to public safety in the state or territory. There bave been estimates that this could 

2 
90 


27974.049

cause a delay of service of up to two years. States will assume all technical, operational, political, and 

financial risks and responsibilities related to building their own RAN. In short, the slate will need to 

ensure the interoperability of its RAN with the nationwide FirstNet network and take on the duties for 

ensuring its mission critical operations for the next 25 years. 

Public safety fought hard to establish FirstNet because we knew that we were being left behind 

compared to the technologies available for personal-use communications. The IAFC is united with other 

national public safety organizations behind the desire to sec FirstNet succeed and we will continue to 

fight for public safety's access to the best available technology to keep the public safe. 

Currently, while FirstNet is focused on building a network for data communications, public safety 

agencies still must depend on land mobile radio (LMR). The FirstNet broadband network will be very 

beneficial for mission-critical video and data operations use for public safety. However, it is not ready to 

support mission-critical voice systems. Section 6103 ofP.L 112-96 calls for the auctioning of the socalled T-Band spectrum (470 MHz-512 MHz) to begin by early 2021 and clearing current public safety 

operations from the band within two years of the end of the auction. This spectrum is essential to public 

safety. 

This spectrum is utilized in II heavily populated metropolitan areas to support critical public safety 

communications and provide regional interoperability among first responders. These areas are: 

Boston 

• Chicago 

Dallas 

Houston 

Los Angeles 

Miami 

New York 

Philadelphia 

Pittsburgh 

San Francisco 

Washington, DC 

For example, New York City heavily relies on T-Band for operations and interoperability. 

Approximately half of the 132 volunteer Fire/EMS agencies in Suffolk County operate in the T-band, 

making the mandate particularly egregious. In the aftermath of the Boston bombing, much of public 

safety communications operated on the T -Band. T-Band has been used in the Boston area for 40 years 

allowing for interoperability which previously did not exist. 

The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (March 2013 report; updated May 2016) 

estimates that it will cost at least $5.9 billion to migrate these jurisdictions' communications systems to 

another band. At least five jurisdictions do not have sufficient alternative spectrum to which to migrate. 

Mission-critical voice on the FirstNet broadband network may not be comparable to that on current 

LMR systems for possibly 10 years or more. Even if public safety was removed from the T-Band, the 

spectrum would still be heavily encumbered with business and industrial users. This would most likely 

result in any auction being a failure. There have been at least fifteen years of planning and grant funding 

since September 11,2001, used in developing interoperability plans and common channel plans using 

the T-Band spectrum. This was evident in the Boston terrorist bombings for which T-Band 

interoperability, common channel plans, and hardened infrastructure proved successful in supporting 

public safety throughout the region. 

3 
91 


27974.050

The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/ll 

Commission Report) identified the need for improved interoperable communications between first 

responders and recommended dedicated spectrum for public safety. These needs were again amplified 

and identified in the after-action reports of Hurricane Katrina and other incidents. The IAFC knows 

firsthand the benefits that mission-critical interoperable communications provide. While the FirstNet 

network stands to improve communications, coordination and situational awareness during emergency 

response operations, it will not- for the foreseeable future replace mission-critical voice 

communications. It is for these reasons that the IAFC supports the repeal of section 6103 ofP.L. 112-96 

to allow public safety to continue using the T -Band spectrum to accomplish its mission. 

While we realize there is still a lot of work to be done and FirstNet must continue to move quickly in 

building out the nationwide broadband network, the FirstNet network is urgently needed to increase the 

safety and capabilities of all public safety personnel and protect the American people. It is not only 

FirstNet which bears the responsibility for success, but it also falls on all public safety agencies to 

ensure success in the creation and administration of the broadband network. I feel confident that FirstNet 

is on the right path toward building a broadband network that will serve the nation's firefighters, EMS 

providers, and other emergency responders. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspectives on the issues. If you have any questions, 

please contact Mr. Jim Goldstein, Manager of Government Relations, jgoldstein@iafc.org, 202-494-

6607. 

Sincen;l.y, n J! 

;f~ { Y!0' 

Fire Chief Thomas C. Jenkins V 

President and Chairman of the Board 

:jg 

4 
92 


27974.051

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

C!Congre!is of tbe ~ntteb ~tates 

;!)oulit of l\tpresentatibes 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFICE BuiLOING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority !2021225-2927 

Mr. Michael Poth 

CEO 

First Responder Network Authority 

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive 

Reston, VA 20192 

Dear Mr. Poth; 

Minority {202:)22&·3641 

November 20, 20 17 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Wednesday, November 1, 2017, to testifY at the hearing entitled "Oversight of FirstNet: State 

Perspectives." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to pe1m it Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name ofthe 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 

---. 
93 


27974.052

Subcommittee Vice Chairman Leonard Lance 

1. In his testimony before the Subcommittee, Chris Sam bar, Vice President of AT&T, stated 

that AT&T intends to develop, test and certify devices and applications for use on the 

FirstNet network based on "proprietary" standards, despite the fact that the Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires FirstNet to "promote competition in the 

equipment market, including devices for public safety communications by requiring that 

equipment for use on the network be built to open, non-proprietary, commercially-available 

standards." 

a. How will FirstNet work to ensure that all aspects of its network deployment plan, 

including the activities of its contractors and subcontractors, are open and fully 

competitive? 

FirstNet's strategy for maximizing interoperability across the nationwide public safety broadband 

network (NPSBN) is to leverage, consistent with its statutory mandate, open, standards-based network 

solutions. The need for interoperable communications among public safety users from different agencies 

helped drive the creation of FirstNet, and it is core to our mission. 

Accordingly, FirstNet will hold AT&T to the terms and conditions of the NPSBN contract, including 

those applicable to promoting competition in the equipment market and requiring that equipment for use 

on the network be built to open, non-proprietary, commercially-available standards, and will monitor the 

implementation of these requirements through the review of submitted deliverables and the use of the 

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), which measures performance and contract compliance. 

b. How will FirstNet work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) to ensure that any devices and applications developed for use on FirstNet's 

network are open and interoperable and agnostic as to device manufacturer, 

application developer, and network provider? 

FirstNet has a close working relationship with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

NIST has supported, and continues to support FirstNet in technical areas, such as devices and 

applications, and cooperation on public safety communications research and development. For example, 

FirstNet is working closely with NIST in the development and creation ofFirstNet's Device Approval 

Program. The Act directs NIST to maintain the "list of certified devices" for the FirstNet network. 

FirstNet is working closely with NIST and has a program in place to jointly develop and publish the list 

of certified devices. Additionally, FirstNet collaborates with the Public Safety Communications Research 

(PSCR) Division at NIST on research to address the security of data and applications via isolation 

technologies (project completed in 2017), security testing tools (ongoing), and access controls (ongoing). 

The Honorable Gus Bilirakis 

1. Iu your testimony, you indicate that FirstNet has provided States with a draft Spectrum 

Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA), which includes terms and conditions that opt-out 

states would have to satisfy. In his testimony, John Stevens, the New Hampshire Statewide 

lnteroperability Coordinator, testified that the SMLA New Hampshire received includes 

various "arbitrary and capricious" fees and penalties. This includes termination penalties 

and adoption disincentive payments. Please provide additional information regarding any 

fees, penalties, and other conditions associated with the SMLA states considering an opt-out 
94 


27974.053

have received. 

a. What spectrum fees, if any, are included and how was the amount of such fee 

determined for each state? 

Under the NPSBN contract, FirstNet fulfills its statutory mandate to be financially self-sustaining, in part, 

by receiving payments from its NPSBN contractor for use of the FirstNet-licensed spectrum over the next 

25 years. Similarly, the model SMLA requires an opt-out state that seeks to use the FirstNet-licensed 

spectrum to make annual spectrum payments over 25 years, which are included in any opt-out Spectrum 

Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) in exchange for the state receiving access to FirstNet's Band 14 

licensed spectrum. This spectrum payment is necessary to help ensure FirstNet fulfills its statutory 

mandate to be a self-funded entity. These payments have been determined based on past spectrum auction 

amounts and FirstNet's open and competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process. For example, the 

amounts payable by a state if it elects to opt-out are the same as the amounts that the NPSBN contractor 

would pay to support the NPSBN if the state elects to opt-in. This relationship is consistent across all 

states. 

Given that all 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in, the opt-out provisions 

as illustrated in the model SMLA that was distributed to the states, is no longer germane. 

b. What adoption disincentive payments, if any, are included and bow was the amount 

of such fees determined for each state? 

Based on feedback, FirstNet has removed mandatory adoption targets and disincentive payments from the 

model SMLA. Instead, the model SMLA will require adherence to any user adoption assumptions 

provided by a state in its State Alternative Plan Program (SAPP) application submitted to the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 

c. What termination penalties, if any are included in the SMLA? 

The SMLA does not include termination penalties. A prior draft of the SMLA included a reference to a 

range of estimated termination payments, based on the possibility of a "greenfield" build at some point 

over the 25-year term of the SMLA. Based on feedback, FirstNet has removed that reference from the 

model SMLA and clarified that, in the event an opt-out state is unable to build out and operate its own 

RAN, the state would only be responsible for any actual costs FirstNet reasonably incurs reestablishing a 

Band 14 RAN in the state. An independent third party would be used to validate that the actual costs are 

reasonable for reestablishing the RAN. FirstNet would work with the state and all interested parties to 

develop the most cost-efficient solution to minimize any disruption to public safety communications as 

well as minimize the fiscal impact to the state. 

d. Additionally, please expand on the process that FirstNet and any opt-out states will 

go through as the "draft" SMLA shifts to a final set of terms and conditions. What 

flexibility will states have, if any, to negotiate the terms? At what point in the 

process will that discussion take place? 

All 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in. Prior to the opt-in, states could 

have chosen to opt-out of the FirstNet proposed build and assume responsibility for building, operating, 

maintaining, and improving the RAN component of the NPSBN within their state. Under the Act, before 

entering into an SMLA with FirstNet, the opt-out state would have needed to: formally reject the FirstNet 

State Plan, engage in a procurement for its alternative RAN plan, submit to the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) an alternative plan showing that its RAN will comply with statutory interoperability 
95 


27974.054

requirements, and, if the FCC approves the State's alternative plan, apply to NTIA's State Alternative 

Plan Program (SAPP) for the authorization to enter into spectrum capacity leasing rights with FirstNet 

(SMLA) and for optional grant funds to cover a part of the cost of constructing its RAN (RAN 

Construction Funds). 

At the request of the state, FirstNet would have engaged in discussions with a state as soon as the state 

provided the statutory notice of its intention to opt-out of the FirstNet proposed RAN deployment and 

assume the full responsibility for conducting its own RAN deployment within the state. These steps were 

to balance FirstNet's statutory duties with regard to the NPSBN, the State's responsibility to build, 

operate, maintain, and improve the RAN, including the long-term financial responsibility, and 

accommodations appropriate for the alternative RAN plan proposed by the state. 

The Honorable Susan W. Brooks 

1. In your opening statement, you referenced risk. Can you expand upon the risks that you at 

FirstNet face? 

The primary risks to FirstNet include those related to nationwide network deployment and the challenge 

of providing a service offering that meets the needs of public safety entities throughout the country. 

a. I understand that your RFP was designated to shift risk away from the government 

and onto your partner, AT&T, but what are the issues that concern you going 

forward? Security? Deployment? Adoption? 

The primary risks to FirstNet include those related to nationwide network deployment and the challenge 

of providing a service offering that meets the needs of public safety entities throughout the country, 

including cybersecurity, deployment, and adoption of the service. 

FirstNet protects itself from risk through its contract with AT&T. The FirstNet task orders issued against 

the NPSBN contract to provide services in support of public safety entities are firm-fixed price. This type 

of vehicle has less risk to the Government as the price is not dependent on the contractor's cost 

experience. AT&T is not able to move forward with any additional or other work unless explicitly 

approved by the Government Contracting Officer. 

Additionally, the contract and task orders includes specific milestone deliverables that AT&T must meet 

to be paid such as meeting key adoption targets of public safety users. If AT&T fails to meet its adoption 

targets, the Government has the ability to withhold funds from the contractor. 

The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo 

1. My home state of California has serious concerns regarding estimated costs to states that 

opt out of FirstNet, and are unable to build out and operate its own Radio Access Network 

(RAN). In California's case, the cost would be in the area of$15 billion. California was told 

this figure was calculated based on the assumption that if California failed in deploying its 

own RAN, a "green field" build (one in which all construction is new and on bare soil) 

could cost as much as that amount. However, in its partnership with FirstNet, AT&T is 

basing its deployment of the NPSBN on existing infrastructure. 
96 


27974.055

a. Why wouldn't the transition to a FirstNet/AT&T deployment use the same "existing 

AT&T infrastructure?" There would be no change to the cost for AT&T for its 

NPSBN deployment from that already planned. 

FirstNet's NPSBN contract with AT&T requires AT&T to maintain its current pricing for 900 days 

following State Plan delivery, in the event AT&T is tasked with building or deploying a RAN in an 

unsuccessful opt-out state during that period. However, AT&T is not required to maintain that pricing 

after 900 days, and the circumstances that might render a state unable to build out and operate its RAN at 

any point during the 25-year term are unknowable at this stage. In the event an opt-out state is unable to 

build out and operate its own RAN, the state would only be responsible for any actual costs FirstNet 

reasonably incurs reestablishing a Band 14 RAN in the state. An independent third party would be used 

to validate that the actual costs are reasonable for reestablishing the RAN. The state would not be 

charged any termination penalty. FirstNet would work with the state and all interested parties to develop 

the most cost-efficient solution to minimize any disruption to public safety communications as well as 

minimize the fiscal impact to the state. FirstNct also would explore how to leverage existing 

infrastructure to keep actual costs as low as possible. 

b. Will you provide California with a detailed breakdown of how this cost was 

calculated? 

FirstNet offered each state an estimated range, which was on the basis of a green-field build. Importantly, 

these were estimates and, as such, do not represent actual costs in the event a state is unable to build out 

and operate its own RAN at some point during the 25-year term. Any actual costs reasonably incurred by 

FirstNet might be less than those estimates and would only be known at the time the state is unable to 

proceed with its obligations. Based on feedback, FirstNet has removed references to these estimates in 

the updated model Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA). 

2. In addition to the basis for the $15 billion Termination Payment Estimates, please provide 

the basis for your calculation of Annual Spectrum Network Capacity Payment as presented 

byNTIA. 

Under the NPSBN contract, FirstNet fulfills its statutory mandate to be financially self-sustaining, in part, 

by receiving payments from its NPSBN contractor for use of the FirstNet-licensed spectrum over the next 

25 years. Similarly, the model SMLA requires an opt-out state that seeks to use the FirstNet-licensed 

spectrum to make annual spectrum payments over 25 years, which are included in any opt-out Spectrum 

Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) in exchange for the state receiving access to FirstNet's Band 14 

licensed spectrum. This spectrum payment is necessary to help ensure FirstNet fulfills its statutory 

mandate to be a self-funded entity. These payments have been determined based on past spectrum auction 

amounts and FirstNet's open and competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process. For example, the 

amounts payable by California if it elects to opt-out are the same as the amounts that the NPSBN 

contractor would pay to support the NPSBN if California elects to opt-in. This relationship is consistent 

across all states. 

a. If under an Opt-Out scenario California is responsible for a payment exceeding 

$250 million annually, what is the total calculation for all such payments for the 56 

states and territories year to year? 
97 


27974.056

If every state and territory opted-out, the total annual spectrum payments for the 56 states and territories 

year to year would vary over the 25-year term from a low of$120 million to a high of$1.7 billion. 

Given that all 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in, this calculation is no 

longer germane. 

3. If one were to apply the same basis that NTIA used for determining the range of grant 

funds that California could receive in an Opt Out scenario, the total revenue expected from 

all such use should exceed $3.4 billion annually. 

a. If so, how would that $3.4 billion, or portion thereof, be used to expand coverage in 

California? 

Any revenue FirstNet receives, including annual spectrum lease payments from opt-out states, in 

accordance with the Act, must be reinvested into the nationwide network or in enhancing public safety 

communications, including in the State of California. FirstNet's State Plan for California includes 

significant buildout milestones to expand coverage in the state that AT&T will be contractually obligated 

to meet at no cost to California taxpayers. 

4. It is my understanding that FirstNet requires AT&T to meet aggressive adoption targets in 

California. Specifically, FirstNet is requiring 218,000 subscribers in California by the third 

year and 350,000 subscribers by the 25th year. 

a. How can AT&T meet this adoption target when there are only approximately 

160,000 first responders in the entire state of California? 

In determining the number of potential users and adoption targets, FirstNet relied on the statutory 

definition of public safely entity in the Act, which defines the potential public safety user base of the 

network beyond traditional first responders (police, fire, emergency medical services). In addition, the 

adoption targets are measured by the number of device connections (not by the number of responders 

subscribed to the network), such that there can be multiple device connections per responder (e.g., the use 

of phone and a tablet). 

Relatedly, based on feedback, FirstNet has removed mandatory adoption targets and disincentive 

payments from the model SMLA. Instead, the model SMLA will require adherence to any user adoption 

assumptions provided by a state in its State Alternative Plan Program application submitted to NTIA. 

5. I'm also concerned about the interoperability with FirstNet of existing public-safety 

broadband networks like Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System 

(LA-RICS), which was built using $150 million from the Broadband Technologies 

Opportunity Program (BTOP) grant program. 

a. Will LA-RICS be interoperable with FirstNet's network if California opts-in? 

On December 14th, 2017, LA-RICS board members approved an agreement that would transfer the LARICS BTOP-funded assets to AT&T, so they can be integrated into the FirstNet system. The agreement to 

transfer the BTOP-funded assets is currently under review by NTIA and NOAA. 
98 


27974.057

The Honorable Peter Welch 

1. What is the specific statutory authority for FirstNet to assess any kind of termination or 

disincentive fees or penalty against states that decide to opt out? 

Based on feedback, FirstNet has removed mandatory adoption targets and disincentive payments from the 

model SMLA. Instead, the model SMLA will require adherence to any user adoption assumptions 

provided by a state in its State Alternative Plan Program (SAPP) application submitted to the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 

Given that all 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in, the opt-out provisions 

as illustrated in the model SMLA that was distributed to the states is no longer germane. 

2. What is the specific methodology FirstNet used to calculate proposed termination fees, 

disincentive payments and spectrum lease fees? 

Termination Fees: 

Based on feedback, FirstNet has clarified in the model Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) 

that, in the event an opt-out state is unable to build out and operate its own RAN, the state would only be 

responsible for any actual costs FirstNet reasonably incurs reestablishing a Band 14 RAN in the state. An 

independent third party would be used to validate that the actual costs are reasonable for reestablishing 

the RAN. FirstNet would work with the state and all interested parties to develop the most cost-efficient 

solution to minimize any disruption to public safety communications as well as minimize the fiscal 

impact to the state. 

Disincentive Payments: 

FirstNet no longer includes disincentive payments in its model SMLA. Since FirstNet spectrum (Band 14) 

must be used to provide service to public safety users, the SMLA requires a State to abide by any user 

adoption assumptions reflected in its State Alternative Plan Program (SAPP) application to NTIA. 

Spectrum Lease Payments: 

Under the NPSBN contract, FirstNet fulfills its statutory mandate to be financially self-sustaining, in part, 

by receiving payments from its NPSBN contractor for use of the FirstNet-licensed spectrum over the next 

25 years. Similarly, the model SMLA requires an opt-out state that seeks to use the FirstNet-licensed 

spectrum to make annual spectrum payments over 25 years, which are included in any opt-out Spectrum 

Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) in exchange for the state receiving access to FirstNet's Band 14 

licensed spectrum. This spectrum payment is necessary to help ensure FirstNet fulfills its statutory 

mandate to be a self-funded entity. These payments have been determined based on past spectrum auction 

amounts and FirstNet's open and competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process. For example, the 

amounts payable by a state if it elects to opt-out are the same as the amounts that the NPSBN contractor 

would pay to support the NPSBN if the state elects to opt-in. This relationship is consistent across all 

states. 

3. Does FirstNet plan to disclose the terms of its contract with AT&T to the public? 
99 


27974.058

Although some elements of the NPSBN contract are considered public information, certain terms are 

protected by statute and regulation and accordingly will not be disclosed to the public. 

4. If FirstNet has no plans to release the AT&T contract(s), why not? 

Although some elements of the NPSBN contract are considered public information, certain terms are 

protected by statute and regulation and accordingly will not be disclosed to the public. 

5. Why does FirstNet require a FOIA exemption or PIA exemption? 

FirstNet is complying with an express mandate from Congress in administering these exemptions. Under 

section 6206(d) of the Act, "any action taken or decisions made by the First Responder Network 

Authority shall be exempt from the requirements of(l) section 3506 of Title 44, United States Code 

(commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act); (2) chapter 5 of Title 5, United States Code 

(commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedures Act); and (3) chapter 6 of Title 5, United States 

Code (commonly referred to as the Regulatory Flexibility Act)." 

6. Why are there no proposed service fees in the state plans specified for mission critical 

public safety services such as Push to Talk (PTT), Group communications and direct mode? 

As aspects of the mission critical public safety services, such as Push to Talk (PTT), Group 

communications and direct mode offerings become available, competitive rates will be set to drive 

continued FirstNet adoption. These services were still under development at the time of State Plan 

release, and therefore specific service fees were not included. 

7. What assurances will FirstNet make to a state that it will require AT&T to continue to 

provide these three services at a price comparable to a competitive service or at a discount 

after a state has entered a 25 year monopoly agreement? 

As an advocate for public safety, FirstNet intends to hold AT&T accountable for competitive pricing. The 

NPSBN contract specifies that AT&T deploy the NPSBN and offer competitive pricing throughout the 

life of the contract. This is accomplished through Government oversight and the review of required 

pricing deliverables and reports. Additionally, the NPSBN contract requires AT&T to provide a most 

favored customer pricing arrangement to public safety subscribers of the NPSBN, in order to ensure 

public safety subscribers to the NPSBN pay no more than the lowest price available for any type of 

customer receiving broadband Long Term Evolution (LTE) services on Band 14 or other bands. 

8. What mandatory roll out schedule for MCPTT and group communications and direct mode 

is FirstNet contractually binding AT&T to deliver? 

AT&T is required to deliver Mission Critical Push to Talk {MCPTT) and group communications and 

direct mode in accordance with the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) I Final Operational Capabilities 

(FOC) milestones under the terms and conditions of the NPSBN contract, estimated to be implemented 

the second quarter of FY2020. The Government monitors performance of each of those milestones 

throughout the life of the NPSBN contract (through March 2042) through the review of deliverables and 

key performance indicators (KP!s ). 

9. As these services are in the proposed roadmap and their costs can significantly impact the 

FirstNet service affordability in evaluating the option for opting into the ATT proposal, 

how do you justify the omission? 
100 


27974.059

Aspects of the mission critical public safety services, such as PTT, Group communications, and direct 

mode offerings, were still under development at the time of State Plan release, and therefore specific 

service fees were not included. As these services become available, competitive rates will be set to drive 

continued FirstNet adoption. These services remain in the roadmap. 

10. If opt-out states are prohibited by the Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) from 

building an Evolved Packet Core (EPC) for public safety, please specify the fees for an optout state to connect to the National Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN) core? 

FirstNct, consistent with the Act, and following public notice and comment, determined that, for the 

design of the NPSBN to be based on a single, national network architecture and be truly interoperable, it 

alone must deploy the nationwide Core Network to service aJI public safety users. This requirement is 

incorporated as a tenn of the model SMLA. In addition, the Act requires states to pay fees associated 

with the state's use of the elements of the Core Network. The specific fees for these "core services" have 

not been determined yet. These types of carrier-to-carrier services are typically provided through 

separate, standard agreements. 

Given that aJI 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in, the opt-out provisions 

as illustrated in the model SMLA that was distributed to the states is no longer germane. 

11. What is the basis for establishing the core connection charge for a state that chooses to opt 

out? 

The Act requires states to pay fees associated with the state's use of the elements of the Core Network. 

The specific fees for these "core services" have not been determined yet. These types of carrier-to-carrier 

services are typically provided through separate, standard agreements. 

Given that all 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in, the opt-out provisions 

as illustrated in the model SMLA that was distributed to the states is no longer germane. 

12. Will FirstNet acknowledge the need for a state right of appeal to the FCC as to the 

reasonable determination of the core interconnection charges? 

The Act provides that FirstNet, not the FCC, has authority over establishment and operation of the 

NPSBN, including opt-out state access to the FirstNet Core Network. Since no state elected to opt-out, 

there will be no fees associated with connection to the FirstNet Core Network payable by a state. 

13. As this cost is a critical component in determining the financial sustainability of operating 

an opt· out state Radio Access Network (RAN} how can any state make an informed 

decision lacking this information? 

Network providers routinely enter into interconnection agreements with one another through standard 

agreements. 

Given that all 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in, the opt-out provisions 

as illustrated in the model SMLA that was distributed to the states is no longer germane. 
101 


27974.060

14. Since AT&T bas announced that it will leverage most of its commercial network to provide 

public safety services, why do the penalties specified in the SMLA assume costs of a 

complete green field "reconstitution" of a mobile network in a failed opt-out RAN scenario? 

The SMLA does not include termination penalties. A prior draft of the SMLA included a reference to a 

range of estimated termination payments, based on the possibility of a "greenfield" build at some point 

over the 25-year term of the SMLA. Based on feedback, FirstNet has removed that reference from the 

model SMLA and clarified that, in the event an opt-out state is unable to build out and operate its own 

RAN, the state would only be responsible for any actual costs FirstNet reasonably incurs reestablishing a 

Band 14 RAN in the state. An independent third party would be used to validate that the actual costs are 

reasonable for reestablishing the RAN. FirstNet would work with the state and all interested parties to 

develop the most cost-efficient solution to minimize any disruption to public safety communications as 

well as minimize the fiscal impact to the state. 

15. As in the above scenario, most of the AT&T network infrastructure will already be in place 

and only parts of the state RAN might need to be hardened and surgical coverage updated, 

how do you justify the proposed enormous penalties based on a green field build? 

FirstNet's NPSBN contract with AT&T requires AT&T to maintain its current pricing for 900 days 

following State Plan delivery, in the event AT&T is tasked with building or deploying a RAN in an 

unsuccessful opt-out state during that period. However, AT&T is not required to maintain that pricing 

after 900 days, and the circumstances that might render a state unable to build out and operate its RAN at 

any point during the 25-year term are unknowable at this stage. As noted above, in the event an opt-out 

state is unable to build out and operate its own RAN, FirstNet would work with the state and all interested 

parties to develop the most cost-efficient solution to minimize any disruption to public safety 

communications as well as minimize the fiscal impact to the state. As a part of this process, FirstNet 

would explore how to leverage existing infrastructure to keep actual costs as low as possible. 

16. What is the basis of the expected 30 month delay for an opt-out state? 

Pursuant to the Act, a state that chooses to opt-out of FirstNet's proposed deployment plan assumes 

responsibility for constructing, operating, maintaining, and improving the RAN in the state. The state 

must successfully complete the statutorily mandated opt-out process- including formal rejection of the 

FirstNet State Plan, procurement for its alternative RAN plan, submission to the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) an alternative plan showing that its RAN will comply with statutory interoperability 

requirements, and, if the FCC approves the State's alternative plan, application to NTIA's SAPP for the 

authorization to enter into an SMLA and for optional RAN Construction Funds, and execution of an 

SMLA with FirstNet- prior to beginning deployment of the network in the state. Based on the 

timeframes prescribed in the Act along with those being established independently by the FCC and NTIA 

for their review processes, it is expected that there could be as much as a two-year (or more) delay until 

network services would be available to public safety in an opt-out state. 

17. What provisions has FirstNet considered or implemented to mitigate or minimize the unsafe 

disadvantage of the estimated 30 month delay in approving a state plan exercising its right 

under law to opt and build its own RAN? 

All 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in. FirstNet's overarching mission is 

to ensure that public safety has the communication tools it needs to help save lives and protect our 

communities across the nation, regardless of whether the state has opted into or out of the FirstNet 
102 


27974.061

proposed plan. FirstNet would have worked with any opt-out state, as well as our federal and tribal 

partners, to have helped make the process as smooth and expeditious as possible. The opt-out process was 

explicitly mandated by the Act. 

18. Is FirstNet willing to provide assurances that an enforceable cause of action is available to 

the state in the event AT&T fails to meet the requirements as set forth in the state plan? 

FirstNet has sole responsibility for ensuring that the NPSBN contractor, AT&T, complies with its 

obligations with respect to each and every opt-in state. The NPSBN contract contains terms and 

conditions that enable FirstNet to hold AT&T accountable for meeting its contractual obligations. To that 

end, FirstNet intends to be vigilant in its oversight and enforcement of AT&T's commitments to the 

public safety community throughout the nation and throughout the 25-year term of the contract. 

19. Is FirstNet willing to assume responsibility for enforcing the terms of the add-on tower or 

deployable agreements offered by AT&T above and beyond those specified in the state 

plan? 

FirstNet intends to incorporate AT&T's network commitments to a state as part of the task order for the 

state once the state opts-in to the FirstNet network. 

20. Is FirstNet willing to provide written assurances and binding enforceable agreements to the 

state that in the event that AT&T fails to deliver on time the coverage, public safety grade 

infrastructure and Baud Class 14 deployment, that the state will have the option to revert to 

opt- out status and recover the entire amount of the NTIA grant, the Band 14 spectrum and 

equivalent "reconstitution" costs from AT&T? 

Pursuant to the express provisions of the Act, a state's choice to participate in the FirstNet-proposed 

network deployment or deploy its own RAN is a one-time decision. Once a state opts-in, FirstNet and 

AT&T assume the risks, responsibilities, and costs associated with the network. In accordance with the 

Act, FirstNet executed a rigorous Requests for Proposal (RFP) process to select a private sector partner 

that provided the best value to the government and to public safety across the country. FirstNet's contract 

with AT&T for the NPSBN contains terms and conditions that enable FirstNet to hold AT&T accountable 

for meeting its contractual obligations and FirstNet intends to be vigilant in its oversight and enforcement 

of AT&T's commitments to the public safety community throughout the nation and throughout the 25-

year term of the contract. 

21. Is FirstNet willing to pledge the full faith and credit of the First Responder Network 

Authority in order to stand behind the FirstNet state plan provisions and contracts it has 

entered with AT&T? 

FirstNet is an independent federal authority with a statutory duty and responsibility to take all actions 

necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and operation of the NPSBN. FirstNet takes this directive 

from Congress very seriously and is committed to making sure that the network consistently meets the 

needs of public safety nationwide, including by vigilantly monitoring and enforcing the terms of the 

NPSBN contract with AT&T. Additionally, FirstNet has obtained a parental guarantee from AT&T to 

ensure the deployment and operation of the NPSBN over the next 25 years. 

22. Is FirstNet willing to post Performance bond to assure that the state is made whole in the 

event the state plan provisions are not completed and on time? 

FirstNet is an independent federal authority with a statutory duty and responsibility to take all actions 

necessary to ensure the establishment of the NPSBN. Consistent with the Act, FirstNet has contracted to 
103 


27974.062

build, operate, maintain, and improve the NPSBN in each state at no cost to the state. Once a state opts 

in, FirstNet and AT&T assume the risks, responsibilities, and costs associated with the deployment and 

operation of the network. The contract is the means by which FirstNet will enforce AT&T's buildout 

obligations in each state and ensure the needs of public safety are satisfied. Additionally, FirstNet has 

obtained a parental guarantee from AT&T to ensure the deployment and operation of the NPSBN over the 

next 25 years. 

23. Why is there no discussion of, or assurances for, "public safety grade" system hardening 

standards for the existing towers and proposed new towers in the State Plans? 

The contract with AT&T requires a high level of system availability which measures, among other things, 

accessibility for both data and voice. This is accomplished not only through site hardening, but also 

through various system redundancies, coverage overlap, and a robust deployable strategy to address 

network outages. AT&T is planning for system level resiliency and will be taking extra measures at key 

strategic sites. 

24, The SMLA is clear with regards to the penalties to states if performance criteria are not 

met. Will AT&T be subject to the same penalties if they: 

a. Do not add the towers included in their state plans? b. Do not meet the 99.99% 

reliability standard? c. Do not meet the standards for deployables during emergency 

events? 

AT&T is being held to specific performance criteria/metrics as established per the NSPBN contract and 

subsequent task orders. This gives FirstNet the ability to take action against AT&T if AT&T fails to meet 

the commitments specified in the State Plan or through other network commitments to a state, which will 

be incorporated as requirements into the task order award once the state opts-in to the FirstNet network. 

FirstNet will continuously monitor AT&T for performance throughout the 25-year term of the contract. 

In addition, under the NPSBN contract, AT&T is subject to disincentive payments for meeting certain 

public safety adoption targets. The model SMLA has been modified to remove disincentive payments for 

the states. Instead, the model SMLA requires a State to abide by any user adoption assumptions reflected 

in its State Alternative Plan Program (SAPP) application to NTIA. 

25. Will the very large penalties described in the draft SMLA for opt-out states that do not 

meet First Net system requirements be levied against AT&T if the AT&T system is found 

by the state Public Utility Commission and/or the FCC to be deficient in a state and that 

opt-in state finds it necessary to invest in replacement RAN? 

Once a state opts-in to the FirstNet network, FirstNct will issue a task order for that state that formalizes 

AT &T's obligations contractually for deployment of the network in that state. This gives FirstNet the 

ability to take action against AT&T if AT&T fails to meet the commitments specified in the State Plan In 

addition, under the NPSBN contract, AT&T is subject to disincentive payments for meeting certain public 

safety adoption targets. Additionally, FirstNet has obtained a parental guarantee from AT&T to ensure 

the deployment and operation of the NPSBN over the next 25 years. 

26. Under what circumstances is it inappropriate for all FirstNet subscribers to have access to 

all FirstNet applications regardless of which FCC approved state RAN, core or national 

core network is used to reach those resources? 
104 


27974.063

Public safety entity users of the NPSBN will be given the opportunity to have access to FirstNet 

applications regardless of whether the state has opted-in or opted-out. 

27. Because many states share borders with Canada and Mexico, it is important to know how 

communications will be managed near our borders. In addition, the possibility that opt out 

states will develop their own systems add other sets of examples where the state FirstNet 

RAN systems must include roaming agreements that allow seamless communications during 

emergency situations. How will FirstNet require AT&T ensure roaming agreements are 

implemented and maintained at borders where non-AT&T systems are necessary for 

communication? 

There are existing agreements that govern the use of spectrum in the international border areas between 

Canada and the United States and Mexico and the United States. Operations by FCC licensees, including 

NPSBN operations, must comply with these existing agreements. All builders and operators that utilize 

FirstNet's Band 14 spectrum, i.e., AT&Tand opt-out state providers, will be required by FirstNet to 

cooperate in border areas. 

28. Will FirstNet do everything in their power to ensure the States right, to Opt- out of using 

FirstNet's contracted supplier, is preserved? 

Yes, FirstNet worked with states to ensure they understood the statutorily mandated opt-out process that 

Congress prescribed in FirstNet's enabling legislation. All 50 states, five territories and the District of 

Columbia have opted in. 

29. Will FirstNet continue to leverage their authority to ensure the success of a State Opt-out 

decision, if a State so chooses to exercise that option? 

Yes. FirstNet is committed to Congress' vision of a nationwide interoperable network forthe betterment 

of public safety nationwide. All 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia have opted in. 
105 


27974.064

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR .• NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!Congr££)£) of tbe mntteb ~tate£) 

;Qou~e of l\epre~entatibe~ 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

Mr. Christopher Sambar 

Senior Vice President 

AT&T 

208 South Akard Street 

Dallas, TX 75202 

Dear Mr. Sambar: 

Majority {2021225~921 

Minority {202122!><l641 

November 20, 2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Wednesday, November I, 2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "Oversight of FirstNet: State 

Perspectives." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to penni! Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

di.':f_A,~tu_,_ 1 

~:,~~.,.._, 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 
106 


27974.065

~at&t 

December 6, 2017 

Mr. Evan Viau 

Legislative Clerk 

David J, Cbon:empa 

Assistanl Vice President -Senior Lega1 Counsel 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

AT&T Services. Inc. 

1120 20" Street, NW - Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Phone 202-463-4172 

fax 202-463-8066 

david.chorzemna@a!! com 

Re: Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on 

Energy and Commerce; November 1, 2017 Hearing: 

''Oversight of FirstNet: State Perspectives" 

Dear Mr. Viau: 

Attached please find the responses to the questions for the record directed at AT&T Senior 

Vice President, Chris Sambar in the above-referenced hearing. 

Please call me with any questions. 

Enclosure: a/s 
107 


27974.066

Before the Subcommitree on Communications and Technology of the United States House of 

Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Hearing: "Oversight of FirstNet: State Perspectives.'' 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Susan W. Brooks for AT&T's Chris Sambar 

The Honorable Susan W. Brooks 

I. Now that Indiana has opted-in, what can we expect from AT&T over the coming 

months? 

a. I expect that you all will be pushing for adoption; however, I'm more interested in 

the physical deployment of the RAN. Can you expand please? 

Response: We have already begun the bui!dout process, including site acquisition and design 

work on the additional RAN sites in the state plans. The FirstNet network core will be up in 

March 2018. Having said that, first responders in "opt in" states are already able to utilize 

enhanced features of the FirstNet network. For example, first responders in "opt in" states can 

have priority, meaning that in times of emergencies and network congestion, our network will 

give first responders' communications precedence. And as early as this month, first responder 

communications for primary users will also have "preemption," meaning that their 

communications will preempt all communications, other than 911 calls, in times of emergencies. 

We have worked closely with the State of Indiana and the FirstNet authority to identify areas of 

the state that will receive coverage enhancements. Where appropriate, AT&T is also committed 

to working with the state to use state assets to support the FirstNet buildout. 

b. I hear that gaining access to priority and preemption on the network will be as 

simple as swapping out a SIM card in a device, is it really that simple? How do 

first responders actually get access to priority and preemption? 

Response: As noted, priority and as early as this month, preemption will be made available in 

all opt-in states. Thus, at present, first responders with AT&Tservice and an AT&T device can 

immediately take advantage of priority and, expected shortly, preemption on AT &T's network 

without having to swap out a SIM. However, once the FirstNet network core is up (in March 

20 18), first responders will simply need to swap out their SIM card in their AT&T device in 

order for the phone to "point to" the FirstNet network core. 

c. What sort of outreach is FirstNet and AT&T doing with public safety officials so 

they fully understand what FirstNet is, how it will benefit them. what exactly they 

are gaining access to, and how they can gain access? 

Response: FirstNet has been reaching out to public safety experts in the states for the last three 

years, not only to explain the benefits of FirstNet, but also to receive their feedback on what they 

wanted in this network. That is why FirstNet is a solution designed by public safety for public 

safety. Since FirstNet announced (on March 30'b) that it had selected AT&T, we have been 

working closely with states and territories to provide them all the information they need to make 

an informed decision to opt in to FirstNet. In early June, we held a two-day meeting with states 

1 
108 


27974.067

officials in Dallas to discuss the network AT&T is building, the services we will deliver, as well 

as the delivery of the state plans. And before and after this meeting, FirstNet and AT&T have 

had countless meetings with state public safety experts to answer any questions they may have. 

We are committed to continuing this outreach and collaboration to ensure that states have all the 

information available to them to fully understand FirstNet's benefits and how they can utilize the 

network. 

In Indiana, the AT&T FirstNet team has actively engaged first responders across the state. Prior 

to the state's decision to "opt in," the AT&T FirstNet team met with numerous first responders 

throughout the state and sponsored several public-safety focused events that gave us the 

opportunity to describe the benefits of FirstNet. In May, the AT&T FirstNet team held a 

statewide conference in French Lick that was attended by more than three hundred first 

responders from across the state. 

Since Indiana opted in, the AT&T FirstNet team has worked with state agencies to provide 

details of the state plan and describe the process of migrating to FirstNet. This outreach includes 

the Indianapolis State Police and the City of Indianapolis Police and Fire. 

On November 30'h, AT&T presented at the State of Indiana "FirstNet Launch" at the 

Indianapolis Marriott East. Sixteen AT&T FirstNet teammates participated in the event, offering 

details of the FirstNet solutions AT&T will offer. 

2 
109 


27974.068

Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the United States House of 

Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Hearing: "Oversight of FirstNet: State Perspectives." 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honoruble Anna G. Eshoo for AT&T's Chris Sambar 

The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo 

I. Some questions have been raised in my home state of California about AT&T' s existing 

coverage throughout the state, and the interoperability of the Public Safety Broadband 

Network with other cellular networks that may have a more expansive network of 

coverage than AT&T. 

a. How are you dealing with coverage areas where AT&T is not a dominate carrier 

in an area? 

Response: With all we bring to the table, we estimate that we will cover over 99% of the U.S. 

population and its geography. This includes the combination of our commercial LTE network, 

agreements with rural telecommunications networks, deployables, and additional satellite 

technology. We are actively working with states, including California, to identify areas where 

they believe added coverage is necessary. We will continue to discuss with each state how we 

will address their unique coverage needs, using this combination of assets. 

b. What is your specific plan for year to year improvement including the number of 

sites to be built annually and the number of those sites that will be built to serve 

rural and tribal areas? 

Response: Each state or territory has received this information along with its state plan and may 

access it, on a confidential basis, via the state portal. The detailed FirstNet buildout and 

coverage information provided to the states is confidential, for both security and competitive 

reasons. For network security purposes, it is important that AT&T's network and the FirstNet 

build plans are kept confidential and not publicly available to those seeking to harm the network, 

which will be relied upon by our first responders in times of emergency. We would be happy to 

discuss this question with your office in a private setting. 

2. FirstNet has made statements that only the AT &T/FirstNet core can provide a nationwide 

interoperable base and that other carriers providing public safety services would not be 

allowed to connect. 

a. How will AT&T ensure interoperability with the Public Safety Network among 

jurisdictions that utilize other cellular networks? 

Response: To be clear, we will provide the same level of interconnection with other networks 

for the exchange of our customers' traffic, as we do today. Thus, FirstNet users will be able to 

communicate with public safety personnel served by other cellular networks, and vice versa. 

However, our mission and focus is to deliver a network with a highly secure nationwide core. 

That network will fulfill Congress' mandate to establish a single, nationwide public safety 

interoperable broadband network. 

3 
110 


27974.069

Introduction of multiple networks controlled by a multitude of carriers creates additional security 

risks, additional points of failure, and can degrade the services offered over that network. 

Introduction of multiple carriers with multiple cores would create the same problems that Jed 

Congress to create the FirstNet network in the first place. 

b. How will AT&T guarantee interoperability with other carriers if they are not 

allowed such connection? 

Response: Please see the response to Question !.a. 

c. Will applications between different networks be able to intemperate seamlessly? 

Response: Yes. Our applications ecosystem will support application developers that design 

applications for first responders that can operate on both FirstNet and non-FirstNet devices. 

3. It is my understanding that California requested AT&T to provide more precise and 

granular information on gaps in AT&T's coverage in California and AT&T refused. 

a. Can you explain why? Will FirstNet share this information with California? 

Response: We are in constant communications with California officials to provide the 

information they are requesting. We are unaware of any pending requests from California to 

which we have not responded. We stand ready to work with California and other states to ensure 

they have all the information they need to make an informed decision to "opt-in" to the FirstNet 

network. 

4 
111 


27974.070

Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the United States House of 

Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Hearing: "Oversight of FirstNet: State Perspectives." 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Peter Welch for AT&T's Chris Sambar 

Honorable Peter Welch 

1. Are you willing to identify all personnel hired by AT&T since January I, 2016, who had 

prior played any role whatsoever in any state's consideration of FirstNet state plans or 

alternatives? 

Resoonse: AT&T continues to bolster its public safety expertise, relying on individuals with relevant 

experience, subject to conflict of interest safeguards. AT&T is committed to ensuring that those on 

the FirstNet team do not have any relevant conflicts of interest. AT&T will comply with all 

applicable federal or state statutes or rules, as well as any obligations in the FirstNet contract, 

concerning employment of former state employees. There are safeguards in place to address 

organizational conflicts of interest and we intend to abide by them. That said, AT&T has not 

hired any individuals while they were still employed by a state. 

2. If yes is the response to the above question, who are these individuals? 

Resoonse: Please see the response to Question I. 

3. All mobile networks worldwide inter-operate with multiple cores, even between 

countries, including AT&T which interoperates with hundreds of core networks 

worldwide and locally in the US. As the 3GPP security standards as well as current IT 

best practices, combined with Federal security standards such as FIPS 140·2 end-to-end 

encryption, and 2-factor authentication, all ensure a highly secure interoperability 

standards, why would a state deployed Evolved Packet Core (EPC) network, that meets 

all the required security standards increase the risk of security for the NPSBN? 

Response: Congress mandated that FirstNet deploy a public safety network "based on a single, 

national network architecture," 47 U.S.C. § 1422(b), because the introduction of multiple 

networks controlled by a multitude of carriers creates additional security risks, additional points 

of failure, and possible degradation of services offered over that network. Allowing opt-out 

states to deploy their own core networks would create the same problems that led Congress to 

create the FirstNet network in the first place. 

4. Does this unpacked argument not demonstrate that any state RAN cores, Verizon, Sprint or 

US Cellular can all be safely interconnected with AT&T's FirstNet core? 

Resoonse: Please see the response to Question 3. 

5. According to the proposals included in the state plans, AT&T will share significant parts of 

the NPSBN with their commercial network, including the Radio Access Network, 

Operational Support Systems, Business Support Systems, Network Management Services, 

EPC hardware, core transport network, IP Multimedia sub-systems, network service 

5 
112 


27974.071

platforms, and physical network locations. Many of these systems which are part of the 

NPSBN core network. How do you explain the contradictions between these facts and your 

testimony before Congress in July and November hearings? 

Response: AT&T does not believe there is a contradiction. Rather, it was Congress' vision that 

FirstNet would ( 1) rely upon existing infrastructure, including network assets owned and 

operated by mobility carriers and used to support customer traffic today, where it made 

economic and engineering sense, and (2) use a public/private partnership strategy to help 

accelerate the deployment of the FirstNet network dedicated to public safety. 

6. How is security and NPSBN isolation maintained in light of AT&T's use of all these 

shared network components? 

Resoonse: AT&T is 100% committed to public safety and to delivering a network engineered to 

the needs of first responders and compliant with the requirements in its agreement with First Net 

that were based on guidance and efforts from many organizations, including NPSTC (National 

Public Safety Telecommunications Council), APCO (Association of Public-Safety 

Communications Officials), and PSAC (Public Safety Advisory Committee) to name a few. 

Managing a reliable, highly-secure network is not new to AT&T. AT&T has 8 world-class 

Global Security Operations Centers, where our security experts analyze the traffic on our 

network 24n/365 to understand and identify the latest emerging threats. We will have one such 

center dedicated to FirstNet. With more than 150 petabytes of data crossing our network every 

day, our experts have unique insight into the threat landscape that helps them detect new threats 

before they become a problem. 

AT&T's robust cybersecurity program has been benchmarked against the NIST security 

framework. We have deployed a multi-layered approach to help secure devices and applications, 

so security is embedded in our network. Finally, our use of software-defined networks (SDN) 

also allows us to "virtualize" our security functions, letting us automatically update security 

instead of relying on manual updates. SDN also allows us to expand the network during a 

denial-of-service attack to keep things up and running. 

7. What does AT&T mean by Public Safety Grade core network? 

Resoonse: AT&T is 100% committed to public safety and to delivering a network engineered to 

the needs of public safety and compliant with the requirements in its agreement with FirstNet 

that were based on guidance and efforts from many organizations, including NPSTC (National 

Public Safety Telecommunications Council), APCO (Association of Public-Safety 

Communications Officials), and PSAC (Public Safety Advisory Committee). Consistent with 

FirstNet's vision, AT&T will design and engineer the NPSBN and infrastructure with the 

appropriate public safety grade attributes to meet its 99.99% AT&T mobility network end-to-end 

service level objective. In addition, the resiliency of AT&T' s network will be buttressed by a 

fleet of 72 FirstNet satellite Cells-on-Light-Trucks that can be deployed to provide network 

coverage if elements of the network are not available. Finally, AT &T's network is already 

supported by AT &T's vast Network Disaster Recovery fleet of vehicles, generators, and other 

deployables that can be used to ensure service continuity. 

6 
113 


27974.072

8. What does AT&T mean by Public Safety Grade towers? 

Response: Please see the responses to Questions 7 and 10. 

9. What does AT&T mean by Public Safety Grade backhaul? 

Response: Please see the responses to Questions 7 and 10. 

10. What is AT&T's description of a fully hardened public safety grade tower- including 

back-up power, back-up generators, wind-loading, shelter descriptions, backhaul 

redundancy, etc.? 

Response: AT&T recognizes the importance of the physical security and resiliency of the sites 

and infrastructure comprising the NPSBN solution. AT&T will harden the network for 

reliability and survivability as an essential effort to the NPSBN' s success. Our approach uses a 

site hardening requirement regimen to provide a high degree of operational security. AT&T 

currently builds sites to uniformly high standards nationwide. AT&T's RAN infrastructure 

measures include: established densification in urban and suburban areas to create site overlap, 

permanent batteries at all sites, permanent generators at critical sites, physical access control to 

all sites, and special hardening and location of critical sites, where reasonable and appropriate, 

recognizing local hazards such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, flooding and wildland fires 

so that the network is engineered to increase survival in the face of such hazards. 

II. What percentage of AT&T' s own existing towers meet public safety grade standard 

today? 

Response: AT &T's towers and sites are in full compliance with applicable Jaws as well as with 

the terms of the agreement between AT&T and FirstNet. Any AT&T cell site towers and 

structures that will be built to support FirstNet will also be compliant with applicable laws and 

contract terms. 

12. What percentage of AT&T's leased towers meet public safety grade standard today? 

Response: Please see the response to Question 11. 

13. What percentage of AT&T's own existing towers meet public safety grade standard in 

year three? 

Resoonse: Please see the response to Question 11. 

7 
114 


27974.073

14. What percentage of AT&T's owned towers across the country will be equipped with 

Band Class 14 deployed in year three? 

Response: Each state or territory has received this information along with its state plan and may 

access it, on a confidential basis, via the state portal. The detailed FirstNet buildout and 

coverage information provided to the states is confidential, for both security and competitive 

reasons. For network security purposes, it is important that AT&T's network and the FirstNet 

build plans are kept confidential and not publicly available to those seeking to harm the network, 

which will be relied upon by our first responders in times of emergency. We would be happy to 

further discuss this question with your office in a private setting. 

Having said that, we expect to deploy a significant percentage of Band Class 14 over the next five years 

and the vast majority over the 25-year length of the contract with FirstNet. Moreover, if AT&T is tasked 

to build all 56 RANS in the states and territories, with all we bring to the table, we estimate that we will 

cover over99% of the U.S. population and its geography. 

15. What percentage of AT&T's leased towers across the country will be equipped with 

Band Class 14 deployed in year three? 

Response: Please see the response to Question 14. 

16. What percentage of AT &T's owned towers in each state will be equipped with Band 

Class 14 be deployed in year five? 

Response: Please see the response to Question 14. 

17. What percentage of AT&T's leased towers in each state will be equipped with Band 

Class 14 be deployed in year five? 

Response: Please see the response to Question 14. 

18. Will AT&Tcommit to deliver Public safety wireless broadband service across their 

national network footprint? 

Response: Yes. AT&T has already made this commitment. First responders will have access to 

this service, including priority and, for primary users, preemption, on all of AT&T' s spectrum 

bands as well as on Band Class 14 as it is deployed. In fact, AT&T is already providing service 

on AT&T' s existing national network to first responders in states that have opted in .. 

19. Is it true that public safety subscribers will have wireless radio access using Band Class 

14 to all of AT&T's commercial tower sites? 

Response: AT&T expects to deploy a significant percentage of Band Class 14 over the next five 

years and the vast majority over the 25-year length of our contract with FirstNet. Moreover, if 

AT&T is tasked to build all 56 RANS in the states and territories, with all we bring to the table, 

we estimate that we will cover over 99% of both the U.S. population and its geography. First 

8 
115 


27974.074

responders will have access to priority and, for primary users, preemption on all sites, whether or 

not they are utilizing Band Class 14. 

20. Will public safety users on the AT&T First Responder network generally need to rely on 

commercial (non-LTE band-14) spectrum for their day-to-day use of the first responder 

broadband network? 

Response: No, because we expect to deploy Band Class 14 on the vast majority of our sites. 

Whether a first responder will generally use Band Class 14 or AT&T's other spectrum bands 

depends on whether AT&T has deployed the Band Class 14 network in the public safety user's 

location. However, because all FirstNet subscribers will have priority and preemption across all 

spectrum bands, and because all FirstNet subscribers also will use the FirstNet core for full 

features and functionalities, a first responder will receive the same high-quality service whether 

utilizing Band Class 14 or one of AT&T's other spectrum bands. 

21. How does AT&T define Public Safety Grade? 

Response: AT&T is 100% committed to public safety and to delivering a network engineered to 

meet first responders' needs and compliant with the requirements in its agreement with FirstNet 

that were based on guidance and efforts from many organizations, including NPSTC (National 

Public Safety Telecommunications Council), APCO (Association of Public-Safety 

Communications Officials), and PSAC (Public Safety Advisory Committee). 

22. To what extent does it incorporate the NPSTC definition of Public Safety Grade? 

Response: Please see the response to Question 21. 

23. What percentage of AT&T sites will be compliant with the NPSTC public safety grade 

definition within 3 years after network development begins? 

Response: AT&T is 100% committed to public safety and to delivering a network engineered to 

meet first responders' needs and be compliant with the requirements in its agreement with 

FirstNet that were based on guidance and efforts from many organizations, including NPSTC 

(National Public Safety Telecommunications Council), APCO (Association of Public-Safety 

Communications Officials), and PSAC (Public Safety Advisory Committee). All sites will be 

compliant with the FirstNet contract specifications to allow AT&T to deliver a highly-secure 

NPSBN that is reliable, resilient, and redundant. Consistent with FirstNet's vision, AT&T will 

design and engineer the NPSBN and infrastructure with the appropriate public safety grade 

attributes to meet its 99.99% AT&T mobility network end-to-end service availability objective. 

24. What is the percentage compliant within 5 years? 

Response: Please see the response to Question 23. 

9 
116 


27974.075

25. What is the percentage compliant within Vermont in 3 years? 

Response: Please see the response to Question 23. 

26. What is the percentage compliant within Vermont in 5 years? 

Response: Please see the response to Question 23. 

27. Will this Public Safety Grade specification be applied across the entire public safety 

broadband network, even to coverage sites that only supply oommercial spectrum? 

Response: AT&T recognizes the importance of the physical security and resiliency of the sites 

and infrastructure of the AT&T network that supports first responders and other customers. 

AT&T has and will continue to harden all of its network for reliability and survivability where 

reasonable and appropriate. Our approach uses a site hardening requirement regimen to provide 

a high degree of operational security. AT&T currently builds sites to uniformly high standards 

nationwide. AT&T's RAN infrastructure measures include: established densification in urban 

and suburban areas to create site overlap, permanent batteries at all sites, permanent generators at 

critical sites, physical access control to all sites, and special hardening and location of critical 

sites, where reasonable and appropriate, recognizing local hazards such as hurricanes, tornadoes, 

earthquakes, flooding and wildland fires so that the network is engineered to increase survival in 

the face of such hazards. 

28. To what extent can State public safety organizations have control over network 

maintenance schedules in order to prevent the loss of L TE service during critical 

communication hours, such as weekend nights? 

Response: AT&T fully expects to be able to meet FirstNet's 99.99% AT&T mobility network 

end-to-end service availability objective. AT&T understands that at the heart of protecting a 

network is the ability to know and control what is on the network. We offer a suite of tools, 

processes, and experienced people that perform network and configuration management allowing 

us to maintain availability of service. AT&T performs network and configuration management 

of our existing world-class network delivering 99.99% available uptime for our mobility IP core 

network. The NPSBN will receive an integrated security operations center and network 

operations center approach for security management, reducing service impact time. 

10 
117 


27974.076

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. John Stevens 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!ongre!S!S of tbt W:niteb ~tate!S 

~oufie of l\tprer5entatiber5 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority i2frll n~;wn 

Minooty l2{}7) 125--3641 

November 20, 2017 

Statewide lnteroperability Coordinator 

New Hampshire Department of Safety 

3 3 Hazen Drive 

Concord, NH 03305 

Dear Mr. Stevens: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Wednesday, November I, 2017, to testifY at the hearing entitled "Oversight ofFirstNet: State 

Perspectives.~· 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are eddressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

~ 

Sincerely, 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 
118 


27974.077

~tate of ~du ~ampsbire 

JOHN J. HARTHELMES 

COMMISSIONER OF SAFETY 

DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY 

ROBERT L. QUINN 

RICHARD C. BAJLEY, JR. 

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS 

James H. Hayes Safety Building, 33 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03305 Tel: (603) 223-3889 

Speech/Hearing Impaired 

TOO Access Relay NH 1-800-735-2964 

December 4, 2017 

Chairman Marsha Blackburn 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Congress of the United States 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Dear Chairman Blackburn, 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I submit the following answers to 

the questions presented by The Honorable Peter Welch. I trust my testimony, written statement, and 

now the answers to the questions provided, afford some insight to the challenges faced by states that 

are performing nothing more than their "due diligence" regarding a first responder wireless 

broadband network in accordance with the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). 

if there is any further information I can provide, please don't hesitate to contact me. I wish to thank 

you for the invitaf nand the opportunity to speak before your committee. 

Statewide !nteroperabillty Coordinator 

New Hampshire Department of Safety 

33 Hazen Drive 

Concord, New Hampshire 03305 

Office: (603) 223-8003 

Fax: (603) 271-7660 

Cell: {603) 892-4688 

.lohn.Stevens@dos.nh.gov 
119 


27974.078

Additional questions for the Record 

From: The Honorable Peter Welch 

1. What are the advantages that the State of New Hampshire has identified In potentially 

Opting-out, building and managing a state RAN In partnership with a carrier, integrator? 

The alternative plan for the State of New Hampshire will construct a purpose-built, public safety 

grade statewide network covering 99.9% of the population and 97% of the territory with a cost 

projection of $0.01 per/month, per/device for all tier #1 first responders statewide. Capital 

investment costs pertaining to infrastructure development will be borne by the vendor 

throughout the life of the contract, supported by security and performance bonds to insure the 

feasibility and sustainability of the network. The governance model created will promote true 

local control of the network providing guidance for reinvestment for next generation technology 

over the life of the 25 year vendor driven contract, based on conservative projections of the sale 

of excess spectrum. A dedicated network specifically designed for first responders statewide will 

create residual benefits for broadband connectivity for communities throughout the state that 

will have a direct correlation to an overall and significant economic benefit to the state. 

The public/private partnership that has been created with the State of New Hampshire and 

Rivada Networks will provide a platform of comprehensive lnteroperability, through neutral 

carriers, that will allow public safety to operate in a secure environment. We have no greater 

purpose, than to equip our first responders with the necessary and most advanced 

communications tools to enable them to provide our citizens with the highest degree of service. 

2. Does Rivada have partners and teaming members that have wireless operating experience? 

The New Hampshire/Rivada First responder Network will feature a comprehensive, end-to-end 

architecture. Strategic suppliers will be instrumental in establishing and operating the public 

safety LTE RAN network. Back-up solutions will be critical to a well-established dual sourcing 

approach. So, should cost, performance, or reliability of a given supplier come into question 

there can be a smooth pivot to a pre-defined backup/replacement partner already engaged at a 

defined level within the project. This approach assures good local support to boost the New 

Hampshire ecosystem and economy, while ensuring world class end-to-end quality across the 

entire project. Multiple suppliers have been identified in each of the caveats listed; 

• RAN Equipment Vendors 

• Infrastructure Vendors 

Backhaul Services Vendors 
120 


27974.079

• Roaming Network Vendors 

• Network Development Partners 

• Network Operating Partners 

• State, County, and local Partners 

Rivada Networks has partnered with US Cellular, and as recently as this past week with 

Macquarie Capital, who will incorporate and develop their telecommunications assets 

throughout the state. They will use hardware from wireless Infrastructure leaders including 

Fujitsu, Ericcson, and Nokia. Among their network development partners is Black & Veatch who 

will oversee end-to-end site development services. The experience and knowledge that has and 

will continue to be provided by Rivada Networks is unparalleled and New Hampshire has every 

confidence that a dedicated network for first responders statewide will grow and prosper as 

next generation communications technology becomes available. 

3. Does Rivada have partners and teaming members that operate wireless networks today? Has 

this influenced your views on the reliability of partnering with Rlvada? 

Rivada has partnered with US Cellular which owns and operates the fifth-largest wireless 

telecommunications network in the US. Rlvada Networks as of this week has partnered with 

Macquarie Capital, who will provide extensive global expertise as a premier developer of 

Infrastructure assets. Rivada Networks Board Members have personal experience and possess 

the knowledge and expertise with disaster recovery directly as Governors and other senior 

officials. Rivada Network Executives and personnel have years of experience deploying 4G LTE 

networks as major wireless operators and equipment vendors and possess the required diversity 

and proficiency to grow with next generation technology. The entire Rivada Networks team 

understands the issues faced by public safety pertaining to priority preemption and represent a 

company that has not only identified the problems, but has offered solutions in a manner 

unequaled to public safety. We have full confidence in the leadership and expertise of the 

Rivada Networks team, and we anticipate a full and complete statewide application to FirstNet. 

4. Has FlrstNet reached out to you to help assist you In any effort to Opt-out or have they only 

pushed Opt-In solutions? Please describe. Has FirstNet suggested that penalties and the 

process would be too hard to do an Opt-out? 

There Is little doubt that FirstNet has pushed hard for states to opt-in. The challenges put in 

front of states who are considering an opt-out decision are onerous and purposely intimidating, 

which is emphasized by FirstNet/AT&Tconsistently waming against the inherent risk. The 

decision for New Hampshire to move forward with an RFP when we did was representative of 

the arduous process that FirstNet was forecasting. The 90/180 day rule was from the beginning 

Impractical and unrealistic to think that a state could accomplish all the necessary tasks required 

within that prescribed period of time. Coupled with the fact that we understood that there 

would be underserved areas of the country, it was to our benefit to investigate only what the 
121 


27974.080

law allowed. Since New Hampshire attracted the attention of the industry, it appears that the 

Rules and Procedures for states considering an opt-out scenario have become even more 

strenuous and demanding. When FirstNet proposed over $600,000,000 in termination penalties, 

spectrum fees totaling tens of millions of dollars, adoption disincentive payments, and adoption 

payments at Sand 20 years, it was pretty clear that FirstNet was intent to make the penalties, 

fees and process as difficult as possible. 

FirstNet however, has recently provided information that the SMLA termination fees will be 

subject to negotiation, as stated by Firstnet's CEO Michael Poth at the Congressional Hearing 

and again before New Hampshire's Opt-out Review Committee on November 21", 2017. They 

have also stated their commitment to work with the State of New Hampshire in the event of an 

opt-out decision, to ensure our network is successful. 

5. Can you expand on Rivada Networks public safety communications experience and why you 

believe it Is an appropriate fit for a State who Opt-out? 

Rivada Networks was formed in the wake of September 11th with a focus on developing 

solutions for Interoperable public safety communications. Our experience with Rivada Networks 

has been entirely consistent with that history. Rivada Networks has a patent portfolio that 

exceeds 100 patents. They have developed eLBS patents which bring accuracy and precision to 

pinpointing a phone's location. This was developed specifically to address the situational 

awareness challenges in emergency situations by providing accurate 3D positioning, and map 

exact locations of wireless infrastructure which addresses some of the most critical needs of 

public safety. This technology improves accuracy in the vertical dimension, often referred to as 

the "Z-axis". The sustainable network solution Rivada Networks provided to New Hampshire 

successfully addressed all of our concerns. We would encourage every state to do their due 

diligence and put forth an RFP to explore their options. 

6. How would you characterize Rivada's responsiveness to your specific State needs In New 

Hampshire? Can you speak to how this has helped or hindered the decision-making process in 

New Hampshire? 

Rivada Networks has committed a tremendous number of man hours, including travel costs for 

a host of executives, with bi-weekly In-state meetings over the past 15 months working with 

state leadership. They have traveled with us throughout the state speaking to first responders, 

industry, business leaders and local communities to gather a true understanding of their 

individual needs and adjusting the alternative state plan based on those requirements. Rivada 

Networks has been responsive to all of our requests for Information, and to the concerns we 

have expressed about the complexities of building a wireless broadband network. What has 

developed over the past year-and-a-half is a plan that truly works for New Hampshire and is 

representative of our needs. Having this alternative plan in place to compare against the 

FirstNet plan helped Immensely with our evaluation process, which ultimately lead to the SIEC's 
122 


27974.081

Data Communications Working Group and the overall Statewide lnteroperability Committee to 

recommend a unanimous Opt-out decision. The recommendation to "Opt-out" was provided to 

Governor Sununu on October 6th, 2017. 
123 


27974.082

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

C!Congrr~~ of tbr Wnitrb ~tate~ 

j!}omir of 1\rpre!Srntatibr!S 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFICE BuiLDING 

Mr. Robert LeGrande, II 

Founder 

The Digital Decision, LLC 

7579 Venture Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22315 

Dear Mr. LeGrande: 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority ~202) :;m;-·2927 

MlMrily {2021225-3641 

November 20, 2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Wednesday, November 1, 2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "Oversight of FirstNet: State 

Perspectives." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, {2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, December 6, 2017. Your responses should be 

mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Mars 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 
124 


27974.083

The 

Digital Decision 

12/18/2017 

Chairman Marsha Blackburn 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn, 

It was an honor to appear before your Subcommittee hearing entitled "Oversight of 

FirstNet: State Perspectives" on November 20, 2017. After the hearing, many of my 

colleagues as well as state and local government officials expressed sincere appreciation 

for the Subcommittee's efforts and your willingness to address the concerns facing public 

safety's communications future. Your Subcommittee staff recently provided several 

questions from the hearing and below please find my responses. 

Subcommittee Questions Responses to Subcommittee Questions 

Should all FirstNet subscribers have Yes, because it is important that first 

access to all FirstNet applications responders have interoperability across all 

regardless of which FCC approved networks and applications. While we develop 

RAN, Core or national core network is the ecosystem that will support public 

used to reach these resources? safety's future, it is important to understand 

our past. In the past, we failed to setup 

seamlessly interoperable voice (LMR) 

networks and as a result our First Responders 

experienced communications problems that 

has cost lives. Data is becoming a more and 

more important part of PS communications 

every day and the need for data 

interoperability is as important as our 

continuing need for voice interoperability. 

Explain why you believe that all The law rightfully allows for federal, state and 

carriers should be able to have access local PS agencies to pick what network 

to the access to the FirstNet core provider is best for their needs. For this 

apps? How can that be accomplished reason and because AT&T's current network 

and still provide secure connection? offering does not meet National Public Safety 

Can that be done? Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) public 

safety grade recommendations, the 

AT&T/FirstNet solution will never be the 

single provider of PS broadband 
125 


27974.084

The 

Digital Decision 

Subcommittee Questions Responses to Subcommittee Questions 

communications in the United States. Giving 

AT&T exclusive access to FirstNet's 

application environment will not offset 

AT& T's shortfalls. Other providers who wish 

to continue to provide PS communications 

should not be foreclosed from competing by 

this monopolistic policy. In fact, they should 

be encouraged to do so as this will enable 

much needed data interoperability and 

critically needed competition that together 

will result in the best possible solution, the 

best possible pricing and thereby the best 

operations for our "Last line of Defense." 

Providers deliver secure communications for 

our country's highly secured agencies every 

day. Standards and standards enforcement 

are key to protecting our networks. To 

suggest that we can only protect public safety 

networks by granting a single provider a 

monopoly position in the commercial 

marketplace is a ridiculous and antiquated 

notion. 

Has this process caused carriers to Yes, FirstNet's process has promoted greater 

get more competitive with public competition for the benefit of public safety. 

safety? Better meet public safety While First Net originally envisioned a 

needs. dedicated public safety network, it ultimately 

decided on a commercial solution provided by 

a commercial provider (AT&T) with a business 

plan to operate in the commercial 

marketplace. Verizon, for example, 

responded with a comparable commercial 

solution. To take full advantage of the 

benefits of a commercial marketplace, 

however, there must be healthy competition 

at every level. Unfortunately, FirstNet and 

AT&T have engaged in monopolistic practices 

that are impacting competition for States 

considering Opt-out and threaten fair and 

open competition. For example, First Net did 

not provide final State opt-Out requirements 

and a "draft" SMLA until30 days prior to a 
126 


27974.085

The 

Digital Decision 

-c--------------·-· - -

Subcommittee Questions Responses to Subcommittee Questions --- State's legislatively required opt- IN/OUT 

decision (90days). This left the States 30 days 

to make a 25-year decision based on a draft 

spectrum lease document with inflated 

spectrum valuations and that conditions 

approval of the SMLA on granting AT&T 

exclusive authority as the State's service 

provider. 

Yes, and additional public safety providers 

already exist. A commercial marketplace 

drives increased innovation, better services, 

Would an additional public safety and lower prices. The only way to take 

advantage of what a commercial marketplace carrier create more competition and offers is competition. Monopolies never work result in better services for public for customers and there is no reason that safety? Congress, the Department of Commerce, 

NTIA, or First Net should think that it would 

work for the PS communications marketplace 

and our First Responders. 

As FirstNet struggles to ensure user FirstNet's goal should not be to ensure that 

adoption is a priority for the NPSBN first responders adopt a single public safety 

RAN, can you suggest a fair way to broadband network, but to ensure they have 

enforce that public safety user access to communications that meet 

adoption goals are met, despite FirstNet's rigorous standards of reliability, 

having different providers of public resiliency, priority and preemption- while, at 

safety wireless broadband service the same time, ensuring that competition 

competing for the end user business? continues. To do that, First Net should create 

reasonable terms and conditions for all 

providers to be a "FirstNet Network Provider" 

and, depending on the number of providers 

that choose to participate, adjust AT&T's 

required adoption penalties to give them 

reasonable adoption goals to ensure they 

(AT&T) take full advantage of the PS (FirstNet) 

B14 spectrum it received from the First Net 

procurement process. 

In a scenario where public safety The best-case scenario would have been for 

broadband users in a specific state our country to build a national "private" (Not 

subscribe equally across three shared with commercial users) public safety 

different service providers (e.g. 1/3 broadband network while leveraging a 

AT&T, 1/3 Verizon, 1/3 Rivada), competitive commercial carrier marketplace 
127 

Æ 


27974.086

The 

Digital Decision 

Subcommittee Questions Responses to Subcommittee Questions 

assuming interoperability is for secure roaming and redundancy. FirstNet 

preserved, should the public safety rejected that approach in favor of a 

community consider this a positive commercial solution. Attempting to treat this 

outcome? commercial solution as a private closed 

network would be one of the worst things we 

could do now, as it would establish "another" 

PS communications monopoly (e.g. LMR). 

Given that First Net selected a commercial 

solution (LTE), a commercial provider (AT&T) 

and is thereby leveraging the commercial 

marketplace; the best possible scenario is to 

incentivize that marketplace to compete and 

in doing so the PS Community will have the 

best possible solutions at the best possible 

pricing. 

How should FirstNet hold the FirstNet should create reasonable terms and 

designated NPSBN supplier conditions for all potential providers to be a 

accountable if their agreed adoption "FirstNet Network Provider" and depending 

targets are not met, but overall all on the number of Providers that choose to 

users are satisfied and interoperable participate, adjust AT& T's required adoption 

with other networks? penalties to give them reasonable adoption 

goals to ensure they (AT&T) take full 

advantage of the PS (FirstNet) 814 spectrum it 

received from the FirstNet procurement 

- £.C~C-~~-~---·-

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide answers to the Subcommittee's 

questions and I stand ready to support you and the Subcommittee in your efforts to 

address these and other concerns facing our nation's "last Line of Defense". 

Sincerely, 

Robert LeGrande, II, 

Founder, The Digital Decision, LLC