[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROGRESS TOWARD A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND NETWORK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 16, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-57
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-652 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California7
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
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILLY LONG, Missouri BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
CHRIS COLLINS, New York officio)
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 3
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 6
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 7
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 52
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 53
Witnesses
T.J. Kennedy, Acting Executive Director, First Responder Network
Authority...................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Stu Davis, State Chief Information Officer and Assistant
Director, Ohio Department of Administrative Services........... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Submitted Material
Letter of June 12, 2015, from David Hoover, Vice President of
Legislative Affairs, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, to
Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Mr. Walden.............. 54
PROGRESS TOWARD A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND NETWORK
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:18 p.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus,
Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis,
Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Collins, Cramer, Eshoo, Doyle, Welch,
Clarke, Loebsack, DeGette, Matsui, McNerney, Lujan, and Pallone
(ex officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor,
Communications and Technology; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press
Secretary; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and
Technology; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and
Technology; David Redl, Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative Clerk; Jeff
Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; David Goldman, Democratic
Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Ashley Jones,
Democratic Director of Communications, Member Services, and
Outreach; Lori Maarbjerg, Democratic FCC Detailee; Margaret
McCarthy, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; Timothy
Robinson, Democratic Chief Counsel; and Ryan Skukowski,
Democratic Policy Analyst.
Mr. Walden. I will call to order the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, and I apologize for the delay in
getting started. We had some votes, and a couple of member
things I had to deal with, but we are here now.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
When we last convened to discuss FirstNet, my goal was to
leave that hearing with a higher level of comfort with regard
to FirstNet's progress and confidence in the way it was
conducting its business. As we all recognized then, and
continue to acknowledge today, FirstNet has before it an
undertaking which rivals the network deployments of our largest
national carriers. In fact, given its mandate to build an
interoperable wireless broadband service for all of our
Nation's first responders, its task will take to all corners of
the United States.
Now, early shortcomings in FirstNet's approach to
consultation with States and other interested parties had
resulted in considerable uncertainty and concern among
stakeholders. Confused messaging, a perceived lack of
transparency, and unanswered questions regarding FirstNet's
vision for the network, and even FirstNet's vision for itself,
further complicated things. Questions like, How would FirstNet
provide service? Would it build a network, or partner with
commercial carriers? What is FirstNet going to charge, and how
does the opt-out work? Each contributed to the concerns raised
at the hearing, and answers were far from forthcoming. Now, on
top of all the policy concerns, FirstNet was also under
investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of
Commerce into alleged conflicts of interest and contracting
concerns when we gaveled in last time.
Now, much has happened since then. There has been some
turnover in management, and--with the release of the IG's
report in December of last year confirming much of what we
feared, that FirstNet had been operating without proper
processes in place, and without compliance with the laws that
guard against impropriety. It is my hope that the missteps are
now behind us, and I believe they are. But that is not to say
that there aren't additional challenges.
On April 28 the U.S. Government Accountability Office
released a report on FirstNet's progress in establishing the
network, concluding that while FirstNet has made progress
carrying out its responsibilities, weaknesses in FirstNet's
internal controls remain. For example, it remains unclear how
FirstNet is internalizing the lessons learned from the Early
Builder projects. Those are the five jurisdictions that are
already deployed--or deploying public safety broadband networks
using FirstNet spectrum. And while the GAO report recommends
fixes, it is GAO's succinct statement of what lies ahead that
must inform our oversight. FirstNet faces a multitude of risks,
significant challenges, and difficult decisions in meeting its
statutory responsibilities, including how to become a self-
funding entity.
To give FirstNet credit, it has made progress. We witnessed
FirstNet's information collections, and consultation, and
outreach activities accelerate through 2014. The feedback
gathered has informed discussion on deployment and brought
productive debate among all stakeholders. Today's hearing
reflects the subcommittee's commitment to continued and
thorough oversight of FirstNet. We all share the goal of
ensuring that our Nation's first responders realize the promise
of truly interoperable state-of-the-art emergency
communications networks envisioned by the law. With those early
missteps behind us today, we look not only at the progress
FirstNet has made, but also what new challenges lie ahead, our
goal being to leave with a higher level of comfort in
FirstNet's progress, and confidence in the way it is conducting
its business.
So I look forward to hearing from Mr. Kennedy, who can
provide an update on FirstNet's progress, put some of the
pieces together, and share with more specificity developments
in FirstNet's considerations and visions for the public safety
broadband network. I also would like to thank Mr. Davis for
appearing a second time before the subcommittee to share his
experience as a State Chief Information Officer, and his
assessment what needs improvement, and where FirstNet is
headed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
When we last convened to discuss FirstNet, my goal was to
leave that hearing with a higher level of comfort with regard
to FirstNet's progress and confidence in the way it was
conducting its business. As we all recognized then and continue
to acknowledge today, FirstNet has before it an undertaking
which rivals the network deployments of our largest national
carriers. In fact, given its mandate to build an interoperable
wireless broadband service for all of our Nation's First
Responders, its task will take it to all corners of the United
States.
Early shortcomings in FirstNet's approach to consultation
with States and others interested parties had resulted in
considerable uncertainty and concern among stakeholders.
Confused messaging, a perceived lack of transparency, and
unanswered questions regarding FirstNet's vision for the
network and even FirstNet vision for itself further complicated
things. Questions like: How would FirstNet provide service;
would it build a network or partner with commercial carriers;
what is FirstNet going to charge; and, how does the ``opt out''
work each contributed to the concerns raised at the hearing and
answers were far from forthcoming.
And, on top of all of the policy concerns, FirstNet was
also under investigation by the Inspector General of the
Department of Commerce into alleged conflicts of interest and
contracting concerns when we gaveled in.
Much has happened since then. There has been some turnover
in management, and with the release of the Inspector General's
report in December of last year confirming much of what we
feared--that FirstNet had been operating without proper
processes in place and without compliance with the laws that
guard against impropriety--it is my hope that the missteps are
behind us. And I believe they are.
But that is not to say that there aren't additional
challenges. On April 28th, the United States Government
Accountability Office released a report on FirstNet's progress
in establishing the network--concluding that while FirstNet has
made progress carrying out its responsibilities, weaknesses in
FirstNet's internal controls remain. For example, it remains
unclear how FirstNet is internalizing the lessons learned from
the early builder projects--the five jurisdictions that are
already deploying public safety broadband networks using
FirstNet's spectrum. And while the GAO report recommends fixes,
it is GAO's succinct statement of what lies ahead that must
inform our oversight--``FirstNet faces a multitude of risks,
significant challenges, and difficult decisions in meeting its
statutory responsibilities, including how to become a
selffunding entity.''
To give FirstNet credit, it has made progress. We witnessed
FirstNet's information collections and consultation and
outreach activities accelerate throughout 2014. The feedback
gathered has informed discussions on deployment and brought
productive debate among stakeholders.
Today's hearing reflects the subcommittee's commitment to
continued and thorough oversight of FirstNet. We all share the
goal of ensuring that our Nation's First Responders realize the
promise of truly interoperable, state-of-the-art emergency
communications network envisioned by the law. With those early
missteps behind us, today we look not only at the progress
FirstNet has made but also what new challenges lie ahead. Our
goal being to leave with a higher level of comfort in
FirstNet's progress and confidence in the way it is conducting
its business.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Kennedy who can provide
an update on FirstNet's progress; put some of the pieces
together, and share with more specificity developments in
FirstNet's considerations and vision for the of the public
safety broadband network. I also would like to thank Mr. Davis
for appearing a second time before the subcommittee to share
his experience as a State Chief Information Officer and his
assessment what needs improvement and where FirstNet is headed.
Mr. Walden. With that, I turn to the vice chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for any opening comments that he may
have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
again, thanks for holding today's hearing, and thanks to our
witnesses for being back with us today, I really appreciate it,
especially Mr. Davis, coming from Ohio. Public safety and
emergency communications are critical to protecting the lives
of Americans. That is why we must ensure that the
implementation of FirstNet is very successful. A reliable
nationwide network is essential for first responders to
facilitate their communication needs and support their everyday
missions.
While I understand developing a nationwide interoperable
public safety network is a significant undertaking, it is
imperative that it is properly established to meet the needs of
all Americans, especially our first responders. Furthermore, I
am eager to see the future developments, as consultations are
underway to better incorporate the States' input into planning
and implementation of the broadband network.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing, and again
thank our witnesses for appearing.
Mr. Walden. I thank you for your comments and leadership.
Turn now to the ranking member, my friend from California, Ms.
Eshoo, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
everyone, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. It has
been a year and a half since our subcommittee last held a
FirstNet oversight hearing, and progress has been made. I think
that there are--we have a lot of questions. Obviously, since we
haven't been together for a year and a half for--to do the
oversight that needs to be done. But--and we look forward to--I
look forward to asking those questions, and I am sure that my
colleagues do as well.
Now, in terms of progress, I think amongst the biggest
milestones include the release of a strategic road map, ongoing
collaboration with States, and most recently the draft request
for proposals intended to provide FirstNet with extensive
stakeholder input. And that is--in my book, that is one of
the--that is really key. You have to talk to customers. You are
not in touch with customers, your company or endeavor is going
to flop, in my view.
So, thanks to the success of the recently completed
AWS-3 auction, FirstNet will soon have the funds it needs
to deliver on the first-ever nationwide interoperable public
safety network. And I remind everyone that this was the one
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that the Congress had not
made good on, but we did for the American people. So a lot
rides on this effort. A lot rides on this effort, and we got
the money for you, and did the legislation. It became law, and
we want to make sure that this is not only done, but done very
well, because it is a very big deal. It is a big deal for our
country.
Going forward, I think there are three key areas which
FirstNet's leadership should give special consideration to.
First, I think it is critical that wireless carriers of all
sizes have an opportunity to partner with FirstNet, just be an
equal opportunity outfit, in my view. In particular, regional
and/or rural providers will have an important role to play,
both in building the network, as well as being able to provide
consumers with enhanced wireless broadband service when the
network is not needed by emergency personnel.
Second, device competition is critical to the success of
FirstNet. $5,000 public safety radios are out, o-u-t, so there
is--I don't even--I don't want to hear about them anymore. As
far as I am concerned, they don't exist, and I don't think any
of the dollars that are being provided should go to anything
like that. That is yesterday. What is in? Highly innovative
broadband enabled devices that can transmit live video from a
robot sent to, for example, to assess a suspicious package,
view floor plans of a burning building, access medical history
of a patient in distress, as well as the wide range of other
mobile applications. In other words, you have to be just as
21st century as the rest of the--of this ecosystem is in our
country. These devices have to be truly interoperable, and
capable of withstanding the physical challenges that first
responders face very day.
And finally, I think that FirstNet should ensure its core
operations align with the standards and the technologies
related to next generation 911. Congressman Shimkus has been,
you know, a great, great advocate, a coach here of the e-911
caucus. We have been working on these issues for more years
than we want to count, and so there has to be alignment with
that operation. The call centers around the country are
upgrading to NG-911, and they are becoming capable of receiving
photos, and videos, and text messages, so it only makes sense
that this information can be seamlessly transmitted to first
responders headed to an emergency situation. So the--your
operations have to be absolutely aligned.
So as we work toward advancing the next generation of
public safety communications, I want to thank you for the work
that you have already done, for what you are going to do, and
for being here today to testify and give us a good deep dive on
where things are, and how you see the future. Thank you, and I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo
In the year and a half since our subcommittee last held a
FirstNet oversight hearing, significant progress has been made.
Among the biggest milestones include the release of a strategic
roadmap, ongoing consultation with States, and most recently, a
draft request for proposals intended to provide FirstNet with
extensive stakeholder input.
Thanks to the success of the recently completed AWS--3
auction, FirstNet will soon have the funds it needs to deliver
on the first-ever, nationwide interoperable public safety
communications network, and with this, Congress making good on
the last major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
This is a big deal.
Going forward, there are three key areas which FirstNet's
leadership should give special consideration:
First, it's critical that wireless carriers of all sizes
have an opportunity to partner with FirstNet. In particular,
regional and/or rural providers will have an important role to
play, both in building the network as well as being able to
provide consumers with enhanced wireless broadband service when
the network is not needed by emergency personnel.
Second, device competition is critical to the success of
FirstNet. Five-thousand-dollar public-safety radios are out.
What's in? Highly innovative, broadband-enabled devices that
can transmit live video from a robot sent to assess a
suspicious package, view floor plans of a burning building,
access medical history of a patient in distress as well as a
wide range of other mobile applications. These devices must be
truly interoperable and capable of withstanding the physical
challenges that first responders face every day.
Finally, FirstNet should ensure its core operations align
with the standards and technologies related to Next Generation
911. As call centers around the country upgrade to NG911 and
become capable of receiving photos, videos, and text messages,
it only makes senses that this information can be seamlessly
transmitted to first responders headed to an emergency
situation.
As we work toward advancing the next generation of public
safety communications, I thank our witnesses for being here
today, and I look forward to your important testimony.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentlelady and would like to insert
in the record a letter from the Rural Broadband Association,
without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. Turn now to the vice chair of the full
committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you all for being here to give us an update. As the
Chairman said in his comments, this is something we have
followed, will continue to follow, and do appropriate oversight
with you. We are so focused on your funding mechanism, how you
moved to self-funding after that initial tranche of money is
exhausted, and then how you are going to see that business
model developing.
Also, the issue of interoperability, those of us that have
worked through the issues of some of our natural disasters want
to make certain that that is being addressed, and that the
stakeholders, with all of the first responders across the
country, are going to understand, participate, and that we are
going to realize this objective of having something that is
interoperable.
The other thing I want to touch on, and I will get to this
in my questions a bit more, the aspects of a secure network. We
are realizing more and more the importance of having a secure
network, and, of course, we realize, closed systems, we are
going to deal with those one way, enterprise systems another
way. When you look at something that meets the interoperability
component that you are going to have, the security of the
system is just so important to us.
We are living in an age where we face cyberattacks not just
on a monthly basis, a weekly basis, but an hourly basis. So
please talk with us about this issue of security. It is a
heightened concern for us as we move into the age of the
Internet of everything, and look at 50 billion devices being
attached by the time we get to the end of this decade. So that
secure wireless network that is the goal, we want to be certain
that indeed it is secure, and hear from you as much as you can
divulge to us that--how you are achieving that.
With that, I will yield the balance of my time to anyone
who is seeking time. No takers? Time goes back----
Mr. Walden. No takers?
Mrs. Blackburn [continuing]. To Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. And the gentlelady yields back, and I am told
the ranking member of the full committee has asked Ms. Matsui
to take his time, so I now recognize the gentlelady from
California.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding Mr.
Pallone's time to me. First of all, let me say FirstNet is a
startup, let us not forget that. Like every startup, it has had
its growing pains. For so long there were questions on how
FirstNet would be funded, but now we know that it was fully
funded, and will be operational, due to this subcommittee's
diligent work on AWS-3's record setting spectrum auction. Last
year FirstNet laid out a road map, and I am pleased that they
are hitting their milestones so far.
From the beginning I remained focused on the need for a
strong governance structure at FirstNet to responsibly govern
any nationwide public safety interoperability network. Despite
some initial concerns about the role of States taking a back
seat, I am pleased that the FirstNet board took this issue head
on and developed a strong coordinated relationship with the
States. It is my hope that we can work together in a bipartisan
manner to achieve success for America's first responders. And I
yield to anyone on my side who would like to take the rest of
the time. No? I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
We go to our witnesses now, and start with Mr. T.J. Kennedy,
Acting Executive Director, First Responder Network Authority.
We want to thank you for your leadership, and appreciate the
progress that you have been making. And please go ahead with
your comments.
STATEMENTS OF T.J. KENNEDY, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FIRST
RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY; AND STU DAVIS, STATE CHIEF
INFORMATION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
STATEMENT OF T.J. KENNEDY
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
Eshoo, members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate being
here on behalf of the First Respondent Network Authority. I
welcome the opportunity to brief you on FirstNet's progress,
and the development of deploying an interoperable nationwide
public safety broadband network. It is also a pleasure to
appear here today with the CIO of the State of Ohio, Stu Davis.
We just recently conducted the Ohio consultation last week in
Ohio, and his team has been very active not just in Ohio
itself, but even within the region, in setting a great example
for our country in how to make this network possible.
I would like to welcome several members of the public
safety community who join us here today. This network is all
about them. When we put reliable, resilient broadband
technology in the hands of police officers, firefighters,
emergency medical services personnel across this country, we
will enhance public safety like never before. We will create
new ways that first responders can save lives, and improve
first responders' own safety. As this committee is aware, we
are experiencing growing pains in our early days of existence,
but we have worked very hard to shore up areas of weakness, and
to take on as much responsibility as we can. And I am very
confident that today you will find our processes and procedures
in line with your expectations.
I am leading a dedicated team of professionals, who are
working tirelessly to achieve both the goals that you have
created for us, and the internal goals that we strive to
achieve every day. Each day we work on recruiting and building
the most talented team possible in order to make this program
successful. Under the direction of the Chairwoman of the Board,
Mrs. Sue Swinson, we have implemented a culture measured by
results, while always remembering who we are working for. The
network that we will deploy is public safety's network, and
this is the key principle that guides our work each day.
The pace at which we are working is very high, and this
leads to a demanding, but rewarding, work environment. FirstNet
resembles a startup, and we have a team that has rolled up its
sleeves, and is focused on consultation and/or acquisition that
will result in the successful deployment of a nationwide public
safety broadband network. Having a wireless startup inside of
Government is a challenge that we are overcoming, and you are
able to see the progress that we have made. Since the release
of our strategic road map in March of 2014, we have been doing
something unusual. We are actually doing what we told you we
would do. We released a plan, and we are sticking to it, and we
are meeting the goals that we set out to achieve.
Since we last testified before this subcommittee in
November of '13, we have accomplished the following. We
released 13 RFIs, which examined numerous aspects of the
network. We published a statement of objectives with a
comprehensive network RFI. This brought together all of the
information that we had received into a single document. We
conducted three public notices addressing various aspects of
our enabling statute, and in April we released a special notice
with draft RFP documents. We have been consulting with States
and territories, and conducting an enormous amount of outreach
to our stakeholders.
While we have taken great strides in the right direction,
significant work remains, and we at FirstNet are committed to
completing the mission that Congress has given us. One area
that I believe we have improved on is engaging with our Public
Safety Advisory Committee, known as the PSAC. A lot of the
credit for this improvement must go to Chairwoman Swinson and
the PSAC Chairman, Chief Harlin McEwan. The PSAC is actively
engaged in task teams that are working on critical topics, such
as priority and preemption, public safety grade, and end user
devices. The 40 members of the PSAC are public safety's voice
with FirstNet, and by leveraging it, we will ensure that we
integrate public safety into the fabric of the network at every
stage of planning and deployment.
Our consultation and outreach efforts have been impressive,
but more work remains to be done. We have held consultations
with 35 States to date, with a further 15 scheduled. In fact,
Mr. Chairman, your home State of Oregon was one of our early
consultations, and we have seen an impressive outreach in
organizational structure in Oregon, and many other States.
FirstNet is collaborating with States in public safety to
conduct outreach and consultation, and are leveraging the State
and local implementation grant program that has helped fund
these important efforts throughout the country.
As we work towards the end of the year, and the planned
release of the comprehensive network RFP, the consultation
process continues to inform the composition of the RFP, and so
it is very important that States are involved at every stage in
development of the network. States have many avenues for
consultation beyond our in person meetings and regular
conference calls. States can have significant consultation
feedback through the responses to our public notices and our
draft statement of objectives. I have directed the organization
to focus on these very two topics in 2015, consultation, and
our acquisition of the network. These are our top priorities to
meet the requirements of the act.
FirstNet currently has a number of draft RFP documents open
for public comment, and we have been very encouraged by the
feedback that we received up to this point from both industry,
from public safety, and from States. Mr. Chairman, it is the
mission, that of deploying a much needed nationwide public
safety broadband system that our first responders deserve, that
has me excited to come to work every morning. This is not an
easy task, but it is extremely rewarding to the hard working
team members of FirstNet, and we all understand the critical
importance to our country of getting this right for public
safety.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Kennedy, thank you for your leadership, and
that of your team's, and the progress that you are making, and
your forthright commitment to do what you told us you would do.
That is novel. We were just suggesting bringing you back more
often.
Now we go to Mr. Stu Davis--we have got a few other
agencies we can assign you to--State Chief Information Officer,
Assistant Director, Ohio Department of Administrative Services.
Mr. Davis, we are delighted to have you back before the
subcommittee. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF STU DAVIS
Mr. Davis. It is good to be here. Good afternoon, Chairman
Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on FirstNet and the
National Public Safety Broadband Network. As State CIO, I also
chair the Multi-Agency Radio Communication System, or MARCS,
and the Steering Committee, Ohio's land mobile radio system
that supports voice and data communications for statewide
public safety and emergency response. And I also chair Ohio's
Next Generation 911 steering committee as well.
I first testified before you in November 2013 and expressed
concerns that the Ohio General Assembly had about FirstNet. It
called for this subcommittee to continue these meetings, and we
commend you for doing so. I also expressed concerns relative to
some key components that are necessary for success. FirstNet
has been--has made significant progress in further defining and
communicating the mitigation of these concerns. Regarding the
State's relationship with FirstNet, it is important that
FirstNet views this as a partnership. FirstNet has come a long
way in this regard, and, over the past year and a half, many
States have had the opportunity to meet with representatives
from FirstNet and discuss issues and concerns. FirstNet's
message has been clear. They are listening, reacting to our
concerns. Ohio's FirstNet consultation was held last week, and
by all accounts was a positive interaction.
From a planning and development perspective, States,
including Ohio, have received planning grants to support
stakeholder outreach, governance, and data collection
activities in support of FirstNet. Ohio has been pursuing a
regional, or a multi-State approach. The FEMA region, five
States of Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin,
and Ohio, have long been partners in the pursuit of obtaining
the best possible public safety communication networks for the
region. Region 5 States met often on FirstNet, and we have
found the same issues emerge for all of us, local control
issues, leveraging existing systems, next generation 911
integration, and, of course, business models.
At our request, FirstNet participated in these meetings,
and provided additional communication, and a consistency in
their message regarding interactions with the State. Their
outreach efforts are appreciated. Region 5 has taken steps to
identify assets that support emergency responder communication
to tower to other technical infrastructure. Of course, there
are necessary legal, financial, and jurisdictional
considerations when leveraging public infrastructure. Due to
the complexity of these considerations, recent FirstNet
discussions have been around foregoing leveraging State assets,
which is understandable. These considerations, multiplied by 50
States, will take an enormous amount of time and effort.
However, leveraging MARCS towers in Ohio could greatly assist
in achieving NPSBN coverage necessary.
There are some continued concerns. The FirstNet business
model is still somewhat undefined, and, based on recent
discussions at our State consultation, it will be defined by
the successful bidder through the RFP process. A sustainable
business model is critical to know and understand, and building
the cost recovery and usage rates will be instrumental in the
adoption of this effort. The FirstNet Chief Financial Officer
recently discussed a potential user fee of $30 a month, based
on four to 13 million users. This sets an expected bar for
fees, and is close to what some current service providers are
charging, but FirstNet should provide as good or better service
at an equal or lower cost. As Vice Chairman Latta knows, we
have MARCS users today that indicate that they cannot afford
the $20 a month fee we charge.
Additionally, further clarity around user community access
and secondary use is required. Utilities are asking questions
and making a strong case regarding priority access and spectrum
for the critical data systems they support. Their inclusion as
partners on the NPSBN could also provide sustainability for
that future business model.
There continue to be concerns regarding coverage. Recent
discussions have focused on the urban areas, with a phased
approach to address rural and remote areas. Currently Ohio's
marked service coverage is 97.5 percent of the State. We would
expect at least the same from FirstNet in Ohio. I understand
the reason for this current focus, but I am concerned in the
long run the rural remote areas of the State will be
underrepresented. I will continue to press for a FirstNet
coverage plan and schedule that clearly extends to these areas
in Ohio.
It is important to note that we are supportive of FirstNet
and the Nationwide Public Safety broadband network. Ohio is
uniquely positioned to take advantage of the significant
opportunity to coordinate and converge multiple efforts. These
efforts include the upgrade to our LMRS, MARCS, and Ohio's next
generation 911 system. I look forward to our continued
partnership with FirstNet, and ensure impacts to current
initiatives are in alignment with Ohio's direction. Thank you
for your time, and I will respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Davis, thank you for your testimony, and
that of Mr. Kennedy's as well.
So, Mr. Kennedy, it appears there may be some conflicting
information regarding the release of the final RFP, and I just
would love to get some clarification. I understand FirstNet
Chair Swinson estimated early 2016 when she testified before
the Senate. Is that a pretty good estimate, early 2016?
Mr. Kennedy. It is. I mean, we are shooting for the end of
this year, but early 2016 is a very accurate estimate.
Mr. Walden. All right. You state in your testimony that
FirstNet has received more than 670 questions to the draft RFP
you just released, and the comment period doesn't close until
July 27. Sounds like a lot of stakeholders have a lot of
questions. Given that level of inquiry, do you think you will
be able to hold on to the early 2016 release of the RFP?
Mr. Kennedy. Currently we are still holding on to that
date, and we have been responding to the questions that have
been coming in. We actually released the first responses last
week, and we are going to continue to respond to the questions
on an ongoing basis so that those questions can be acted upon
by the teams, and the States, and the public safety
stakeholders, who have been submitting questions.
One of the things that we have done with the draft RFP is
we have asked for feedback, and so both the questions and the
responses that we hope to get by July 27, we are expecting a
lot of interaction not just from vendors in industry, but also
from States, and so we are excited to see the feedback that we
are getting.
Mr. Walden. And I assume that has been a pretty helpful
process?
Mr. Kennedy. It has.
Mr. Walden. All right. What do you see as--I was just
reading through this document that we entered in the record for
the Rural Broadband Association, and some of their concerns
about special issues, the rural areas, and being able to be a
partner, and maybe partnering, or, conversely, if you end up
commercializing some of the surplus spectrum, the effect that
might have on the marketplace. Are those the sort of issues you
are going to be addressing?
Mr. Kennedy. We are, and we have asked for, in the draft
RFP documents, ways to address not just the urban and suburban
areas, but rural areas, as we look at rollout. One of the
things with the capacity on the network, certainly there will
be more excess capacity in the more rural areas.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. We have also been working with groups like the
Rural Broadband Association, and many others, to go out and
reach out to the rural carriers and rural telecom providers and
make sure that they are getting involved. We have been
encouraging them to respond----
Mr. Walden. Good.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. To the draft RFP----
Mr. Walden. Good.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. And respond with solutions. And
whether that is individually, or that is as teams, or working
together in regions or different parts of the country, we are
absolutely encouraging them to participate.
Mr. Walden. Because it just seems to me the more you can
minimize overbuild, or prevent it altogether, the better,
because you have got to leverage the money that you have in the
most effective way. So what are the next steps once the final
RFP is released?
Mr. Kennedy. Once the RFP is released, there will be
certainly questions to come in on the final RFP. We will
respond to those. We expect proposals to be returned after
that. There is an evaluation period of those different
proposals, and the ranking and rating that would normally
happen with an----
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Evaluation, and then any kind of
orals, or other parts that could take part of the evaluation
process. These do take some time. As you know, with large
Federal procurements, we expect that this will take a
significant amount of 2016 to occur, but we want to move with
as much urgency for public safety as we can because we know
they need this network, and we want to move into deployment.
Mr. Walden. Our antennae always go up when we hear the IG
is looking at an organization. I understand, while they are
done with their first audit, they are back looking at some of
the Federal issues. Can you elaborate a little bit about what
they are looking at?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. The most recent request was to take a
look at Federal outreach. Nothing out of the ordinary. We have
been working closely with any requests that come from either
the IG, or the Government Accountability Office, and we have
been definitely following up with them. And we expected this to
be a normal, routine cause of business as we go through
deploying this network.
Mr. Walden. And how soon before we would see some form of
deployment of the network after you get through the RFP and
all?
Mr. Kennedy. We would expect that, once the RFP is awarded,
that we will move into that first phase of deployment. We
currently have about 5 years of deployment that is in the plan,
the way the draft RFP is scripted today, so we are expecting
about a 5-year buildout, post award of the contract for the
initial buildout.
Mr. Walden. All right, see if I have anything else. Yes, in
your testimony you speak of a vision of developing a
recapitalization model that will lead to the deployment of a
fully self-sustained network. Could you describe this model,
and what it means from the perspective public safety user
States, and States that opt out of the network?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. The recapitalize model, from an opt-in
and an opt-out perspective, is trying to make sure that the
nationwide network, the core network itself, and the overall
network will not be like a lot of past public safety projects,
where we invest a large amount of Government grants and other
funding into a system that cannot be maintained or upgraded----
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Into the future. As all of you
know, you are currently using phones that are leveraging 3G
technology, leveraging 4G and LTE, and we are going to be
leveraging advanced LTE, 5G, 6G, into the future. And so as we
build this network, the goal is to make sure that we plan those
costs, and that recapitalization, into the network cost,
whether that is core fees related to an opt-out State, or
whether that is actual user fees, and the covered leasing
agreements related to opt-in States, and making sure that we
have the ability to maintain and upgrade the network.
Mr. Walden. All right. My time has expired. Thank you again
for your testimony, and the answers to my questions. Turn now
to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my
questions, I would just like to acknowledge the uniformed first
responders that are in the audience with us here today. We
salute you, we thank you for your service, and I will never
forget how you were really the backbone of the effort moving
the legislation through, so thank you for being here, and for
everything that you do for our whole country. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy, circling back to the GAO, what prompted the
review? Is this something that is----
Mr. Walden. You mean the IG's----
Ms. Eshoo. The IG review, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. We are not aware of anything in particular
that prompted the review itself. We believe it is a routine
course of business----
Ms. Eshoo. It is a routine--um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. And this was the next area that
they wanted to audit, which was Federal outreach.
Ms. Eshoo. Good. OK. Well, we will have to make--avail
ourselves to the report, and become familiar with it. We have
had enormous struggles with interoperability in the radio
space, and I want to make sure that the same thing doesn't
happen again between FirstNet and NG-911. So can you tell us
what FirstNet is doing to ensure that we don't have a standards
mismatch between the LTE network built by FirstNet and our NG-
911 systems built by States and localities?
Mr. Kennedy. Our statute clearly calls out and requires us
to promote integration of the network----
Ms. Eshoo. It does. Uh-huh, yes, the law does.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. And we have absolutely built that
into our draft RFP documents. We have leveraged it in our
outreach, and we have worked very closely with the 911
community.
Ms. Eshoo. Good.
Mr. Kennedy. Today in the audience some of the team from
APCO was here. APCO has been very much a supporter of FirstNet
in making sure that we maintain this integration focus that
needs to occur between next gen 911----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. And existing 911 and public
safety answering point services. We are also bringing on a 911
subject matter expert onto the FirstNet team to make sure that
we are very focused in reaching out to all of the dispatch
centers, and all of the communicators across the country, so
that their needs are included. And they are often at our
consultations and our different discussions as we go across the
country. So we believe that we are working very closely with
the 911 community, and that that integration will occur.
Ms. Eshoo. Good. That is excellent. Mr. Davis, thank you
for the work that you are doing. You gave quite an extensive
report in your testimony. Thank you very much. I mean, it
represents a ton of work, as my kids would say. How, in your
view, do you think the whole issue of interoperability between
FirstNet, the States, the NG-911 systems, is working?
Mr. Davis. I think it is too early to tell, from a State
perspective. Right now we are working through the technical
requirements on how we would do that from a State perspective.
Historically, that has come from local government, and we are
trying to put guidance out to local government to make sure
that they are following the standards and the----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. Approach that we would take. I am
excited to hear you have a 911 expert on your team, because I
am sure we will be reaching out and trying to leverage the
technology and the standards that you guys will be
implementing.
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum. Beyond what you just shared, do you
think that the atmospherics have become--I don't know what
other word to use. I mean, there were tensions in the
beginning, and the--on the part of some, a reluctance to be a
part of this effort. Can you tell us anything about how that
has improved, in your view? Do you think that it has?
Mr. Davis. Significantly improved.
Ms. Eshoo. Good.
Mr. Davis. I think----
Ms. Eshoo. That is wonderful.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. In the last year----
Ms. Eshoo. That is so important.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. And a half, in terms of the
outreach, the collaboration, the communication, these 35
States--I mean, that says a lot, when you are going out and
talking to the States.
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Davis. And we do get together from--regional
perspective. We get together from--even a national perspective,
and we talk. And so that--and you know that, right? So the
consistency of the message is very concerning for us to hear
that, you know, somebody said something in a different State.
And that message is clear. It--the collaboration, I think, is
there. The integration and the communication has been
consistent, and I think things are moving in the appropriate
direction.
Ms. Eshoo. And is there a comfort level to advise the Board
as to how--if there are ways to improve that, do you feel
comfortable saying so, or others?
Mr. Davis. I think there is always room for more
communication----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. And transparency. I think it will
be interesting to see the responses that come back from the
RFI----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hm.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. And the sharing of the information,
and the----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. Comments that come back from that.
I think that will be a significant assistance and help.
Ms. Eshoo. Great. Thank you very much. Yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Davis, thanks for being here today with us. We
really appreciate it, for the update. And, Mr. Davis, if I
could ask you, I noted in your testimony that you advocate a
regional approach to planning and development, capitalizing in
part on the partnership between the States in FEMA regions, and
the history of that kind of collective work with regard to the
land mobile radio communications. Would you be able to expand
on that for us, please?
Mr. Davis. Sure. There is a long history of communication
between the States in the FEMA 5 Region. They all have land
mobile radio systems that we share and share alike, and lessons
that were learned in Minnesota are things that we, you know,
don't have to break our teeth on, if you will, in another
State, in Ohio, for example.
So that communication came out, and it was really more
about making sure that we could be heard through the process.
In the early days, in 2013, there were concerns that, as a
State, our voice might be minimized, and we felt it as--moving
into a regional approach like that, we could not be dismissed,
when you start to talk about the population that is served, the
towers and the infrastructure that is there, and the way that
those land mobile radio systems are working today. So there
have been very, very strong communication between all of those
coordinators in those States.
Mr. Latta. Just not between the States, do you think
FirstNet's doing enough to take advantage of that regional
approach, then, that you have already been working on?
Mr. Davis. I think it is starting to take some root, if you
will. I think originally there were some----
Mr. Latta. Yes. Would you want to elaborate on that?
Mr. Davis. I think originally--I think FirstNet was a
little concerned, and this is my own perspective, I probably
shouldn't say that, but I will. And then I think, as they began
to see the opportunity, that that really brought it to the
table, and we had FirstNet come to one of those region five
meetings. And it is a great opportunity for us to hear the same
things, and to get everything out on the table, and have that
constructive debate on how this thing is going to come
together. And so I think that regional approach has been
helpful, and I think--I would hope that T.J. would say the same
thing.
Mr. Latta. Would you like to comment, Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. As somebody who did go out to that
Region 5 meeting, and I brought with me my Director of
Consultation, as well as Director of State Plans, the
interaction was terrific. It was a nice snowy day in Chicago.
We got together with all the States in Region 5. And I think
what was very beneficial was the pros and cons from different
States, with different geographies, and different issues, and
common problems and issues as well. And I think it made for a
great dialogue and discussion.
We have also been staffing up our consultation and outreach
teams by region now, and we actually are leveraging the
FirstNet regions, which are the same as the FEMA region. So we
are leveraging that kind of regional cooperation, much like
Region 5 set as a good example. So we are taking that example
and leveraging it in other parts of the country.
We also did something this year that I think is even taking
that to the next step, in that we held a nationwide single
point of contact meeting. So--both Stu Davis, and all of the
other single points of contacts from all the 50 States, and the
territories, and the District of Columbia we invited to a
nationwide--meeting where we all came together. Over--I think
52 of the States actually brought different team members to
that meeting, and we were able to share the differences in the
issues, and talk very openly in 2 full days of discussion.
I think you could kind of rate the discussion by--at 5
o'clock on the second day, everyone was still in the room,
having a very fruitful discussion. We had breakout sessions
where we could dive deep into elements around the RFP, or the
public notices. And that kind of dialogue has been extremely
helpful, I think, both for FirstNet, but also for the States,
and I think that we both gained from it.
Mr. Latta. Let me ask Mr. Davis, if I could, just on a
follow up, if you are going to look into the crystal ball and
look into the future, where do we need to be with the States
and FirstNet right now? You know, where do we want to be in the
next year? What do we need to be doing? What else?
Mr. Davis. Well, I think right now, I think, with all the
planning that is going on from each individual State, and that
coalescing of all that information across the--at least the
FEMA five regions, I think that is really on us to sort of get
some of that together and make sure that we are getting it to
FirstNet.
I think that the next steps are really the schedule, and
how this thing comes out, and how it gets rolled out at some
point in time. Because, again, like I said, I am concerned
about the rural and remote areas of the State, to make sure
that we have the appropriate coverages. I certainly understand
the logic behind the approach that they are taking, but some of
this can be done on parallel. We just need to make sure we are
doing it.
Mr. Latta. If I could just touch real briefly--and my time
is about up--because, especially when you are talking about the
rural parts of the State--because, you know, when I look at my
district, in northwest/west-central Ohio, I go from urban,
suburban, to very, very, very rural areas--and especially when
I am out talking to my first responders out in the rural areas,
there is always that question about coverage. And when you have
talked to folks in the rural parts of Ohio, I don't care if it
is in the northwest, or the southwest, or northeast, or
southeast, what are they telling you right now?
Mr. Davis. Well, they are all interested to know what kind
of coverage they are going to have to----
Mr. Latta. Right, and--but do they think that they will get
that coverage?
Mr. Davis. I think that they do assume that that is--I
think the original message that was coming out of FirstNet in
the very early days was consistent coverage across the entire
country. And, you know, my--obviously our fervent hope is that
that actually happens. But the question is the timing for those
rural and remote areas is going to be critical, because--and
that goes back to the business model as well, because how much
are you willing to spend for what you are going to get form
that out of the gate.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time
has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr.
Kennedy first about Jersey Net, and then I wanted to ask a
question about tribal lands, so I am trying to get this all in.
Nearly 3 years ago Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey.
The natural disaster was compounded by communication failures
across the State, and that is why I have been such a supporter
of making New Jersey's one of FirstNet's early builder
projects. I know that early on, however, critics pointed to the
struggles Governor Christie had getting this project off the
ground as an example of why FirstNet couldn't work, and I
believe that we have been able to turn this project around
since then.
I had hoped to ask one of the architects of the success in
New Jersey about how he did it, because I thought his
experience would help make other jurisdictions successful, but,
unfortunately, the Governor prevented him from being here
today, so I have to ask you, Mr. Kennedy, what do you think of
the progress Jersey Net has made, and can you elaborate on the
lessons that FirstNet hopes to learn from New Jersey's early
deployment of its public safety broadband network?
Mr. Kennedy. New Jersey and Jersey Net are currently
deploying and testing their first sites this week, so the
program is making terrific progress, and Fred Scalera, and the
team in New Jersey, are very eager to get this project
completed by September of this year. They are on track to do
that. They have been working very closely with the FirstNet
team as well, and sharing lessons learned as they move forward.
The project is helping drive a strong ecosystem to lessons
learned across devices, looking at early devices, and ways to
leverage the network, and also looking at ways to use
deployables so that in events like Hurricane Sandy in the
future, those deployables could be moved into an area that has
been affected by a natural disaster or other event, and
actually really leverage both capacity and coverage needs that
may change due to those kinds of planned and unplanned events
that occur.
So I do believe that the Jersey Net system is a great
platform for FirstNet to learn from. I do think the team is on
track to complete the project by September of this year, and
that we will be getting lessons of an operational flavor as
early as fall of this year, and we look forward today.
Mr. Pallone. All right. FirstNet was created to be part of
NTIA, which is part of the Department of Commerce. It seems to
me, though, that you might be able to deploy the network faster
if FirstNet was spun out of the agency. So do you think
FirstNet has reached the point where it can stand on its own as
an independent corporation, and if we are not there yet, what
needs to happen first?
Mr. Kennedy. I think FirstNet has grown a lot from the
early days. I believe that, when we started, we relied very
heavily on NTIA and the Department of Commerce for a lot of key
functions. As we have been able to build up our staff, we have
been able to take on some of those key corporate and governance
functions of the organization. We have moved things like
finance entirely into the FirstNet organization, and now we are
looking at key elements, like human resources, and procurement,
and how that can be taken on by FirstNet in the future.
So I do believe that we are maturing, and I do think that
that kind of responsibility and accountability for FirstNet is
something that we are growing into, very much so.
Mr. Pallone. OK. I want to ask you about tribal lands. I
try to bring up American Indian issues when I can. Nowhere is
our Nation's digital divide more apparent than on tribal lands.
The lack of communications on tribal lands has not just had an
economic impact, it is also led to real difficulties with
public safety communications. And I think one of the overlooked
virtues is this potential importance to improve deployment of
broadband infrastructure to tribal lands.
So how is FirstNet coordinating with tribal public safety
entities, and how will FirstNet address areas like tribal
lands, which may have very little existing communications
infrastructure?
Mr. Kennedy. FirstNet understands the special importance of
reaching out to the tribal communities, many of which have an
acute need for broadband deployment. We have a tribal outreach
lead that is full time on FirstNet, and does nothing but
interact on a regular basis with the public safety community on
different tribal lands, as well as the telecommunications, and
different elements of communications on the tribal lands, and
what they can do to help as FirstNet deploys. We have actually
created a tribal working group on the Public Safety Advisory
Committee. I personally have spent time meeting with them all
day, talking about the issues that are different in tribal
communities that need to be supported by FirstNet as we develop
the network and deploy the network.
I see a lot of desire for FirstNet to succeed on--with
supporting tribal public safety. They have been very eager to
work with us and help us understand their needs and desires.
And I do think that our recent consultations in States like New
Mexico, just recently last week, and we are looking at specific
tribal needs as we go through State-by-State consultations,
really is a great opportunity for us to make sure that we get
it right.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the other gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to
the panel. New Jersey's project is notable for its use of
deployable long term evolution communications technology for
its first responder network, called Jersey Net. This mobile
network system can be incorporated on towable trailers, SUVs,
vans, and other platforms to be deployed quickly in emergency
situations or natural disasters, like Hurricane Sandy, or to
places where communications are limited or non-existent. It is
my understanding that rural areas, which comprise about 90
percent of the country, in geography, are particularly
vulnerable, since there is no built-out fixed infrastructure.
In this regard, and I go to you, Mr. Kennedy, could you
provide guidance on how you plan to incorporate deployables
into your buildout plans?
Mr. Kennedy. We have been looking at deployables not just
for rural deployments, where it may not be cost-effective to
have terrestrial elements, we want to have as much terrestrial
in rural areas as well, but also from the capacity and the
reconstitution of a network. There are special events that
occur, large gatherings, you, you know, Super Bowls, large
sporting events, other things that would require an additional
capacity in certain areas where deployables can be
effectively----
Mr. Lance. All Super Bowls should be in New Jersey, Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Absolutely. The----
Mr. Lance. It is on the record.
Mr. Kennedy. The temperature of Super Bowls in New Jersey
in that time of year can be a little cold at some times----
Mr. Lance. No.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Just wanted to throw that out.
The need for reconstituting a network after a natural disaster,
though, is an excellent opportunity for deployables, where we
can have deployables that are moved out of the way of a
particular disaster, if we have warning, and can move them back
in to make sure that public safety can communicate immediately
after a major event. It also is supportive of terrorist events,
or other events that may take out existing infrastructure,
critical infrastructure.
Lastly, there are many parts, as you mentioned, of the
United States that are very rural, and it may make more sense
to have deployable assets leveraging satellite backhaul, and
other elements, to get to parts of the United States that are
very difficult to get to. When I was a first responder, I was a
police officer and a firefighter in very rural parts of Utah. I
went to places that were not covered by cellular networks or
land mobile radio networks, in many cases. So, having that
ability to get communications much deeper into our rural
communities for public safety is absolutely critical.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. And, on another topic, FirstNet has
sought comments on the definition of public safety entity on
two occasions, and, as I understand it, based on press reports,
there seems to be some debate among stakeholders. Mr. Kennedy,
could you describe this debate, and the implications of the
definition of that term for FirstNet's deployment?
Mr. Kennedy. We have actually had a terrific, I think,
conversation with both public safety, the States, and industry
on the definition of public safety entity. It was in both our
first public notice, and our follow-up third public notice. We
saw overwhelming support from the States. Many States,
including Ohio, mentioned the elements related to leveraging a
broad user base to support the network that public safety needs
to have access to. But, most importantly, that user base is
somebody that needs to be contacted by the incident commander
during big incidents.
And if we look at emergencies that occur, everyone
understands that police, fire, and emergency medical services
are part of our everyday public safety response. But also there
are others, whether it is a utility worker, or whether it is to
access some key transportation support on a major accident
scene on an interstate highway. You may have other users that
are in contact with public safety every day, supporting public
safety operations, and, most importantly, needing to be
prioritized by an incident commander to be spoken to during
those large emergencies, when networks get congested.
And so we have tried to be very clear on making sure that
we get input from States on who should be on the network, and
we have received a lot of input on that issue. We have not
issued our final recommendation for the outer guardrails of
that public safety entity definition, but I think with the
tremendous amount of input that we have received, it has helped
us build a broad definition that will cover what needs to
occur, and also be prudent in acting with the act.
Mr. Lance. In the press there has been some discussion as
to the difference between six million to 13 million users,
estimates. Could you give your best advice to the committee on
that?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. In general, our market research has
shown that there are about four million public safety
traditional users that would want to engage on the network, if
they were given that opportunity, and so we look at that as an
addressable market. It is about four million police, fire, and
emergency medical services personnel. The nine million, or up
to 13 million, number comes from those other types of users we
just described, so Department of Transportation officials that
may be supporting that. They may be buses or transportation
that moves folks during an evacuation. That is commonly needed
when you have a hurricane coming into an area, or you are
evacuating a hospital, or a nursing home, or other large
facilities that you might need to evacuate during an actual
emergency. Having that kind of broader public safety first
responder community that can support that is important, and so
that is where that other nine million comes from.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. My time is done. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Lance. We turn now to the
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke. Do you have any
questions?
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Davis, thank you for
testifying here today. Coming out of the New York experience in
9/11, and understanding that there have been a host of
iterations of I guess ways of becoming interoperable, I want to
know whether we are looking at how we maximize on the
infrastructures that have already--that are already in
existence, whether FirstNet will be an underlay of those
systems, or are we talking about essentially putting those
systems aside, and deploying FirstNet as the main vein, if you
will, of communications not only in the New York region, but I
guess across the Nation.
And I say that because I look at the major investments that
have been made in a city like New York. A whole new 911
infrastructure has been put in place. There are a lot of
taxpayer dollars there. Is there a way that you have looked at
the assets of various regions around the Nation and looked at
what could be amenable to the new deployment from a broadband
perspective, or whether you see those being phased out,
basically, over time so that this becomes sort of the primary
tool for communication and coordination?
Mr. Kennedy. So to your 911 public safety answering point--
question specifically, I absolutely believe that the
integration both with the existing public safety answering
points, and those that are upgrading to next gen 911, is a key
part of what we are doing, and that integration will leverage
those investments that have already been made.
When it comes to using voice capability with land mobile
radio, and using voice, video, and data related to LTE and
broadband technology, I believe they are complimentary, and I
believe that the land mobile radio systems that agencies have
today should be--continue to be maintained, and those systems
are very valuable to public safety. It is what I have used in
my career. It is a very valuable tool to public safety. I do
think that broadband will bring a richness of applications, and
the ability to have not just interoperable voice
communications, but interoperable data communications. I am
able to share more information across police, fire, and
emergency medical services.
So I believe that they are complimentary to each other, and
that the richness that you can get in a broadband environment
will add to saving lives in different ways than we do today by
being able to share video, and sharing data much quicker, and
in ways that, in some cases, we haven't even thought of the
amazing applications that will be supporting our police
officers, our firefighters, and our paramedics.
Ms. Clarke. That was a good answer. My next question to you
is, for those parts of the country where you have sort of a
voluntary first responder infrastructure, have you thought
about how the usage of FirstNet will be communicated, and are
they already integrated into I guess networks of conversation
around the deployment of FirstNet, and how they will interact
with it? Because, of course, their--primarily stand up their
operations on a volunteer basis, and--but they play a very
crucial role in responding in remote areas, where there isn't
necessarily a municipality that does so. Could you give us some
insights into that as well? And any feedback you may have
gotten from those communities.
Mr. Kennedy. Volunteers are absolutely critical in public
safety. You can go to almost any State in this country, and
volunteers are a backbone of what occurs in public safety.
There are volunteer firefighters and EMTs across this country
who serve big communities and small communities. There are
communities in New York that are quite large that are served by
volunteers every single day, and so they are a part of this
network. They are a key component that are going to leverage
this network. When we go out and do consultations, we are
consulting with paid professional services, we are consulting
with volunteer professional services, and we are making sure
that they are at the table, and invited, and part of those
conversations.
One of the biggest things we hear is they want to make sure
that they are able to buy service, and we have made sure in our
definitions that volunteers are clearly called out as being
able to buy service, and be a part of that. And so we think
they are a critical component, and will greatly benefit from
having costed--affordable devices that they can get their hands
on, not just for voice communications, but also for
applications and other uses as well.
Ms. Clarke. And in the protocols that are I guess being
established, is there a component of that that looks at the
security of the system, and how is that being baked in, and
also how are you containing sort of access to that? Everyone in
the Nation is just concerned about cyber, and I just wanted to
get your feedback.
Mr. Kennedy. Cyber is an absolutely critical element for us
in--at FirstNet, and--with public safety. And we are trying to,
and we have the unique opportunity, as we develop a network
that is going to be deployed, that we can start from the
beginning and bake in security from day one. We brought on a
security architect, who is now part of our team, who is focused
on this. He has been leveraging the Department of Homeland
Security and other key agencies that have a number of cyber
efforts that are already underway.
We are not reinventing the wheel. We are leveraging a lot
of the best practices that are in place, both in the private
sector and in Government today. But we want to make sure that
the unique environment of a number of networks that have
typically been stove-piped are separate, that when you bring
them together it is going to be absolutely critical that, when
we have all these different agencies that are leveraging this
network, that--not just cyber security, but also identity and
access management will be a critical component of what we do.
And it is going to be unique, because we have folks at the
local level, we have folks at the State level, and folks at the
Federal level who will be leveraging the network.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you very much for your response. I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Kennedy, as you know, the law governing FirstNet included a
provision that would allow the States to opt out of the
FirstNet network and deploy their own network, then connect to
FirstNet. So I have got a few questions about how this opt out
process will work, particularly given that the region of the
Nation, the region of the State that I represent is very rural.
So I have some questions.
Given the projected release of the FirstNet request for
proposal at the end of 2015, or the beginning of 2016, what is
the likely timeline for Governors to make their decisions as to
whether their States will opt out, or in, to FirstNet?
Mr. Kennedy. The anticipated timeline would be late in 2016
to early in 2017 timeframe, when they would be presented with a
State plan. It is at the presentation of a State plan when a
State Governor then would have the opportunity to opt in to the
network, or to take on that responsibility for themselves to
deploy the radio access network in their State.
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. Will the Governors have all of
the data points, such as specific cost per user, available to
them in time for them to make an informed decision to opt in or
opt out, and what are your plans to communicate the kind of
information that the Governors will need to make that decision?
Mr. Kennedy. Our plan is to do a very a detailed RFP
process that will produce the kinds of information that outlay
the costs and the expected offsetting revenues that can support
the network, and to drive all that information, in addition to
things such as coverage objectives, into a State plan. It is
that State plan that is that document that provides the
information that will give them the ability to make that as an
informed decision.
And, as part of the consultation efforts that are now
started and ongoing, we expect ongoing conversations over the
next 18 months on exactly these topics----
Mr. Johnson. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. And to discuss them, and to share
information in a two-way dialogue, so that when that State
planning gets to the desk of a Governor, it should not be the
first time that they are hearing about it.
Mr. Johnson. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy. Many folks, just like Mr. Davis here, as a
CIO, have been very actively involved for exactly this reason,
in addition to wanting to see the importance of this network,
but they have a job to inform their Governors. They have a job
to make sure that they are watching this closely, and they are
participating.
One of the things that I have seen is the more that folks
are participating, the more informed they are, and the more
that we can share and have that kind of informed dialogue, and
I think that is absolutely critical. Having CIOs, State public
safety commissioners, and also local police, fire, and EMS
leadership, in addition to the Governors themselves, you know,
learning and getting involved with FirstNet is one of the best
ways to understand that key decision to opt into the FirstNet
deployment of the network, or to take on that responsibility to
deploy it themselves in the State for the radio access network.
Mr. Johnson. Well, let us say a State opts out. Are there
revenues, and if so, what type of revenues might be available
to them to help support their end of the network?
Mr. Kennedy. This is a complex topic, in that there are
revenues that could come from spectrum management lease
agreements, both to FirstNet, but also for supporting that kind
of deployment. But one of the things that we have explored in
our second notice is exactly how this mechanism will work, and
we are still digesting the comments that we have recently
received on that, so there is more to come on that in the
future.
Mr. Johnson. OK, great. Mr. Davis, you state that FirstNet
has made significant progress in communicating with you on
concerns that are being raised. So, as we get closer and closer
to the endgame here, to the expected final RFP, do you have any
specific recommendations on how we can improve this
communicating process?
Mr. Davis. Actually, you know, the--Executive Director
Kennedy has been pretty transparent. I think the more
transparent they are, the more that we have--that conversation
is going on, so that there isn't surprises in the end. And even
if we know it may not be perfect, it is still better to know--
--
Mr. Johnson. Um-hum.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. Early so that maybe we can assist
in that process. But I think--right now I think everything
seems to be rolling along fairly well. The proof will be in the
pudding, as we get all of our planning documents together.
There has been a lot of communication in Ohio with the--all
different levels of first responders, the volunteer firemen, I
mean, everybody. We have those meetings on a regional basis
just within Ohio to communicate what is coming, and what they
should be expecting, and what information we need from them so
that we can be able to articulate that----
Mr. Johnson. In 10 seconds let me ask you one final
question. So who are the current users of the Ohio land mobile
radio system, and once deployed, do you envision the public
safety broadband network in Ohio to have a similar user base?
And if so, why or why not?
Mr. Davis. There are quite a few folks. I think there--
right now, today, I think there is about 50,000 users on our
system. The majority of those are coming out of public safety
and State agencies, as well as the sheriff's office, and
others, and local law enforcement and emergency response.
I think that right now our network doesn't handle the data
requirements that you will see from FirstNet. I mean, that is
the key, is getting access to the applications in a quick
fashion. That push-to-talk component is a pretty critical
thing. It is a closed system. We have other entities on there
besides State and local government folks. I think the Federal
Government has some process in there. But I think we have three
towable towers that we pull in too when there are emergency
situations.
But, for the most part, that is focused on really that
push-to-talk communication piece, and nothing is more important
than somebody outside, by himself, being able to press a button
and get a response.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Missouri for 5 minutes. I am sorry. I am
sorry, Mr. Doyle. Sorry, I got ahead of myself.
Mr. Doyle. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for your testimony today.
Mr. Davis and Mr. Kennedy, I have heard some concerns from
some of the public safety community in Pennsylvania about who
will qualify to use FirstNet, who will make the final decisions
about eligibility. Beyond police, firefighters, and other first
responders, there are other individuals and organizations that
play an important role in emergency response. Shouldn't States
ultimately decide who has both permanent and temporary access
to the first responder broadband network? For instance, if a
building is on fire, and police or firefighters, they might
find it very valuable to be able to communicate with the
building security, or those in charge with managing the
evacuation. Shouldn't the incident commander in these cases be
able to make the final decision about who has access to the
network?
Mr. Kennedy. From our perspective, we have overwhelmingly
heard that from States as well, and our current definition
would allow them to do that. Our current definition would allow
the incident commander to have access to all those type of
entities that would allow them to communicate and handle that
scene, no matter how large or small that it is. Our third
notice was very much focused on that, and our third notice just
closed last week. As we digest those comments that came in from
States and from others, we will come out with a final
determination, but our goal was to be very responsive to those
requests that have come in from the States.
Mr. Doyle. Great, thank you. Mr. Kennedy, first responders
in Pittsburgh, and many other cities across the country, use
the T band for communications, and, as part of the Spectrum
Act, the FCC will reclaim that spectrum. Do you see the
deadlines that are set for that process as being problematic
for first responders that depend on that spectrum to
communicate, or do you believe FirstNet will be online in the
effective localities in time to mitigate this shift?
Mr. Kennedy. There are a couple elements to this. We are
aware of the concerns of those public safety jurisdictions
using T band spectrum today, and the T band relocations
provisions that are part of the act. It is the FCC, however,
that is in charge of that T band relocation, and it would be
better for them to answer specific questions about timing and
so forth related to that effort.
FirstNet, we have been very focused on working with the
international standards community, the 3GPP community, Third
Generation Partnership Project, that is focused on making sure
that we have a standards-based approach that goes to putting
mission critical voice in the future on our network. At
deployment of the network, we are looking at having non-mission
critical voice, or what you would look at as cellular-type
communications, or over the top communications, on broadband,
and plan to offer that as part of the initial deployment.
But when it comes to mission critical voice communications,
we are really looking at leveraging those international
standards to make sure that we only go to those key seven
functions that are part of the mission critical voice standards
that are being done right now, and that they are implemented
not just in the standards bodies, but that they are being
utilized, and that public safety builds a trust up that those
standards are ready for them. And public safety will decide
when they are comfortable with mission critical voice on
broadband in the future.
So that is happening. The standards bodies are working to
have that initial standard done by mid-2016. It will take some
time for that technology to get into the actual technology
ecosystem. And there are some other countries around the world
that are actually looking at moving to mission critical voice
sooner than the United States that will be doing some testing.
But, for us, we want to make sure that public safety is
confident in both the technology, and in the standards, and
that they have been rolled out, and that they are using the
network for other purposes first.
Mr. Doyle. Great. Gentlemen, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I
will yield back.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
Now the gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, it appears
that, in many rural areas, first responders will have to rely
on roaming with existing rural wireless providers for network
coverage, instead of using the national public safety broadband
network. How and when are you planning to address roaming
coverage?
Mr. Kennedy. Roaming is certainly something that was
envisioned in the act, and we are allowed to enter into roaming
agreements, but we are also looking at leveraging rural
buildout milestones, and making sure that we have rural
buildout at every phase of deployment of the network. So we are
looking at both the deployment that needs to occur, but also
looking at, when we get to a final RFP, what kind of efforts
can be leveraged for roaming that is cost-effective that can be
added to the network as part of that solution as we go forward.
Mr. Long. Any speculation on how long that building would
take, the----
Mr. Kennedy. As far as building the network right now, we
proposed in the draft RFP that 20 percent of the rural buildout
milestones would be covered in each phase, which would be a
year. So 20 percent in year 1, 40 percent in year 2, 60 percent
in year 3, and so on. And so we believe that that will allow
for ongoing rural buildout at each phase, rather than saying it
is all just waiting to the end, which is one of the concerns
that we have heard.
So we have tried to be very clear to proposers who are
looking at bidding on the network that rural buildout is very
important to us. We are also trying to encourage rural
telecommunication to--telecommunication firms to be a part of
those solutions, and to bid on the network, and be a part of
bringing solutions to the table that will allow that rural
deployment to occur.
Mr. Long. OK. FirstNet's partners are allowed to use the
excess capacity on the FirstNet network to offer wireless
services to commercial subscribers. How will FirstNet ensure
its partners do not compete against existing commercial
networks, particularly in the high cost rural areas where there
population density often will not sustain more than one network
to begin with?
Mr. Kennedy. One of the things in the act is that it
requires us to look at the economic desirability of anyone
proposing to bid on the network, and look at the different
approaches to both, you know, leveraging different types of
infrastructure, rural telecommunications infrastructure,
existing Government infrastructure, commercial infrastructure.
And so we are going to look at what is most cost effective to
deploy the network, and also to have sustainability on the
network.
As part of those offers, they actually have to bring to the
table what kinds of revenues would they bring to the table to
offset the costs of public safety in both deploying,
maintaining, and operating the network. And so it is important
for us to look at the greater good of public safety, and how
they would be served by those covered leasing agreements, or
those agreements by potential partners or offers to leverage
the network, whether that is in rural areas or in urban areas.
Mr. Long. That is my next question. In terms of location,
where will the service first and most likely be available,
urban areas, or urban and rural, or what can we expect?
Mr. Kennedy. It is urban and rural. And--so just like I
mentioned earlier, we want to have those rural buildout
milestones at each phase, so certainly urban areas will get
built out. Your largest number of population and public safety
providers, public safety entities, are actually in the more
populated areas. But we also see that going to the rural area,
so we want to make sure that those rural buildout milestones
help drive that as an incentive to make sure that rural was
built out at each phase.
Mr. Long. And 3 years behind us, when do you thank that
FirstNet will actually start providing service?
Mr. Kennedy. I believe that FirstNet will start providing
service as soon as we start to deploy the network, and States
and areas are actually built out, and up and tested, and on the
network. Currently we see the network starting to be awarded,
as far as deployment, in 2017, and so you will see it
probably--in the year after that that you will start seeing
deployment of the network, and actually being up and operating
in different areas.
Mr. Long. So you think the--it will be up in 2018?
Mr. Kennedy. I think parts of the network will be up in
2018, and it will continue to deploy on a regular basis. One
thing with wireless networks is they are ongoing deployments,
and so we have the initial deployment, which we are talking
about a 5-year buildout of that deployment, from 2017 through
2022, but we also believe that the overall network will
continue to grow after that, but there will be additional
coverage that is added. There is additional capacity that is
added. It is not a static network. So every part of the country
that even has initial deployment will continue add to that
deployment as time goes on.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
ask--Mr. Kennedy, I wanted to ask you about some of the efforts
in Colorado. As part of the successful AWS-3 auction, NIST,
which as--has labs in Colorado, received $300 million for
research on standards, technologies, and applications to
advance wireless public safety communications. Now, my
understanding is that this research is in consultation with
FirstNet, so even though NIST only recently received the
funding, I am wondering if you can give us the status of those
consultations?
Mr. Kennedy. I can. We actually met with NIST last week.
One of the things that we have right now--every June is a
public safety communications research conference, and that
conference is done with NIST and the public safety
communications research lab at NIST. And it was held just last
week, and literally over 500 key stakeholders came together to
talk about the technical aspects, and the different research
and development aspects of not just the public safety network,
but public safety communications in general.
We actually sat down with the NIST team and started to
consult and discuss on that grant program regular ongoing
communications with both the NIST director and Dereck Orr, who
was the Program Director of the PSCR labs. I believe we worked
hand in glove with them, and that the team at NIST is very
focused on bringing solutions to----
Ms. DeGette. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Public safety on the LTE----
Ms. DeGette. Great. OK, good. Now, you told some of the
other members that FirstNet has worked hard to improve its
outreach efforts to all stakeholders, including States, and--as
well as NIST, I understand you have had an official
consultation with the State of Colorado. Can you tell me what
is next for FirstNet in Colorado?
Mr. Kennedy. Right now in Colorado we are asking them to
start performing data collection, and I know that they are
doing that. Brian Shepherd, who is the single point of contact
on the Colorado team, has been sending out communication to the
public safety community in Colorado, and currently their data
collection is due September 30, and so they are working to
gather that data on different public safety users, where are
they located throughout the State, what kinds of 911 calls do
they have, where do they need to respond to? And so that is the
current activity that they are working on.
Once that data is received, we plan to go back out and meet
with States to validate that data and discuss what that data is
telling us to become part of the State plan. And so that is
what is going to----
Ms. DeGette. So that will be sometime in the fall, you
think, maybe? Didn't you say September----
Mr. Kennedy. In the fall would probably be the follow-up to
that, after September----
Ms. DeGette. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. 30.
Ms. DeGette. Right. OK. And, lastly, Adams County,
Colorado, has one of the five early builder public safety
projects. What lessons do you think you could learn from that
project in Adams County?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, the good news is we have already been
learning lessons from that project, and we look forward to the
ongoing lessons now that the network is operations. They are
one of two networks that are already operational.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. There are users who are on the network today,
and they are looking to add a lot more users to the network. As
those users come on board, we are going to be looking at
network management of that particular network, how those users
interact, and really look for key use cases for the benefits of
broadband for public safety, and how we can leverage that
across the country with a nationwide public safety network.
Ms. DeGette. Thanks. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair now
recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlelady from North Carolina.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
panel. Mr. Kennedy, I have a couple question--or, actually, I
have one question. Mr. Long asked my other question. My
colleague from Missouri was hitting on some of the rural
issues, and I would like to follow up on a couple of those as
well. Since FirstNet is proposing a nationwide and State and
regional approach as potential paths for network acquisition, I
am concerned with how this affects the rural carriers in
limiting their abilities to grow as well. They have smaller
service territories, and I am afraid that they are going to get
cut out of the process.
In addition, there is no clear incentive for large carriers
to partner with the small providers to serve the rural
communities. Large carriers lack presence in the--and
experience in these rural areas, and the smaller carriers are
there. How can--how is this process going to move forward, and,
you know, how is FirstNet going to ensure that the effective
and efficient creation of the network in rural areas is
provided?
Mr. Kennedy. We have been really trying to outreach to the
rural carriers themselves. We have been working with the
different associations, whether it is the rural broadband
association, whether it s NRTC, many of the other different
groups that support rural telecommunications across the
country. We have been engaging them early on. We have been
encouraging them to participate in our draft RFP that is out
right now, as well as our public notices, so that they can
share with FirstNet what their needs and desires are.
Part of releasing a draft RFP, which is not required----
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Was to get that kind of feedback,
both from States, but also from industry, and industry includes
the rural telecommunications----
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Providers.
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy. And we want them to come forward with
solutions that will help make it cost-effective to build out
further into rural areas that will make the operation to
sustainability of FirstNet a success, because that is a
requirement of the act, and to make sure that, as we look at
things like rural buildout milestones. That is one of the
things that we are looking for comments on, and we expect to
receive comments on that. We think it is really important. We
have asked for a definition of rural, set of----
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Comments in a public notice. Lots
of communication from the rural community on that as well. So I
think that we have heavily engaged both public safety entities
that are in rural----
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Areas, as well as the rural
telecommunication entities, to be a part of making this network
a success. We think that, whether it is teaming, whether it is
bringing folks together, whether it is coming up with unique
and innovative business models that will support that, that we
have looked at different ways that we can, and are----
Mrs. Ellmers. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Continuing to get input on that.
We actually have, as part of our RFP, have laid out ways that
people can put themselves forward to team with others so that
different parts can get together and make sure that they can be
a viable entity to bid on different parts of the network, and
be a part of the solution.
Mrs. Ellmers. Great. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I yield back
the remainder of my time, or if anybody wants it, you know, I
have got about 2 minutes left.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and to Mr.
Davis and Mr. Kennedy, thank you both for being here.
Mr. Kennedy, as you know, before the establishment of
FirstNet, my home State of New Mexico was the recipient of a
BTOP grant to support the development of a public safety
wireless system, and it is my understanding the FirstNet and
New Mexico have reached a spectrum licensing agreement in this
space. Can you give us an idea if this is indeed going to be
completed by September 30?
Mr. Kennedy. To my knowledge right now, from CIO Darryl
Ackley, who is leading the New Mexico team, and his staff,
Jackie Miller and others, who are working on that BTOP project,
they are on track to meeting their September 30 deadline. I
know there is a lot of work to be done, and they are working
hard to make that happen.
We know that they have been collaborating to get those
sites on board, and they have also had a significant part of
that project that was already deployed for microwave backhaul,
and other elements that are the backbone of that system. So we
are really looking forward to additional lessons learned coming
out of the State of New Mexico. You have some unique issues
with the border that we are also learning to get some key
learnings out of, and so really excited, and looking forward to
that project coming online.
Mr. Lujan. Well, since you went there, Mr. Kennedy, I will
jump right to that question that I had for you is--New Mexico
is one of the many States that has a complexity of
jurisdictions with local, State, Federal Government, as you
named, and--namely being a border State, with Border and
Customs as well. Has the dynamic presented any unique
challenges that you have seen, or that you anticipated?
Mr. Kennedy. I think there are two things. One, certainly
challenges related to spectrum on the border. Mexico is looking
at different ways to deploy broadband for their Government
needs, including public safety, than the United States, as far
as their band plan. There have been some very positive
announcements on the northern border that Canada is actually
matched up with our same exact spectrum that we are utilizing
for the FirstNet network for their public safety first
responders, so we are in much better shape there, as far as
dealing with those issues. So that is an issue that is ongoing
when you get on the border.
I will say that there has been collaboration and
cooperation on sites near the border with the Federal
Government, and Federal law enforcement agencies that work on
the border with the State of New Mexico. And I think, working
through some of that, that key early engagement and discussions
has been very positive both for those Federal law enforcement
agencies, and for the State of New Mexico, and the lessons
learned from that engagement hopefully can be applied to other
parts of the border in New Mexico, as well as other parts of
the southern border in the country. So that kind of
relationship building, and discussions, and working through the
details to get sites online I think will be very beneficial to
this project.
Mr. Lujan. And you have heard a lot of questions from those
of us that represent rural States as well. What lessons learned
in a State with geography like we have in New Mexico, where it
is large and land based, as well--we have amazing mountains ski
areas as well, so sometimes that gets in the way of
transmission of some of the communications services, where you
can drop service here and there, because it is so--such a big
State. So what have we learned that we will be able to deploy
in other States?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. I mean, as somebody who has been a State
trooper in Utah, and understands some of the rural geography
that you have in New Mexico, and has traveled to New Mexico, I
think it is really important that we understand that there are
many areas that are very difficult to communicate with today,
and the needs are critical for public safety to have additional
communication avenues, both in land mobile radio, and in
cellular and LTE communications.
I think that the kinds of things we are looking at in
different communities in New Mexico today with the initial
buildout will be helpful, but because your geography and
terrain is so varied, I think that, you know, all the different
things that we need to bring forward for options and solutions
to serve very rural areas are going to be critical for New
Mexico, and all the rural States.
And I think as we move forward, finding unique solutions
that can leverage very long ways of dealing in rural areas, we
are looking at boomer sites as one of the unique elements that
we have that can cover large areas with a stronger cell site
that can do that. We are looking at high powered mobile
devices. We are looking at satellite backhaul in some areas,
and deployable units. So many different ways to try to serve
rural communities, all of which I think will be important for
New Mexico, and many States that have the same kind of terrain.
Mr. Lujan. And in your testimony, Mr. Kennedy, you also
outlined the establishment of a tribal working group, and
hiring a tribal liaison as well. Can you provide more detail on
FirstNet's efforts to ensure robust tribal consultation? And,
in addition to that, I understand that you recently had a
session in Santa Fe, New Mexico. If you could let us know what
the next steps are?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure. I think the establishment of that tribal
working group has been very successful. Early in in FirstNet's
existence, Chairman Ginn appointed Kevin McGuinness, one of our
Board members, to be the tribal liaison from the Board. Kevin
has been actively involved in making sure that tribal
communities are involved every step of the way with FirstNet.
We have gone so far as even making sure that we reach out--we
recently had some public notices, and actually sent notices to
all of the recognized tribes to make sure that they give us
input, and we have received input from tribal communities as
part of that. And so we are looking forward to continuing to
try to have that involvement.
When I talked earlier about the 56 State SPOC meeting,
where we got all the single points of contact together, we
actually invited the tribal working group to that meeting as
well, and we had sessions where the tribal working group met
with States. These breakout sessions had 15 or 20 States in
there, and talked about issues that affect tribal communities
related to public safety broadband, and shared their concerns,
and how to get each side to be more involved with each other.
So I think we have done a great job of trying to bring them
together, but there is a lot more to do as we continue to
develop and deploy the network.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chairman and welcome Mr. Kennedy and
Mr. Davis. One of the early buildout projects is in the eastern
end of my district, Harris County, Texas, population four
million people, the third most populous county in America,
number one in Texas. The last 2 weeks back home have been
pretty rough. We had a 100-year flood on Memorial Day, with
homes being lost, businesses being lost. Tragically, a few
lives were lost, including one woman in my district. And now
Tropical Storm Bill has rolled ashore, a little bit south of
Harris County. Made landfall about 150 miles south, meaning the
worst side of the hurricane, the northeast quadrant, is hitting
my hometown directly. We are managing, but we can always use
more weapons in this battle. Bill came ashore between Palacios,
Texas, a population of 4,661, and Port O'Connor, Texas, booming
with 1,253. Those two towns can't respond like Harris County,
Houston can to a crisis, and that is why I am so excited about
what FirstNet promises. But FirstNet starts with these early
builder programs, like in Harris County.
So my question is, Mr. Kennedy, the recently released GAO
report recommended that FirstNet develop a plan to better
evaluate their early builder projects and capitalize on the
experience gleaned from them. What is the status of those
recommendations, sir?
Mr. Kennedy. So, first of all, we put together that--an
evaluation plan to incorporate those lessons learned. We have
received many lessons learned from each of these projects,
including Harris County. We most recently even had the Harris
County team up to our Reston headquarters here in Northern
Virginia, meeting with both our technical team and our RFP
team, and sharing those lessons that they have learned so far
to make sure that they are incorporated both into our
acquisition, and into our overall plans and procedures, and
development of the network.
Mayor Parker, who is the Mayor of Houston, is on our Board.
Our Board is made up of an amazing group of talented
individuals both from the wireless and telecommunications
industry, also from State and local government, and from public
safety, police, fire, emergency medical services, and sheriff's
departments. That Board, including Mayor Parker, are giving us
advice on the deployment of this network, and how critical this
is. And we know she has been quite busy, as well as all the
officials in Texas that have been dealing with your recent
flooding, and the ongoing issues that are affecting you there.
We think that is an absolutely perfect reason why we need
to deploy this network and move very quickly, and with focus,
to have consultation so that we can take in these lessons
learned to work through the acquisition as the act requires us
to so that we can deploy this network as quickly as possible
for public safety.
Mr. Olson. Have there been real surprises, something that
came out of nowhere, whoa, what happened here? I mean, any big
surprises, or are things marching along? Challenges, gotten
through them, over them? Anything we should be concerned about?
Some challenges that came out of nowhere, like--I mean, real
world example, right now back home, we have real big problems.
FirstNet could be a big part to solving those problems, and
so--any idea, if we had some big problems, that--might want to
help out us here in Congress, or are you guys doing all right
right now?
Mr. Kennedy. As far as big problems, I don't think there
has necessarily been unforeseen major issues, but there have
been things that we were worried about that have come true. So,
as a good example, the intricacies in working through
memorandums of agreement, and understanding to get sites, and
access to sites that are Government sites to help build the
network, very time consuming, can be political at times, and
take a lot of time and effort to put some of those in place.
And so that is just one example of more than 60 lessons learned
that we have from these early builder projects so far. We
continue to incorporate those in our development. I think the
time that it takes to consult and work through acquisition
takes time, but we are working through that as quickly as we
can.
Mr. Olson. As you build FirstNet through early builders,
are there any insights to use actual real world situations,
like what we had in Harris County, Texas the past month as a
real world example of how this thing can save some lives, get
this thing up and running? Any effort to try to include real
world examples in your--going forward with the early builder's
program, and then FirstNet?
Mr. Kennedy. There are. We have asked for actual use cases
and lessons learned that are real world use cases that are
coming out of these projects. Many of them are not live and on
the air yet today. Harris County and AdCom are two that are,
but they have a small number of users, in some cases, that are
on the network today. And as they continue to add users, I
suspect we will have more lifesaving examples that we can bring
forward.
These projects were funded through the Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program pre-FirstNet, but because they are
leveraging the FirstNet spectrum, it is something that we are
going to be able to get those kind of use cases, and be able to
share them with public safety across the country.
Mr. Olson. And that is important, because most of these
homes that were lost and lives lost were lost in small towns.
Even--I mean, suburban towns, but small police force, not
capable like the big Houston police force, or my police force
in Sugarland, Texas, where I live. And so please, please,
please, get going, get going, get going, we need this. I yield
back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from New York for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a--excuse me. In a
prior life I was the County Executive of Erie County, the
largest upstate county in New York, 44 cities, towns, and
villages, and 100 separate volunteer fire companies. I went
through, 7, 8 years ago, the whole issue of low band, 400
megahertz, 800 megahertz. I was the one that killed the 800
megahertz plan in New York State when they came to our county,
where it had to work, as the largest upstate county. In my
talking to the volunteer fire folks, first of all, we knew it
probably wouldn't work, and secondly, we had no money to
implement it anyway. So I pulled the county out, it cratered
the whole thing across New York State.
So talk to me as though I am this local volunteer fire guy.
I just went from low band to 400 megahertz, and it works. It
works really, really well. I knew 800 megahertz was a disaster.
Now, tell me what my life is going to look like 5 years from
now. Do I have to throw all my radios away? Am I going to go to
700 megahertz? Am I going to go to a 4G LTE? Who is going to
buy me my equipment?
Our emergency services, central police, you know, I was
county exec when Flight 3407 went down. I have had floods, I
had blizzards. It was critical that we all talked to each
other. Rural areas, some of our areas, believe it or not, do
not today have cell coverage. So tell me what my life is going
to look like. Make it really simple. I am a volunteer fire
chief. What is my life going to look like 5 years from now?
Tell me what it is going to be.
Mr. Kennedy. When we have been out talking to a lot of
volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel, most of them carry a
personal smartphone today, or cell phone today, if they have
coverage. To your point, there are still some areas without
coverage, but let us assume they are in an area that has
coverage.
Mr. Collins. No, I don't know, I--mine in particular
doesn't.
Mr. Kennedy. OK. So, as part of the----
Mr. Collins. That is my excuse when someone reaches me. I
tell them I am out in Wyoming County, and--sorry, I just lost
coverage. And they go, I understand.
Mr. Kennedy. And the really----
Mr. Collins. Talk to me as--both ways. Sorry.
Mr. Kennedy. If you are in a rural county, we want you to
participate in the New York State consultation process. We want
you to be a part of that consultation process, get your needs
on the table for the New York State plan. As we talked about a
little bit earlier in the hearing today, our goal is to work
with New York State to bring forward a plan for New York State
that has coverage objectives, that has data coming back from
our request for proposal process on cost, and deployment, and
coverage, and those kind of key elements that will come to the
table.
And every State has a different set of issues. We heard
from New Mexico and border issues. You have border issues in
New York State as well, but different issues on the northern
border and the southern border. So we want all those to be
captured as part of that plan. And then coming forward to them
is they will have the opportunity to buy service, if it meets
their needs. So, for the average volunteer fire chief in your
communities, if we provide the coverage at the cost that they
are willing to pay for, they can do that. And if we don't----
Mr. Collins. Yes, but I think----
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Then we have----
Mr. Collins. Here is----
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Not met their needs.
Mr. Collins. You know, excuse me, here is the big issue.
There are separate budgets, in some cases no budgets. As I
said, we have 100 separate volunteer fire companies. We have 44
separate cities, towns, and villages. This is one county. You
know, this all sounds good, but, you know, the tail wags the
dog. I have got this small community, who is going to buy me my
new stuff? I have no budget for anything, and yet, I can tell
you, as County Executive, I needed every one of them to be
listening to the same channel. I needed every one of them to be
able to respond, which is why we went 400 megahertz across the
board, no ifs, ands, or buts. The county paid for the
equipment. We put every--took them off of low band, killed the
800. It works perfectly.
So now it is like, are we turning this all upside down? And
if I have got to start over, one thing I can assure you, New
York State doesn't exactly talk to the localities. They may
talk to New York City. They don't talk to the other localities.
That is what happened on the 800 megahertz, which was a
debacle. I just--I mean, should I be worried? If I am a County
Executive, if I am Commissioner, Central Police Services, if I
am the Commissioner of Emergency Services, I just kind of see,
in a perfect world, this is great, but, boy, we don't live in a
perfect world.
Mr. Kennedy. I think you should look at it as an
opportunity that FirstNet will have to provide the kinds of
services at a cost that can be afforded in those rural
counties, and that we can expand coverage that will give them
coverage that they don't have today, and try to meet those
needs that they would want to partake in the service. We will
be judged on whether or not we provide that kind of service and
meet their needs.
One of the things I think that is very important, and you
mentioned this, is we will be building an operable system that
will be interoperable between all those different agencies from
the very beginning. Doesn't matter at what level they are,
doesn't matter if it is police, fire, emergency medical
services, emergency management, transportation, and that will
be--the opportunity will be to partake in a system that has
those abilities.
Mr. Collins. I have got 4 seconds, but what do you
envision? I--now, I am not talking about just the beginning.
Are we going to be there in 5 years, is it 10 years, is it 20
years? What----
Mr. Kennedy. I think right now we are planning a 5-year
deployment that will start when the RFP is awarded in early----
Mr. Collins. Well, deployment is different than--it is
working--it is just like 400 megahertz. Don't even think about
it, take out my radio, everyone is listening.
Mr. Kennedy. You have two different types of systems, land
mobile radio and LTE. They are not exactly the same, and so it
would not necessarily a replace. It is maintain the existing
radio networks that you have now, and leverage broadband as it
comes forward. As public safety builds trust in that network,
they will leverage and----
Mr. Collins. That is----
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Utilize----
Mr. Collins [continuing]. Part of the key, so--my time has
expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired. The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, and thanks for staying. Usually I
get done earlier, but it is kind of good that I was kind of
last, because--going to follow up on a little bit of what my
colleague from New York mentioned, and some other concerns.
Thanks for being here. Testimony has been great. Mr. Davis,
thank you, because you give me a little more comfort, having
someone more local to the State. Because, you know, the basic
debate the last couple years was to make sure our first line
responders had a dedicated system by which we could
communicate, and then bring on hopefully new technologies and
devices, with how the world changes so quick.
Mr. Kennedy, you have been very articulate, and I think
that has been helpful, but I get--always get concerned when we
have--we use the terms Government business model, independent
corporation. I am not sure I have seen the Federal Government
be able to operate that without challenges. So, I don't want to
be a fly in the ointment, but the--it really follows up on some
of Mr. Collins' comments too, because it is not just--he is
trying to get a picture of where we are going to be, but he
also said, you know, for the local devices, we have got the--
obviously the radio communications, but, of course, we are
talking about broadband, and the issue of how do you get--
eventually get to hardened commercial devices, which I don't
know we talked much about. He did mention who is going to pay
for this?
And so when we have a network with seven billion in capital
to deploy, and be able to match the coverage, capacity, apps
and functionality of the commercial network--commercial
networks spend about $20 billion or more a year in upgrades.
How are we going to do this? If we--if you only have seven, and
the commercial side spends 20 yearly to keep up to date, aren't
you a little concerned?
Mr. Kennedy. This is a complex funding mechanism to make
this work, but I do believe Congress has come up with a very
unique model that is doable. We have three major funding
sources, the $7 billion in construction funding that you
discussed, leveraging the excess capacity on the 700 megahertz
spectrum that is part of the network, which is absolutely
critical. One of the elements in the act was called covered
leasing agreements, which allows us to lease that excess
capacity to be able to leverage that funding both in deployment
and maintenance and operations of the network.
Mr. Shimkus. And that will be leased to other users?
Mr. Kennedy. As part of the RFP process, that is allowed to
be leased to commercial users, who can go ahead and then resale
that network to consumers, which we are not allowed to do as
part of the network. That resale, or that covered leasing
agreement, the way it works in there is a much larger portion
of the funding than the $7 billion portion. Those two elements,
along with fees, user fees, for the most part, core network
fees, those are the three elements that will come together to
make this a successful network.
Also, we are going to have to provide a network to public
safety that meets their needs. We are going to have to meet the
key objectives of public safety for reliability, for
resilience, and providing devices, both commercial devices and
hardened devices, that will meet their needs. One of the things
we have seen in the commercial networks today is that they have
a larger variety of devices that can met the needs for both
voice, video, and data, and we believe that that rich
ecosystem, on a nationwide scale, with millions of users that
can come forward and create devices that are cost effective,
will be able to bring down those prices that the Ranking Member
mentioned earlier to very affordable prices for devices both
for vehicles and for individuals.
Mr. Shimkus. Can you give me some comfort that in 10 years
we don't have a--well, we will have a--maybe a somewhat vibrant
LTE system, and the rest of the world has moved on?
Mr. Kennedy. I think very similar to my earlier comments,
that we are planning on building a recapitalized network that
can be upgraded and maintained into the future. Part of the
reason we have been so focused on the 3GPP standards, and
sticking with international commercial standards for building
this network is that we will continue to upgrade and maintain
the network for those new standards as we move to 5G and 6G in
the future.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, we want you to be successful. We wish
you good luck, and we look forward to following this. Mr.
Chairman--and I yield back.
Mr. Latta [presiding]. Thank you very much. The gentleman
yields back, and I believe we have exhausted all of our members
here to ask you all questions, but I know on--I want to thank
you for your time today. I want to also, from Chairman Walden
and also the ranking member, the gentlelady from California,
for your time, your answers today. It was very, very
informative. And, judging from the folks that were in the
audience today, that they had to fight for a seat. But really
want to thank you for your time and your effort for being here.
Mr. Davis, thanks very much for coming in from Ohio on pretty
short notice. Mr. Kennedy, again, thank you for your testimony
today. And if there is no further business to come before the
committee, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today's hearing will examine the progress FirstNet has made
in delivering on its mandate to establish a truly nationwide
public safety broadband network for our Nation's first
responders, with an eye toward what's next.
I am pleased that FirstNet appears to have put the
distractions of early controversies and missteps behind it and
has started making the decisions necessary to achieve the goal
of a nationwide network. With the FCC's recent spectrum
auctions successfully producing the funding for FirstNet, a
significant component of this effort is in place. The Board's
plan to release a Request For Proposal in early 2016
demonstrates that FirstNet is on the cusp of taking a major
step forward in the realization of the network.
Today's discussion provides an opportunity for FirstNet to
highlight the process employed to get this far, and what lies
ahead. Mr. Davis, Chief Information Officer of the State of
Ohio with a long history in emergency communications, offers an
especially important perspective on the process as we work to
determine what more, if anything, FirstNet can do to ensure
that State, local, and tribal input is fully reflected in its
plans.
Local participation is essential to the successful
deployment and sustainability of the network. We all share the
goal of seeing FirstNet implemented and operated in a timely
and effective way. Today's hearing, another in our ongoing
oversight of FirstNet, reflects the committee's commitment to
that success.
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Thank you, Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo, for
holding this hearing today. And thanks to our witnesses for
being here.
Many of us have been talking about the importance of public
safety communications for a while, so we tend to forget that
FirstNet is barely 3 years old. It was just a few years ago
when a broad bipartisan coalition came together in this
committee with a vision for a nationwide wireless broadband
network for first responders.
But we lose track of just how young FirstNet is because it
has already accomplished so much. It started with literally
nothing but a bold mission-no board, no employees, no money.
Very few technology startups make it past this stage. That is
not the case for FirstNet.
And now, FirstNet's board is comprised of seasoned
communications veterans and public safety officials. It's a
group that would make any company proud. And while the ranks of
its employees are still growing, the staff more closely
resembles a group from a technology power house rather than one
from a Government office. This hard-charging staff has been
crisscrossing the country making sure everyone with an opinion
has their voice heard.
Most encouraging, we are actually about to see the first
deployments. FirstNet's five Early Builder Projects--including
one in New Jersey--are already providing important lessons.
They are the proofs of concept necessary to show first
responders that this will indeed work. I'm disappointed that
Governor Christie refused to permit JerseyNet to testify today.
The project is a one of the Governor's few successes and this
committee would have benefitted from hearing firsthand about
their deployment.
Of course, as with any new venture, FirstNet has faced some
hard times. But it has not shied away from these challenges
.For example, GAO recently issued a report concluding that
FirstNet could use more extensive internal controls and clearer
metrics of success for early deployments. FirstNet's Chair, Sue
Swenson, agreed and quickly acted to implement these
recommendations.
Similarly, the Department of Commerce's Office of Inspector
found that in its very early days, FirstNet should have been
more open. But now most observers describe FirstNet as a model
of transparency.
I am confident that FirstNet's board will continue in this
tradition, maintain these improvements and continue its good
work moving forward. The importance of this task requires no
less.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and hearing
more about the progress they are making.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]