*Pages 1--17 from Microsoft Word - 42024* WRITTEN STATEMENT of Michael K. Powell Chairman Federal Communications Commission on Implementing the 9- 11 Commission’s Recommendation to Expeditiously Provide Spectrum to Public Safety Organizations Before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate September 8, 2004 1 Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is my pleasure to come before you to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing our country today: protecting our homeland and getting more spectrum into the hands of our nation’s public safety community so that first responders can more effectively do what they do best— save lives and protect the homeland. Although the tragic events of 9/ 11 focused America’s attention on public safety communications, the Commission's involvement in this area is long- standing and expansive. Years ago the Commission recognized that the ability of public safety systems to communicate seamlessly at incident sites with minimal on- site coordination was critical to saving lives and property. The Commission also recognized its responsibility to work with the industries we regulate to ensure their reliability and security. When I became Chairman of the FCC, I intensified our efforts in both of these areas. Then came the horrific events of September 11. Within days I, together with Governor Pataki, visited Verizon’s central offices at 140 West Street to survey the damage and discuss restoration. That visit intensified my already solid resolve to use the considerable resources of the FCC to further Homeland Security. I designated Homeland Security as one of the Commission’s six core strategic goals, with particular attention to two broad fronts: private sector readiness for the industries we regulate and public safety communications. Both of these areas were also identified by the 9/ 11 Commission as requiring specific focus. Private Sector Readiness Shortly after the attacks, I created the FCC’s Homeland Security Policy Council (HSPC) and later the Office of Homeland Security and charged these organizations with coordinating the Commission’s internal and external homeland security agendas. One of the HSPC’s first 2 missions was to provide leadership in working with the industries we regulate to evaluate and strengthen the communications infrastructure and ensure rapid restoration in the event of disruption. As a result, we created the Media Security and Reliability Council (MSRC), bringing together the broadcast and multichannel video programming distribution entities for the purpose of focusing on Homeland Security issues. We also re- chartered the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) – which already had a solid 10 year history of promoting network security and reliability – to focus on homeland security issues for the wireline, wireless, and satellite industries. Both of these Federal Advisory Committees have had great success in developing and promoting the implementation of hundreds of industry Best Practices. We are now working to drive the implementation of these Best Practices by the industry. As we have said, if a business has a plan but does not practice it, it really does not have a plan. However, implementation also requires practical experience and the Commission is actively partnering with the private sector to test out and fine tune our Best Practices in the real world. For example, the Florida Association of Broadcasters, in cooperation with MSRC, recently tested Best Practices in a full day exercise in Tampa, Florida, and similar exercises are being planned. Likewise, just last week we observed a Cingular Wireless full day exercise in which over 100 employees tested the company’s business continuity and disaster recovery plans. I also note that we have had the ready participation of other government partners in these efforts, including the Department of Homeland Security and several of its components. Secretary Ridge and other senior DHS staff have joined us at several joint initiatives, underscoring to industry participants the importance of private sector readiness. NTIA, NOAA, OSTP, and NARUC, to name just a few, have also been our partners in implementing various initiatives, both in terms of policy development and outreach. 2 3 Public Safety Communications In addition to our industry efforts, we have also aggressively sought more spectrum for public safety, promoted interoperability, and tried to ensure that public safety operators can operate free from harmful interference. Recently, the Commission’s 800 MHz decision resulted in an additional 4.5 MHz of 800 MHz- band spectrum becoming available for public safety and critical infrastructure licensees. 1 Also as part of that proceeding, the Commission reclaimed another 4 MHz of spectrum at 700 MHz that also may be put to use in advancing public safety communications. The Commission also recently designated 50 MHz of spectrum at 4.9 GHz (4949- 4990 MHz) for public safety use. This spectrum at 4.9 GHz is part of a transfer of Federal Government spectrum to private sector use and will accommodate a variety of new broadband applications while also fostering interoperability. Finally, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Commission identified and allocated an additional 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety use. The Commission also chartered a Public Safety Advisory Committee to develop a band plan designed to maximize the value of the spectrum to first responders. To better facilitate use of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum, the Commission adopted mandatory interoperability, restricting use of 2.6 MHz of the band to public safety entities that have equipment permitting inter- system use. This step tracks similar actions regarding other bands, including 5 channels in the 800 MHz band, 5 channels in the 150 MHz band (VHF band), and 4 channels in the 450 MHz band (VHF band). 1 Although I am confident that our unanimous decision to adopt the 800 MHz Order will withstand legal scrutiny, America's first responders should not remain at risk from the substantial delay that an appeal would entail. As we noted in the Order, interference to public safety radios can be a life and death proposition. The delay inherent in the appeals process and the associated risk to public safety could be avoided if our Order were to be codified. 3 4 We have put in place a broad range of other mechanisms that also promote interoperability. We will require that, as of January 1, 2005, newly certified public safety mobile radio units must be capable of transmitting and receiving on the nationwide public safety interoperability band in which it is operating. We have provided for innovative licensing methods that, for example, promote state- level management of interoperable channels or promote spectrum sharing by state and local entities with Federal entities or with non- public safety entities. In addition, we have granted waivers of our rules as necessary to make spectrum available to multiple public safety agencies in a given area, and to permit sharing arrangements between public safety agencies and critical infrastructure entities. We have also promoted new technologies that promote interoperability, such as cognitive radio. This technology, which has the capability to sense environment and change power and frequency, makes it possible for radios from different systems to operate seamlessly without prior coordination. I note again our extremely beneficial federal partnerships in working on these spectrum issues, including NTIA and DHS’ Project SAFECOM, and our fellow participants in the President’s Spectrum Policy Initiative. A more complete description of our spectrum related work and of other Homeland Security initiatives is set forth in Appendix A of my written statement. Our work at 700 MHz brings us to the principal focus of today’s hearing – how to quickly recover critical spectrum for public safety that is currently encumbered by the television broadcasters. 4 5 Completing the DTV Transition Nearly four years ago, upon becoming Chairman, I recognized the need to spur the pace of the digital television transition to achieve Congress’ twin goals of bringing the benefits of digital television to the American people and the reclamation and reallocation of broadcast spectrum for public safety use and new wireless services. Today, thanks in large part to the efforts of the FCC, Congress and every segment of the television industry, we have shifted that national dialogue from wondering whether the DTV transition will ever end to actively exploring when and how it will end. In 2001, I established a DTV Task Force to coordinate and prioritize the Commission’s efforts. In early 2002, we issued the “Powell Plan,” which challenged all industries involved in the transition to take specific, concrete steps to move the transition forward. I am proud to say that virtually every industry stepped up and met the challenge. In mid- 2002, the Commission mandated over- the- air digital tuners in new televisions, so that the public could receive over- the-air digital broadcast signals on all newly purchased sets. In 2003, the Commission adopted cable plug- and- play rules, giving some consumers the option of receiving digital cable services without the need of a set- top- box. Also in 2003, we adopted the “broadcast flag” to give content providers greater assurance that their high- value broadcast content would be protected from indiscriminate redistribution on the Internet. New life has been pumped into the DTV transition. As of this summer, 1,445 DTV stations were on the air, compared to fewer than 200 just three years ago. High- definition content is booming. Cable has gone from virtually no HDTV programming to offering HDTV service to 84 million homes nationwide. And the first half of 2004 saw record sales of DTV products, with CEA reporting 2.8 million units sold in the first six months of this year and over 5 6 communications, the adjacent community could still be waiting months or even years for the digital penetration level to reach 85% and the spectrum to be cleared of broadcasters. In the unfortunate event of a disaster in the interim, the two communities’ first responders could not speak to one another. With a date certain, all neighboring communities could activate their interoperable 700 MHz systems at the same time and ensure a coordinated response. In addition to the benefits to public safety, a date certain also provides consumers with a clear understanding of when analog broadcast signals will be terminated. Consumers can then factor that into their buying decisions today. Broadcasters would know precisely how long they will be required to run side- by- side analog and digital facilities and can make budget and maintenance decisions accordingly. Consumer electronics manufacturers and retailers would know when they will no longer need to produce, market, and support analog equipment and can more aggressively produce digital products, including converter boxes. And manufacturers of public safety and commercial wireless equipment would know that they will be able to achieve national economies of scale to justify equipment development and production. Of course, questions will be asked about what is the “right” hard deadline for the transition. In choosing 2009 as a target date for our plan, we focused on three potential benefits. First, because the Commission’s tuner mandate becomes fully effective on July 1, 2007, having a deadline of 2009 will add millions more digital sets to the marketplace before analog signals are turned off. The tuner mandate and other market forces will also further drive down the costs of digital- to- analog converters during that time for those households still relying on analog broadcast television. Further, a 2009 deadline would provide time to prepare the public on the impending end of the transition so they could take steps to prepare themselves in the natural course of replacing old sets. Finally, under the current 85 percent statutory test, the added DTV 8 9 sets with tuners and the expansion of DBS local- into- local markets will help ensure that most of the country meets the 85% threshold, providing for a nationwide end to the transition rather than a piecemeal result. The ultimate benefit of the 2009 deadline, in conjunction with steps we already have taken, will be to reduce to a minimum the number of consumers reliant on analog broadcast television. Whenever the transition ends, however, we recognize that there will be consumers that still tune into analog over- the- air television. Between now and the end of the DTV transition, I want to work with Congress and industry, collectively, to ensure that those television households that currently rely on over- the- air broadcasting will be able to receive the digital over- the- air signals. While these consumers are sometimes referred to as “the 15%,” we believe that with the FCC’s digital tuner and “plug and play” mandates, together with a robust consumer education campaign about the impending end of analog broadcast transmissions by a date certain, will mean that the number of television viewers who still rely exclusively on analog over- the- air service could be well under 15 percent by 2009. Whether the date is 2009 or 2029 – we have to find an answer for the remaining over- the- air viewers. Thus, Congress can and should consider ways to subsidize the purchase of digital- to- analog converters for at least those low- income households relying exclusively on over- the- air broadcast television service. For example, Congress could directly subsidize converter boxes from auction proceeds or provide tax credits or vouchers. To help Congress address this issue, the Commission recently issued an inquiry to determine who the viewers are that rely on over- the- air broadcasting for their television and on potential solutions for ensuring continuity of service as we reclaim the analog broadcast spectrum. We will advise Congress on what we learn from this inquiry and I look forward to 9 10 working with you to devise a solution to ensure that all Americans enjoy the benefits of the transition. The HERO Act The desire to expedite public safety’s use of the 700 MHz spectrum also led Representatives Harman and Weldon to introduce the HERO Act. I commend the bi- partisan group of co- sponsors of the HERO Act for their recognition of the value that the spectrum in the 700 MHz band brings to the public safety community. As the Commission’s actions on homeland security demonstrate, we understand the compelling urgency of protecting our citizens and our homeland. We believe our proposal to complete the DTV transition is consistent with the HERO Act and could serve as an alternative approach or as a necessary companion to ensuring the efficient, effective assignment of spectrum to the public safety community. The HERO Act would effectively require broadcasters in the public safety channels (i. e. TV channels 63, 64, 68 and 69) to vacate and return their analog spectrum by December 31, 2006. Currently, forty stations operate on these four channels (36 in analog and 4 in digital). In addition, some consideration would be needed as to whether adjacent channels to the public safety bands also should be cleared to avoid interference to public safety operations. In those adjacent channels (i. e. TV channels 62, 65 and 67), there are thirty- five broadcast stations operating (29 in analog and 6 in digital). Should Congress pass the HERO Act or something like it, one could envision at least three scenarios for those stations that must vacate: (1) The stations could be required simply to turn off their signals; (2) The Commission could try to find new channels for these stations; or (3) Either of the above two options could be triggered only if public safety officials provide notice to the stations that they will be ready to use those channels on January 1, 2007 (therefore 10 11 if there is no public safety need, perhaps in rural communities where spectrum shortages are not as acute, broadcasters can continue to utilize the band until the end of the DTV transition). Whatever choice is made will have consequences. If, for example, stations are forced to shut down service, the public – especially those who rely exclusively on over- the- air broadcasting – will lose some level of broadcasting service. Also, if stations are relocated to new channels during the transition, there will be instances of significant interference to themselves and their new neighbors. Finally, stations that are compelled to shut down or move will incur financial costs. If Congress determines that the pressing needs of public safety require an earlier transition deadline for certain channels, the Commission stands ready to implement such a plan. We would strongly recommend, however, also endorsing a hard deadline for the overall transition to help insure the success of the HERO Act plan. If Congress adopts the HERO Act, we would urge Congress to instruct the Commission whether those stations should simply be turned off or relocated. Moreover, the challenges of implementing the HERO Act would be ameliorated if Congress were to make clear that they will be short- lived – by coupling the early reclamation of the public safety spectrum with a hard date for the end of the overall DTV transition. As noted above, the end of the DTV transition will bring tremendous benefits not only to public safety, but to consumers and the broader national economy. In considering such a hard date for the end of the DTV transition, I urge Congress to consider steps to ensure that we limit the disruption of broadcast services to the public, especially for those who rely exclusively on over- the- air broadcast television. 11 12 Conclusion The last three years have brought unique challenges to the United States and our citizens as the government has taken extensive action both here and abroad to protect our citizens. For its part, the Federal Communications Commission has worked diligently with the private sector and sought to allocate additional “saving lives” spectrum to public safety during this time. More work, however, needs to be done and whether it is actions such as the recent 800 MHz Order or our proposal to reclaim vital public safety spectrum in conjunction with the DTV transition, this Commission remains committed to our duty to protect the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and speak about this issue of highest national importance. 12 13 Appendix A Federal Communications Commission’s Efforts Regarding Homeland Security The Federal Communications Commission was created, in part, “for the purpose of the national defense, [and] for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.” 47 U. S. C § 151. Thus matters that today fall under the rubric of “Homeland Security” have in fact always been part of the FCC’s focus. Without question, however, we redoubled our efforts after 9/ 11, particularly on two fronts. First, we focused anew on providing leadership in ensuring private sector preparedness for national and local emergencies, both natural and man- made. Second, we sought to aggressively meet the needs of the public safety community by allocating additional spectrum for public safety use, by promoting interoperability between public safety jurisdictions, by alleviating interference caused to public safety systems, and by promoting the development of new technologies that support Homeland Security. Just recently, the chilling and sober Report of the 9/ 11 Commission validated that these were appropriate – and critical – areas of focus for the FCC. The 9/ 11 Commission Report The 9/ 11 Commission correctly puts a spotlight on the necessity of private- sector preparedness for an emergency such as the large scale terrorist attack we sustained on 9/ 11. Private sector readiness in the wireline and wireless communications sectors and the broadcast and cable media sectors are especially important in times of national and local emergencies. The private sector in the communications industry must do all it can to strengthen our nation’s vital communications systems and, with the assistance of the government at all levels, must be prepared to quickly restore damaged communications systems. We witnessed the need for this preparedness on 9/ 11, most notably in New York. The attacks took down many of the television broadcast signals emanating from atop the World Trade Center. Verizon’s central office in downtown Manhattan sustained severe damage; phone and data service was lost to much of lower Manhattan; cell phone services in New York were overloaded preventing the completion of calls. Though many in the communications and media sectors worked day and night to restore vital communications services to the public, it became clear that there was a need for better preparedness in securing our nation’s critical infrastructure. Also as discussed in some detail in The 9/ 11 Commission Report, we learned on 9/ 11 of the inability of public safety officials to, at times, effectively communicate with each other at each of the three attack sites. The communications problems, stemming largely from a lack of interoperability among public safety communications systems and from interference caused by users overloading the spectrum, were exacerbated by the fact that first responders were deployed to the sites from multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions at the federal, state and local level. This led the 9/ 11 Commission to conclude that “[ t] he occurrence of this problem at three very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, state, and federal level remains an important problem.” See The 9/ 11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States at 397. 1 14 The FCC Responds to 9/ 11 Private Sector Preparedness Shortly after the attacks, the FCC created the FCC’s Homeland Security Policy Council (HSPC) and later the Office of Homeland Security and charged these entities with coordinating the Commission’s internal and external homeland security agendas. One of the first missions of the HSPC was to provide leadership in working with the private sector in evaluating and strengthening the nation’s communications infrastructure and ensuring rapid restoration of that infrastructure in the event of disruption. Taking lessons learned from 9/ 11, we created the Media Security and Reliability Council (MSRC), a Federal Advisory Committee (FACA), to study, develop and report on best practices designed to assure the optimal reliability, robustness and security of broadcast and multichannel video programming distribution entities. Similarly, we rechartered another one of our FACAs, the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC), to focus on homeland security by ensuring the security and sustainability of public telecommunications networks in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. Over the last three years, MSRC and NRIC have produced an unprecedented and unequaled set of recommendations for the media and telecommunications industries to ensure private sector preparedness against a potential terrorist attack. MSRC’s 100- plus voluntary Best Practices focus on public communications and safety, communications infrastructure security, access and restoration for our nation’s media outlets. Information on these Best Practices has been disseminated through panels, a joint workshop with the Department of Homeland Security and the distribution of over 13,000 brochures at industry conventions and other events. In addition, the Florida Association of Broadcasters, in cooperation with MSRC’s Public Communications and Safety Working Group, tested the Best Practices and sought input from local emergency managers and officials at a workshop in Tampa, Florida. Similar workshops are currently being planned for the near future. NRIC’s 800- plus Best Practices focus on physical security, cyber- security, business continuity and public safety. Information on the Best Practices is disseminated through numerous workshops, panels and at the international level through teleconferences. Moreover, over 600 stakeholders have received a DVD about NRIC Best Practices. In short, the FCC has engaged in an unprecedented level of outreach to the private sector to ensure our nation’s telecommunications and media infrastructure remain safe and operational during national and local emergencies. The Commission recently acted to support the ongoing work of NRIC by expanding our service disruption reporting rules to include wireless and satellite carriers as well as E911 services, all of which are vital to public safety. By requiring mandatory outage reports of carriers we enable prompt discovery of outages and assure that first responders, government leaders, and citizens will be able to quickly regain access to the services they depend on. We also assure that the work of NRIC will continue to be guided by trends in network reliability and security that are based on objective data. 2 15 Meeting the Needs of Public Safety The FCC has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that public safety operators have sufficient spectrum that is free from harmful interference and supports public safety interoperability. The Commission currently has designated 97 MHz of spectrum from 10 different bands for public safety use. Most recently, the Commission adopted a solution to the ongoing and growing problem of interference faced by 800 MHz public safety radio systems. In addition to the interference and interoperability aspects of the 800 MHz Order, the Commission’s decision will result in an additional 4.5 MHz of 800 MHz- band spectrum becoming available for public safety and critical infrastructure licensees. In addition, the Commission reclaimed another 4 MHz of spectrum at 700 MHz that also may be put to use in advancing public safety communications. Furthermore, the Commission’s allocation of 50 MHz of spectrum at 4.9 GHz (4949- 4990 MHz) promises to permit the use of new advanced wireless technologies by public safety entities. This spectrum is part of a transfer of Federal Government spectrum to private sector use. The Commission initially proposed to allocate the 4.9 GHz band for fixed and non- aeronautical mobile services and to auction it to commercial users, with no designation of the spectrum for public safety. However, in response to the events of September 11 and requests from the public safety community for additional spectrum for broadband data communications, the Commission designated the 4.9 GHz band for public safety use in February 2002 and adopted service rules in April 2003. The 4.9 GHz band will accommodate a variety of new broadband applications such as high- speed digital technologies, broadband mobile operations, fixed “hotspot” use, wireless local area networks and temporary fixed links, while also fostering interoperability. Consistent with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Commission also identified and allocated an additional 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety use. To better facilitate use of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum, the Commission adopted mandatory interoperability. The Commission also chartered a public safety advisory committee to develop a band plan designed to maximize the value of the spectrum to first responders. Of course, effective use of the 700 MHz band for public safety purposes throughout the country must await the end of the digital television transition when incumbent television broadcast stations vacate the spectrum. We have put in place a broad range of mechanisms that also promote interoperability. For example, we have designated certain channels in the public safety bands for public safety interoperability; a public safety entity can use the frequencies only if it uses equipment that promotes interoperable operations. We will require that, as of January 1, 2005, newly certified public safety mobile radio units must be capable of transmitting and receiving on the nationwide public safety interoperability band in which it is operating. We have provided for innovative licensing methods that, for example, promote state- level management of interoperable channels or promote spectrum sharing by state and local entities with Federal entities or with non- public safety entities. In addition, we have granted waivers of our rules as necessary to make spectrum available to multiple public safety agencies in a given area, and to permit sharing arrangements between public safety agencies and critical infrastructure entities. We have also promoted new technologies that promote interoperability, such as cognitive radio. This technology, which has the capability to sense environment and change power and frequency, makes it possible for 3 16 radios from different systems to operate seamlessly without prior coordination. We have adopted rules to allow the operation of improved Radio Frequency Identification Systems (RFID Systems), which will permit identification of the entire contents of containers and a determination of whether tampering has occurred; and authorized ultra- wideband capabilities for first responders; allocated spectrum for Intelligent Transportation Systems. Finally, we have adopted rules broadening the scope of E911 services to include mobile satellite services, certain telematic services, and resold and prepaid calling card services, and we have initiated a proceeding to determine whether IP- enabled voice services should be required to comply with our E911 rules. We have also worked with the National Communications System to provide Wireless Priority Access service in an increasing number of cities. In short, even before 9/ 11, the FCC was focused on ensuring the security and reliability of the industries that we regulate and on the needs of the public safety community. Since 9/ 11, we have worked tirelessly in these areas and are confident that we have, within the appropriate bounds of our jurisdiction, contributed in significant ways to the Homeland Security of our nation. 4 17