[Senate Hearing 113-576]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-576
PRESERVING PUBLIC SAFETY AND NETWORK RELIABILITY IN THE IP TRANSITION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-481 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DAN COATS, Indiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN E. WALSH, Montana
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY,
AND THE INTERNET
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi,
BARBARA BOXER, California Ranking Member
BILL NELSON, Florida ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire,
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DAN COATS, Indiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN E. WALSH, Montana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 5, 2014..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 36
Statement of Senator Johnson..................................... 38
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 40
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 42
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 43
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 48
Witnesses
Henning Schulzrinne, Chief Technology Officer, Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Jonathan Banks, Senior Vice President, Law and Policy, United
States Telecom Association (USTelecom)......................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney, Public Knowledge........... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Colette D. Honorable, President, National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)....................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Gigi Smith, President, Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials (APCO) International.................. 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Henning Schulzrinne
by:
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 53
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 54
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Jonathan Banks................................................. 54
PRESERVING PUBLIC SAFETY AND NETWORK RELIABILITY IN THE IP TRANSITION
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the
Internet,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m. in
Room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Pryor,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Well, we will call the hearing to order.
Thank you for coming to the Senate Subcommittee on
Communications, Technology, and the Internet, the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
So I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today,
and we will have a number of colleagues coming and going this
morning. We have a number of other hearings and markups, et
cetera, going on, some action on the floor as well. So some of
our colleagues will be coming and going.
So let me just say good morning to everyone, and welcome to
today's hearing. We are here today to discuss the public safety
and network reliability aspects of the ongoing evolution of our
Nation's communications networks.
Today, the Nation's voice networks are in the midst of
multiple transitions that promise to change how we communicate.
First, the transmission infrastructure that carries our voice
communication is moving away from reliance on copper to fiber
optics. Next, the so-called ``circuit-switched protocols'' that
have long underpinned traditional telephone service are
transitioning to newer Internet protocols, or IP systems. And
finally, many Americans are choosing to substitute wireless
service for traditional wired voice communications.
However, there may be challenges that consumers, carriers,
and the public safety officials face as our networks
increasingly rely on all-IP technology and fiber optic
infrastructure. For example, in my state, Arkansas recently
suffered a severe tornado. Tragically, we lost 18 Arkansans in
that, and significant property damage as well. Thirty-six
thousand homes lost power.
I have heard nothing but very positive things from the
Arkansas Department of Emergency Management and the Governor's
office about how our local telephone companies reacted during
and immediately after the storm. I would expect those companies
in Arkansas and others around the country to continue their
commitment to public safety, no matter the technology used to
transmit phone calls over our networks.
Consumers have come to trust the reliability and resiliency
of the old copper telephone network. They cannot afford to wait
for a disaster to strike to find out that there are gaps in our
communications networks in an all-IP world. So I want to be
sure that we are exploring the public safety implications of
these transitions and asking the right questions proactively,
but also, I do want to stress that the IP transition presents
an important opportunity for consumers and communication
providers.
New technologies bring potential of new services and
possibilities to make our networks even more efficient and to
bring down costs for consumers. Rather than be an impediment to
this progress, it is my intention to explore this transition in
a thorough manner to identify any challenges, discuss their
implications in depth, and work toward solutions in advance to
mitigate any negative impacts.
So I want to recognize the efforts by the Federal
Communications Commission, AT&T, and other carriers who are
working with the Commission to carefully and deliberately
explore the implications of the IP transition through the FCC's
transition trials. Ultimately, it is my hope that through these
trials, all stakeholders can work together to proactively
address any issues revealed in the trials, protect consumers,
and preserve public safety. But I also expect Congress to
maintain close oversight over this process. A transition of
this magnitude deserves nothing less.
And again, I want to thank you all again for being here,
and I want to hear your perspective on this important
discussion. I look forward to your testimony, and I want to
turn it over to the Ranking Member, Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Chairman Pryor.
This hearing deals with preserving public safety and
network reliability in the IP transition. This hearing is--it
certainly hits home not only for Arkansans, but for
Mississippians, who experienced devastating storms this year
also.
In late April, tornados ravaged communities in Mississippi
and Arkansas, taking innocent lives and causing extensive
damage. Despite the devastation, we can be thankful for the
technology that provided critical information ahead of time,
alerting people to take shelter and saving hundreds of our
fellow citizens. The swift action of our weather forecasters,
local officials, and first responders validated the importance
of technology and communication when disaster strikes.
The modernization of our Nation's communications network,
from legacy copper line telephone infrastructure to high-speed
fiber and wireless broadband, is expected to maximize the
benefits of IP broadband networks to all Americans. These
networks will provide far more capable and efficient voice
services, allow faster and more robust data transfers, deliver
21st century education and health services, and enhance public
safety communications, like Next Generation 911.
There will be a host of issues raised when we discuss IP
transition, but nothing is more important than ensuring a
seamless transition for our first responders and the citizens
they serve and protect. The capacity for this technology to
protect citizens not only must be preserved, but also improved
by this exciting new transition.
The FCC has moved the ball forward in constructive ways,
authorizing voluntary IP transition trials. These trials will
test and analyze the impact of moving away from legacy
communication networks, particularly in regard to public
safety. The Commission held a public IP transition workshop in
April that focused on the transition's effects on critical
public safety, emergency response, and national security
functions.
I would like to welcome the FCC's Chief Technology Officer,
who provided important technical expertise to the workshop and
is here today to do the same. I welcome the rest of our
witnesses, who represent a cross-section of key stakeholders,
including State and public safety officials, consumers,
broadband providers themselves, who have invested significant
capital and resources to deploy modern infrastructure.
I am glad we are all here today. The hearing will be brief.
We are going to let you start talking.
Ensuring a smooth path for public safety must be an ``all
hands on deck'' effort with Congress, the FCC, and stakeholders
working together to scrutinize the IP transition's impact on
emergency communications in this country.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this
important hearing.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Senator Wicker, and I want to
thank you and your staff for being flexible because, as you all
know, we have moved the time here from 10 a.m., to 9:30 a.m.,
to 9:15 a.m., to try to accommodate Senators' schedules, and so
thank you all for doing that.
We are also going to make a slight change when it comes to
you all's opening statement. Mr. Schulzrinne has a
presentation, which will take 5 minutes. I think we are asking
everybody else to limit their remarks to 3 minutes, if we can.
So let me go ahead and introduce the whole panel. Then I
will recognize Mr. Schulzrinne.
Mr. Henning Schulzrinne, Chief Technology Officer at
Federal Communications Commission, will be our first witness.
Then we will have Jonathan Banks, Senior Vice President,
Law and Policy, USTelecom.
Then we will have Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney,
Public Knowledge.
And then we will have Colette Honorable. She is the Chair
of the Board and President of the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and she is also Chairman of
the State of Arkansas's State Public Service Commission.
And Ms. Gigi Smith, President of APCO International.
So, Mr. Schulzrinne, let me recognize you for your
presentation. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HENNING SCHULZRINNE,
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Schulzrinne. Thank you, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member
Wicker, and members of the Subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide some technical context regarding the technology
transitions that you referred to and, in particular, public
safety. My name is Henning Schulzrinne, and I am the Chief
Technology Officer for the Federal Communications Commission.
As CTO, I am pleased to discuss the technical foundation for
today's topic but will respectfully decline comment on any
policy-related matters.
The transition to communication networks based on Internet
protocols, short IP, offers an opportunity to improve emergency
communications unprecedented since the conversion from analogue
to digital systems in the 1970s and 1980s. However, these very
same changes also pose new challenges to performance,
reliability, and sustainability of emergency communication
systems.
As you hinted at, about 70 percent of all 911 calls
originate on a mobile phone today. And of the 79 million
residential landline connections in the United States, 34
million are now interconnected Voice over IP, as opposed to
TDM.
We can also no longer take for granted that all households
have a TV, a landline phone with a central office battery back-
up, or even a battery-powered transistor radio. Or that, say, a
college student will be watching TV when the emergency alert
tone sounds to seek shelter.
The transition to IP is multifaceted and encompasses three
layers. At the application layer, voice, video, and text
services are enabled by new Internet application layer
protocols, instead of the old Signaling System No. 7. At the
transport layer, IP offers an application-neutral mechanism
that replaces the old-time division multiplexing foundation.
The physical layer, dominated by copper loops, is integrating
fiber, wireless, coax, and satellite into a unified whole.
However, even as the transition is taking place, we should
not forget that large parts of the voice network are still
using the same TDM technology and hardware developed and
deployed, in some cases, 30 or 40 years ago, in particular for
public safety, so-called CAMA trunks originally developed for
operator services. Unfortunately, CAMA trunks have played a
role in two large-scale outages of 911 systems in the last few
years.
Spare parts, investment, and expertise needed to maintain
these legacy networks are becoming scarce. Yet, as FCC Chairman
Wheeler has stated, public safety is one of the core values
that must be sustained during the Nation's transition to all-IP
networks.
Two technical challenges that will need to be addressed in
this transition are back-up power and emergency location. No
longer will we have access to back-up power provided by the
central office, as it has been the case for many years, but
there are also new technical opportunities to leverage in-
system power through user exchangeable batteries--for example,
batteries that look similar to what you might have as back-up
on your cell phone--or energy-efficient network termination
devices that will make it possible to sustain uninterrupted
communication for both voice and, increasingly important, for
Internet services, even if commercial power should be
disrupted.
The second topic, location technology, such as GPS, has
been very successful, along with network-based triangulation,
to locate callers for outdoor 911 calls. Unfortunately, both
technologies have limitations that make them less than suited
when people cut the cord and use wireless calls to call 911.
They are either not accurate enough, or they do not function at
all. For example, GPS generally does not work well indoors.
However, fortunately, the transition to IP-based and
network-based technologies is also spurring new investments in
technologies that, while not originally designed for location
determination such as in-building communication infrastructure,
allows us to greatly improve the reliability and availability
of location information. For example, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth beacons,
and distributed antennae systems could be used to locate
callers inside buildings.
To succeed in meeting the challenges and leverage the
opportunities, all stakeholders must work together to ensure
that every 911 call receives the appropriate response, that
every American is alerted when danger is imminent, whether they
use old technology or new technology.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schulzrinne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Henning Schulzrinne, Chief Technology Officer,
Federal Communications Commission
Introduction
Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide an overview of the technology transitions associated with
migration to Internet Protocol (``IP'') as well as the challenges and
opportunities confronting us as we move forward through these
transitions.
As you know, what we commonly refer to as the ``IP transition'' is
not a single transition, but consists of multiple transitions all
happening at the same time.
The elements of these technology transitions are a key concern of
the Commission, with public safety as one of the fundamental values
that need to be protected during the transition.
We are witnessing simultaneous transitions in three technology
layers, with intertwining impacts:
1. At the application layer, voice services based on Time-Division
Multiplexing (TDM) are rapidly moving to Voice-over-Internet
Protocol (VoIP). This transition is occurring whether the
network is wireless, where the technology is known as VoLTE, or
for cable, fiber and copper networks. Technologically, the
protocols used for these services are very similar.
2. At the network transport layer, TDM circuits served as the
content-neutral conveyor of information. Internet Protocol
packets are now replacing these circuits.
3. Finally, our core access networks were dominated by copper
telephone wires, but are becoming much more diverse at the
physical layer, with fiber, coaxial cable, wireless, and
satellite added to the technology mix.
A much more diverse technological environment offers opportunities
for advancing consumer welfare and public safety. For example, we can
now bring IP connectivity to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs),
the centers that handle the Nation's 911 calls, in many more ways than
we were able to do before. But it also offers challenges in the sense
that the technology is both more complicated and lacks some of the
features that we previously relied upon as part of our public safety
infrastructure.
Let me turn to some of the challenges that I believe we face going
forward. The challenges are related in multiple ways and also have a
generational component. Much of the legacy technology that underlies
our existing telecommunication voice infrastructure was designed and
built in the 1970s and 1980s. This infrastructure is rapidly aging, and
we are also seeing generational turnover of the individuals that have
designed, built and maintained that infrastructure.
Moreover, in the last few years, PSAPs and emergency management
offices have had to deal with an increasing set of challenges, many
induced by the technology changes described earlier. Some of these
challenges include:
Combatting Telephony Denial of Service (TDOS) attacks, where
criminals try to extort money from employees of hospitals,
schools and PSAPs, and, if that fails, barrage the organization
with phone calls, typically with spoofed caller ID and
originating abroad. These phone calls then prevent incoming
calls from reaching the business line of PSAPs, for example.
Delivering robust and reliable emergency alerts, such as
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) sent to mobile phones. These
alerts provide crucial warnings to deal with imminent threats
to life and property, e.g., tornado warnings advising to ``seek
shelter now'', but the alert systems are less well-suited to
provide more extensive information or to support post-disaster
recovery. Public safety officials seeking to provide more
information to the public are often forced to improvise using
cobbled-together technologies such as blogs, e-mail lists, and
Twitter.
Preventing outages of critical communications networks.
VoIP-based systems and centralized ALI databases can support a
large number of PSAPs with a very small number of servers.
However, recent outages have illustrated that there is a risk
of increased impact when these systems fail. Designing and
testing such systems carefully to avoid single points of
failure and to recover quickly remains an open challenge.
Leveraging new technologies and services. For example, many
Americans now expect to be able to reach public safety by text,
not just voice call. People with hearing or speech disabilities
cannot readily use voice 911; victims or witnesses of domestic
abuse may fear that a voice call will place them in danger.
While the four major national cellular operators have
voluntarily agreed to make text-to-911 available nationwide
earlier last month, relatively few PSAPs are ready to receive
text messages.
Even for traditional mobile voice 911 calls, determining the
caller's location has become more challenging. As mandated by
Commission rules, wireless providers need to deliver the
caller's geographic location to the PSAP within specified
accuracy bounds. However, the requirements were drafted when
wireless phones were largely used while driving or outdoors. As
has been reported extensively,\1\ an increasing number of
consumers no longer have traditional residential landlines.
Also, emergency calls may be placed from work places, using the
caller's own mobile device rather than a desk phone. It is
estimated \2\ that about 70 percent of all emergency calls are
now originating on mobile phones, and 56 percent of those
mobile calls are placed from indoor locations. The most common
high-accuracy technology, GPS, generally does not work indoors
due to signal attenuation, except in light-duty (wood frame)
construction. Thus, new location technologies are needed. I
will discuss some of the options later on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CDC, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the
National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2012; at http://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201
306.pdf.
\2\ See sources cited in FCC Acts To Help Emergency Responders
Locate Wireless 911 Callers, February 21, 2014; at http://www.fcc.gov/
document/fcc-acts-help-emergency-responders-locate-wireless-911-callers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household Habits and Communication Resources are Changing
For many decades, emergency communication professionals could
safely assume that households had a common set of communication
resources: a landline phone, with the central office able to power the
phone over the copper line to the home when commercial power to the
home was disrupted; a television with an antenna, tuned to a relatively
small number of local stations; and a transistor radio supporting both
AM and FM, with the capability to run on battery power.
Newer households look very different: most likely, they won't have
a landline phone and, if they do, the cable or fiber-to-the-home VoIP
service is likely to only provide a few hours of standby service on a
local battery if there is a power disruption. Today's houses may also
not have a television or use it much less frequently, relying on a
laptop or tablet for watching video. Thus, Emergency Alert System (EAS)
alerts broadcast via radio and television may not reach such
households. The Internet, whether delivered via a home Wi-Fi network to
a tablet or home PC or via a mobile wireless network to a smartphone,
is often the primary means of keeping up with news and communicating
with family and friends. These technologies may also rely on battery
back-up options than are time-limited. For example, a smartphone
battery may only sustain device operation for eight to 12 hours.
Emergency communication, in particular, has not always kept up with
these changes. Many communities have set up automated ``reverse 911''
systems, but these typically only reach landlines. The Wireless
Emergency Alert (WEA) system can only transmit 90 characters and cannot
contain web links; thus, messages generally advise recipients to tune
to local media--using a television set or radio that the household may
not have. Communities seeking to convey information to their
constituents often use commodity services, such as community mailing
lists, Twitter feeds, Facebook pages, or local web pages to convey
emergency-related information.
The development of IP-based networks may create opportunities to
improve emergency communications. For example, agencies such as the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could provide common, cloud-
hosted emergency management systems to communities. Since Internet
advertising is typically localized, the potential exists to provide
emergency alerts via ad delivery networks that would complement EAS or
Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS) alerts without requiring
communities to make expensive technological upgrades.
Indirect 911
Currently, the most common way to reach the PSAP is by a human-
initiated voice call. However, in the IP environment, other home safety
devices, e.g., network-connected smoke detectors, may provide
alternative means of reaching emergency assistance. Currently, many
alert monitoring services rely on operators in call centers to contact
PSAPs. With NG911, there are opportunities for such monitoring services
to convey much more information to the PSAP, but common standards and
operational procedures are needed.
Technology Opportunities in all-IP networks
One of the most promising opportunities for IP-based emergency
management networks is the ability to separate the provision of
technology services from answering calls. Thus, instead of each PSAP or
county provisioning their own NG911 services, they can share
communication services, while deciding separately what the most
efficient PSAP size is.
If emergency calls provide more information, it may also be much
easier to prioritize calls, and recognize calls or messages that are
reporting a known emergency, as often happens for fires or accidents.
Indoor Location
Probably the most immediate challenge for emergency calls is to
maintain the location accuracy that has existed for 9-1-1 landline
calls since the 1980s. As I noted earlier, as consumers have dropped
landlines in favor of mobile devices, this capability is no longer
assured. As the Commission recently acknowledged, people are making
more wireless calls to 911 from indoors, and these calls are more
difficult to locate. There are, however, new and promising indoor
location technologies emerging. And the Commission is currently looking
at new rules that would improve indoor location accuracy.
Conclusion
The technology transitions offer both unprecedented opportunities
and challenges to emergency communication. As I have tried to
illustrate, emergency services can leverage the new technologies to
improve efficiency and effectiveness. I look forward to exploring many
of these issues along with others to see how we can use the technology
opportunities, not just those offered by classical emergency response
and alerting technologies, but also by consumer technologies to make
everybody safer, make public safety more efficient, and ensure networks
are responsive to both the cultural and technology changes that our
citizenry is undergoing.
Thank you very much.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Mr. Banks?
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BANKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LAW AND
POLICY, UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION (USTelecom)
Mr. Banks. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Pryor,
Ranking Member Wicker, and the members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Jonathan Banks, and I am the Senior Vice
President for Law and Policy at USTelecom. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
USTelecom represents broadband companies, ranging from some
of the largest companies in the U.S. to some of the smallest
cooperatives and family owned telecom providers in rural
America. They serve some of the most rural areas in the
country, as well as the most urban, and use a broad range of
technologies, including broadband and Internet protocol, to do
so.
To begin, I would like to note the recent tragedy caused by
an extremely powerful tornado touching down in Arkansas, north
of Little Rock, in late April. The tornado caused substantial
loss of life and damage. Communication services were affected,
with poles blown down, cables severed, facilities damaged, and
cell towers destroyed.
One local carrier, Windstream, was somehow able to keep a
switch up and running in a building that lost its walls to the
tornado's winds and suffered substantial rain damage. This
storm illustrates that no network is or can be 100 percent
reliable, but a well-coordinated response in Arkansas got
networks up and running relatively quickly.
Careful preparation for emergencies can make a huge
difference in the effect that disasters have on communications
networks and the customers they serve. Our industry has long
participated in emergency readiness planning with Government
partners, and we will continue to do so.
The transition to modern broadband networks and IP services
promises enormous benefits to our country. The FCC's National
Broadband Plan says that building these networks is the great
infrastructure challenge of our time. The communications
industry is stepping up to the plate, investing about $685
billion over the last decade in infrastructure, with about $70
billion of that being invested just last year.
We agree that as we navigate through this transition, that
there are key values that cannot be left behind. FCC Chairman
Wheeler describes these values as making up a network compact
between communications providers and the public. Network
reliability and public safety are essential elements of this
compact, and they are key values of our industry.
Our industry has a long history of working with Federal and
State governments, public utility commissions, the public
safety community, and industry standards bodies on these
issues. We have been working with these partners to understand
the transition to broadband and IP services for well over a
decade. I provide a brief summary of some of these efforts in
my written testimony.
In closing, I would like to reiterate our commitment to
working with this committee and our full range of partners to
ensure that the promise of broadband connectivity and the power
of IP services deliver to consumers the safe and secure
networks and robust capabilities that will empower them for the
21st century.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Banks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Banks, Senior Vice President, Law and
Policy, United States Telecom Association (USTelecom)
Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic.
My name is Jon Banks, and I serve as Senior Vice President of Law and
Policy at the United States Telecom Association. USTelecom represents
innovative broadband companies ranging from some of the largest
companies in the U.S. economy to some of the smallest cooperatives and
family-owned telecom providers in rural America. Our members offer a
wide range of communications services on both a fixed and mobile basis,
and the overwhelming majority of them offer advanced broadband services
including voice, video, and data. They serve some of the most rural
areas in the country as well as the most urban and use a broad range of
technologies, including Internet Protocol, to do so. The customers that
rely on our networks include consumers, businesses large and small, and
government entities at the local, state, and Federal levels. Of
particular importance given the topic of this hearing, they include
first responders and Public Safety Answering Points.
Our industry has long recognized that a safe and secure
communications network is vital to public safety and to our Nation's
prosperity. We have spent decades building and maintaining that network
and working with the public safety community and our government
partners to ensure that first responders and other officials can
communicate during natural or man-made disasters, and that consumers
can call for help during an emergency. From the 1960s and 1970s when
911 services began to be provided through the deployment of upgraded
E911 services and Next Generation 911, we have worked to deliver
reliable service. Our member companies' commitment to providing highly
reliable service to our customers throughout the country and to working
with the public safety community, our government partners, and industry
standards bodies remains undiminished as the country moves to newer,
more modern communications networks. In fact, the transition to these
newer, more modern broadband networks holds great promise for improved
emergency communications and services as well as more robust and
reliable networks.
Much has changed since the early days of making 911 a reality. Over
the last decade, communications companies have been investment leaders
in our country, putting over $671 billion dollars to work in building
and upgrading communications infrastructure. The wireline industry
alone invested $278 billion over this period, accounting for about 41
percent of total investment, with the remainder made up by investments
in wireless and cable infrastructure. And this level of investment is
continuing. USTelecom estimates that investment in broadband and IP
communications infrastructure very likely exceeded $70 billion in 2013,
surpassing the average level of investment of about $66 billion
annually over the last decade.
The result of this continuing huge investment is that consumers and
businesses today have multiple new broadband networks available to them
that are far more robust than the old telephone network. Building these
broadband networks--fixed and mobile--is the great infrastructure
challenge of our time. As the National Broadband Plan notes, meeting
this challenge can produce enormous benefits:
Broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation,
global competitiveness and a better way of life. It is enabling
entire new industries and unlocking vast new possibilities for
existing ones. It is changing how we educate children, deliver
health care, manage energy, ensure public safety, engage
government, and access, organize and disseminate knowledge.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Broadband Plan at XI.
By continuing to invest on this massive scale, the industry has
made great strides in meeting this infrastructure challenge. Today,
over 99 percent of Americans have access to broadband service at the
FCC defined capacity of 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. Ninety-
two percent of the population has access to robust wireline
infrastructure with 88 percent of the population having access to two
or more wired networks. Ninety-nine percent have access to mobile
service and 90 percent have access to 4 or more separate mobile
networks. Our members are working to build and operate Gigabit and
fiber-to-the home networks in urban and rural areas across the country.
Cable systems are upgrading their networks to provide faster service.
Fast LTE mobile networks are also growing quickly, providing more
alternatives for consumers.
Removing obstacles to broadband deployment will help drive this
process, and the White House has engaged industry on examining barriers
to deployment across federally owned and managed land. Another way to
incent additional investment would be to remove outdated regulations on
traditional phone companies. These regulations ``require certain
carriers to maintain POTS [plain old telephone service]--a requirement
that is not sustainable--and lead to investments in assets that could
be stranded,'' and divert investment away from new networks and new
services.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id. at 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring that broadband and mobile networks reach everywhere
throughout our country is a goal we must continually strive to meet. In
the most rural areas of our country, this will require governmental
support because there is no private business case that can support
building and operating broadband networks in these areas. The FCC's
universal service program can play an essential role here, as can state
programs that support communications infrastructure. Our industry
continues to work to ensure that universal service programs continue to
support the delivery of robust communications services in high cost
areas of our country in the most efficient and effective way possible.
One result of all this investment in newer, more modern
technologies is consumers have been choosing newer broadband and mobile
technologies because they offer a plethora of options that were not
previously available to meet consumers' communications needs. USTelecom
projects that, by the end of this year, only one-quarter of the
households in the country will continue to be served by traditional
phone service. In some states this number may be as low as 15 percent
of households remaining on that traditional network. By the end of this
year, about 45 percent of households will have chosen to drop
traditional phone service entirely, choosing instead to rely on mobile
service for their voice needs, both inside and outside the home.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, in many states over 50
percent of households have already cut the cord and chosen to rely on
mobile service. The remaining 30 percent of households will have chosen
from among a range of newer Voice over Internet Protocol services,
often delivered by cable companies, for their voice needs at home. Of
course, many households will choose to have both wireless and wired
options available for calling. About 89 percent of households have at
least one wireless phone, allowing multiple options for communications.
Only about 9 percent of households are dependent solely on a wired
option for calling.
This transition to broadband networks and IP services is well
underway today as consumers and businesses continue to make choices
among a range of competitive communications options. The transition to
broadband and IP services is not an ``if'' phenomenon--much of it has
happened--but a question of how to best manage the transition. And, in
particular, how to ensure that public safety and network reliability
are preserved and that we leverage the unique capabilities of broadband
and IP to deliver 21st century public safety services. For example,
making the added functionality of next generation 911 available to
allow pictures and video to be delivered to PSAPs and first responders
could significantly improve public safety. Our industry looks forward
to working with the public safety community and governmental entities
to make NG911 a reality. And for consumers, voice communication is
obviously not the only functionality that the IP transition enables.
For example, when it comes to public safety and health care benefits,
more and more senior citizens, people with disabilities, and medical
patients living in rural America are benefiting from technologies such
as home health monitoring and other health-related applications.
Fortunately, the communications industry has seen other important
technology transitions all the way through that can provide models for
ensuring the IP transition leaves no one behind. In 2002, for example,
the transition from analog to digital mobile service was well underway
from a consumer perspective. That year, the FCC concluded that its
mandate that carriers continue to provide an analog signal in addition
to a digital signal was no longer necessary to achieve national
coverage and incent competition. Further, the FCC found that the analog
mandate was imposing unnecessary costs on carriers and hindering the
efficient use of spectrum. Thus, the FCC scheduled an end for the
analog mandate setting February 18, 2008, as the date at which carriers
could move to providing solely digital service. In the interim period,
the FCC worked with carriers and specific populations that could have
been adversely affected by the transition to ensure that no one was
left behind.
Planning for the transition to IP networks has been going on within
communications companies for quite some time and with our government
partners as well. Much of this planning has focused on network safety
and security issues. For example, the President's National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC), which provides the
President with a unique source of national security and emergency
preparedness communications policy expertise from leaders in the
communications industry, has been examining and reporting on security
and reliability issues involved in the transition to IP and broadband
networks since at least 1999. In 2005, the NSTAC noted that the
convergence of wireless, wireline, and Internet Protocol (IP) networks
is causing a shift in the way that governments and critical
infrastructures will meet their needs for national security and
emergency preparedness communications today and in the future. The
NSTAC has examined a broad range of infrastructure, security and
operational vulnerabilities stemming from network convergence and its
task forces have provided recommendations to mitigate the
vulnerabilities. USTelecom and its members have been an integral part
of NSTAC and will continue to work within the Committee to ensure that
public safety remains a priority during the IP Transition.
Our members also continue to work closely with the Department of
Homeland Security through, for example, the Communications Sector
Coordination Council and the Critical Infrastructure Partnership
Advisory Council, on network security and reliability issues and the
transition to IP networks. A concise review of some of these activities
can be found in the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory
Council's 2013 Annual Report.
In addition, USTelecom has long been active with the FCC in this
area. Chairman Wheeler has often mentioned the importance of public
safety and security to the compact between providers of voice service
and their customers and the need for the FCC to ensure that key values
like these are properly imported into the IP and broadband world. We
agree. In response to Congress's directive that the agency develop a
National Broadband Plan that would ``ensure that all people of the
United States have access to broadband capability,'' the FCC put
together an extremely valuable roadmap to an IP and broadband future.
The Plan explains that ``broadband can bolster efforts to improve
public safety and homeland security by allowing first responders to
send and receive video and data, by ensuring all Americans can access
emergency services and improving the way Americans are notified about
emergencies.'' \3\ We remain committed to working with the FCC on the
implementation of these recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. at XIV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC's Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability
Council (CSRIC) has played, and will continue to play, an important
role in planning for a seamless transition. CSRIC working groups
comprised of knowledgeable industry participants have produced a broad
range of reports and recommendations covering key topics on emergency
preparedness, network reliability and network security. The FCC
recently convened a new CSRIC industry working group to examine and
report on the powering of customer premises equipment such as telephone
handsets given the growing consumer preference for VoIP service. VoIP
networks generally do not benefit from network powering available
through traditional phone networks, instead relying on commercial power
and battery back-up. The working group intends to recommend outreach
and communications strategies for increasing consumer awareness of
back-up power needs and developing best practices for powering consumer
devices during commercial power failures.
Finally, a number of standards-setting bodies are also engaged in
planning for the IP transition. Indeed, the transition ties together
much of the work done by one of our industry's leading standards
bodies, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, or
ATIS. Specific to the subject of this hearing, for example, ATIS has
convened a task force to examine the IP transition's potential effect
on important public safety applications such as alarm circuits to local
fire and police departments and circuits that monitor railroad
crossings.
USTelecom and our members believe that our Nation's 21st century
networks should provide 21st century public safety solutions. We look
forward to working with this subcommittee, our full range of
governmental partners including the White House, the Federal
Communications Commission, Department of Commerce, Department of
Homeland Security, state and local governments and public utility
commissions, the public safety community (including APCO and NENA), and
industry standards bodies to ensure that the promise of broadband
connectivity and the power of IP services deliver to consumers the safe
and secure networks and robust capabilities that will empower them for
the 21st century.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Ms. Griffin?
STATEMENT OF JODIE GRIFFIN, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, PUBLIC
KNOWLEDGE
Ms. Griffin. Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today.
My name is Jodie Griffin, and I am a Senior Staff Attorney
at Public Knowledge, an organization that advocates for the
public's access to knowledge and open communications platforms.
The phone network transition presents tremendous potential
advantages for our Nation, but we need to make sure these
transitions result in a meaningful step forward for every
person who depends on the network. Americans trust the
protections of the phone network. We conduct our business and
personal communications, assuming that the phone network will
just work because it always has.
During emergencies, we can call for help from police,
firefighters, and hospitals. In the rare instance that any part
of the system breaks down, local, State, and Federal
authorities intervene as if our lives depend on it, because
they do.
In January, in a unanimous bipartisan vote, the Federal
Communications Commission recognized that our phone network
policies must serve certain basic, enduring values: public
safety and national security, universal access, competition,
and consumer protection. Our policies in the network transition
must serve all of these values.
This hearing focuses on public safety and reliability, but
a conversation about these values will always entail the rest
of the network compact. After all, when you need to make an
emergency call, what you really need is a reliable network to
make that call. A person can't call 911 if she doesn't have
phone service in the first place, and if she lives in a rural
area, she may waste precious time trying to get connected.
New technologies have great promise, but they don't always
meet the critical needs for a reliable telecommunications
network. We have already seen reports of wireless carriers
providing insufficient location data to public safety answering
points, or in the event of a power outage, fiber-based services
will require battery back-up, unlike traditional self-powered
copper lines, and wireless services will be useless if the cell
towers also lose power.
Public safety services and reliability are so firmly
ingrained in our network now, many consumers may simply assume
new technologies will give them the same guarantees they have
in the existing network. If, for example, a customer doesn't
realize his fiber-based service needs battery back-up until the
power has already gone out, he can't prepare for a prolonged
outage.
It is critical to ensure the FCC has the authority it needs
to preserve the network compact and serve its fundamental
values. In light of the recent Net Neutrality ruling from the
D.C. Circuit, policymakers must make sure the FCC can implement
rules to require carriers to complete calls and provide basic
service, even after the network has moved to IP, or wireless or
fiber infrastructure.
To be clear, no one is suggesting we should hold back on
technology. The question is how to make this technology work
for all of the 300 million people who rely on our network every
day. The underlying technology may be changing, but the
essential services and consumers' expectations for them remain
the same, and our national policies must reflect that fact.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jodie Griffin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney,
Public Knowledge
Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the IP
transition, public safety, and network reliability. My name is Jodie
Griffin and I am a Senior Staff Attorney at Public Knowledge, a
nonprofit public interest organization that promotes the public's
access to information and culture through open, competitive,
universally accessible, and affordable communications networks.
Introduction
The transition of our wireline networks to Internet Protocol (IP)-
based services is a tremendous opportunity for our nation, but we must
make sure the transition results in an actual upgrade in technology
without a downgrade in the services upon which Americans depend. We are
now in the midst of the transition: carriers are already actively
moving their networks from the traditional Time-Division Multiplexing
(TDM) protocol to IP-based technology, and from copper infrastructure
to wireless service or fiber. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) has responded to these technological shifts by collecting public
comments, initiating a series of trials, and beginning the process of
forming a new framework to handle the policy questions raised by these
transitions.
In the network transition, the stakes are high, and it is critical
for policymakers to ensure that everyone continues to have access to a
reliable network for personal, business, and emergency communications.
In addition to bringing new opportunities, the phone network transition
presents risks, including concerns the new networks will lack important
features that consumers have counted on for decades. This means
policymakers at all levels of government must ensure the transition is
handled responsibly and everyday Americans are better off as a result
of the transition.
The phone network in the U.S. has quietly and reliably provided
benefits to the American public for over 100 years. These benefits have
become so firmly ingrained in the U.S. economy, public safety systems,
and personal communications that users take for granted the policies
that make them possible. These benefits were not a happy accident--they
were the result of deliberate communications policies that demanded a
telecommunications network that served its users first and foremost.
One of the things we've come to love about our phone network is the
ability to conduct our business and personal communications as if we
can always trust that the network will just work--because it will. We
can choose the type of phone we use. When the power goes out during a
natural disaster, our phones--and the central offices that service
them--will keep working. In times of emergency, we can always call for
aid from police, firefighters, and medical teams. When someone calls a
friend that call will always go through--regardless of which carriers
the two users subscribe to or where they each live. When the bill comes
for that call, the user can rest assured that there will be no
fraudulent charges and the carrier will not have ``traded'' her to
another carrier without her permission. If a user changes phone
companies, she can keep her phone number. We know that we can benefit
from the innovations and features built on the phone network because it
is an open platform: innovations like the Internet, new handsets,
calling cards, and collect calls all arose because of the network's
openness. And in the rare instance that any part of this system breaks
down, we know that there are government authorities at the local,
state, and Federal levels equipped to fix the problem and protect
users' interests.
Every single one of these benefits is the result of deliberate
policy choices that served specific basic values. Our phone network
became the unparalleled success we know today because our policymakers
valued five fundamental principles: (1) service to all Americans; (2)
competition and interconnection; (3) consumer protection; (4) network
reliability; and (5) public safety.\1\ These values are no less
relevant and, if anything, are even more important as we begin the
transition to the next iteration of our Nation's communications
networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Jodie Griffin and Harold Feld, Five Fundamentals for the
Phone Network Transition, Public Knowledge (July 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we move forward in the network transition, we cannot step back
from the basic commitments that have protected consumers and promoted
affordable communications service for decades. We must ensure the next
generation of our communications networks are a true step forward for
everyone and no one is left worse off as a result of the transition.
Basic Voice Service is Still Important
Even as we move to new technologies that bring exciting new
opportunities for customers to access the Internet and other IP-based
services, it is important to remember that basic voice service is still
vital to public safety as well as the day-to-day personal and business
communications of millions of people across the Nation. This means our
national policies should be shaped with a mind toward preserving the
protections and benefits people currently rely on while encouraging new
opportunities for better or more efficient service.
It is important to note that 96 percent of U.S. residents subscribe
to some kind of telephone service.\2\ Of those, over 100 million people
rely on traditional copper POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service). 5
percent of the country relies exclusively on POTS--that's 15 million
people who rely solely on traditional phone service.\3\ Which,
incidentally, means the remaining 85 million people subscribing to POTS
do so despite also having a mobile phone or other voice product. We can
safely assume those 85 million people do not simply enjoy writing two
checks each month. Rather, traditional phone service must offer those
users something that newer technologies currently do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Universal Service Monitoring Report, Wireline Competition
Bureau, FCC, at 41, Table 3.1 (Oct. 2013), available at http://
transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/
Monitor/2013_Monitoring_Report.pdf.
\3\ Anna-Maria Kovacs, Telecommunications Competition: The
Infrastructure-Investment Race, Internet Innovation Alliance (Oct.
2013), http://internetinnovation.org/images/misc_content/study-
telecommunications-competition-09072013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, we are already seeing complaints arise across the
country that indicate the network compact may start fraying at the
edges if policymakers don't step in to protect consumers. As Public
Knowledge, The Utility Reform Network, and several other state consumer
advocates and public interest groups have noted, reports have surfaced
across the country indicating carriers are forcing customers off of
traditional copper-based phone service.\4\ Complaints from customers in
California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and the District
of Columbia have stated that they are being involuntarily moved to
fiber or IP-based service (or some combination thereof), even if those
new technologies fail to serve all of the users' needs or will be more
expensive. What's more, this may only be the tip of the iceberg. After
all, in deregulated states where the utilities commissions have no
authority over quality of service or pricing for basic service, state-
level authorities may not be able to even collect data from customer
complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter from Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney, Public
Knowledge, et al. to Julie A. Veach, Chief, Wireline Competition
Bureau, FCC (May 12, 2014), available at http://www.public
knowledge.org/assets/uploads/blog/14.05.12_Copper_Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also already seen complaints from rural residents
experiencing degraded service due to rural call completion problems. As
I will discuss below, the IP transition can create unexpected problems
in rural customers' service even without any parties necessarily acting
in bad faith. This is exactly why the FCC must continue to have
authority to handle unanticipated problems and ensure customers
continue to have reliable service.\5\ Finally, the FCC's Wireline
Competition Bureau recently found that the average rate for basic voice
service in urban areas is $20.46, indicating that even basic service is
not as inexpensive as some may have assumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ To that end, the Public Safety and Economic Security
Communications Act is an important step forward in protecting rural
customers relying on a dependable phone network. See Public Safety and
Economic Security Communications Act of 2014, S. 2125, 113th Cong.
(2014), available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2125/
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added together, these issues raise the serious question of whether
all customers are indeed moving to new services out of a genuine desire
to change, or if at least some have been moved off the copper network
due to service degradation, increased fees, or through no choice of
their own at all. If a carrier is letting its copper network degrade or
is telling customers they must move to fiber or wireless service in
violation of its common carrier obligations, can we really call that a
fair market choice on the part of the customer? And even in the cases
where the customer has a meaningful choice to move to services using
newer technologies, it is hard to accept the notion that customer
actually wants the new service to have less reliability, more expensive
power backup options, or less accurate 911 location data. When it comes
to network reliability and public safety, these are not compromises we
should be asking customers to make.
The Network's Fundamental Values
This past January, the FCC, unanimously and with bipartisan
support, recognized the fundamental network compact that has
successfully guided communications policy for decades.\6\ That compact
preserves certain enduring values that ensure our communications
networks will remain the envy of the world as we move into IP-based
services and new physical infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5, AT&T Petition
to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition, GN Docket
No. 12-353, Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Structure and
Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51,
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123,
Numbering Policies for Modern Communications, WC Docket No. 13-97,
Order, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
Report and Order, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
Proposal for Ongoing Data Initiative at 37-69 (rel. Jan. 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The policies that guide the network transition should serve certain
proven fundamental values and continue to protect consumers and
encourage innovation. These fundamental values--public safety and
national security, universal access, competition, and consumer
protection--capture the basic principles that made our phone network a
resounding success and can do the same for the next generation of
communications technology.
Public Safety and National Security
It is unquestioned that when someone calls 911, that person needs
to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that she will be connected in one
second. Everyday Americans rely on 911 daily to call for help in time
of need. The FCC has already begun to look to the future of public
safety requirements with the Next Generation 911 transition.\7\ This
conversation, however, is also best situated in the broader context of
the overall PSTN transition, both to evaluate the effect of 911
proposals on other aspects of the network, and to anticipate the impact
of non-911 proposals on our emergency communications systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The FCC is also working with surer authority in this area
compared to other aspects of the PSTN transition, based on the Next
Generation 911 Act. See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96 (2012), Title VI, Subtitle E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The network transition can bring with it new opportunities to
expand emergency services. For example, the recent deployment of text-
to-911 capabilities in certain areas can help people seek emergency aid
when placing a voice call is not feasible.\8\ However, we cannot simply
assume that new technologies will continue to support the 911 features
people rely on after the transition. In particular, as customers
increasingly place 911 calls on wireless devices, policymakers should
ensure carriers provide emergency responders with detailed and accurate
location data. The California Chapter of the National Emergency Number
Association has reported a recent significant decrease in the
percentage of wireless 911 calls delivering more detailed Phase II
location data to public safety answering points (PSAPs).\9\ If PSAPs do
not receive adequate location data from carriers, they cannot find
callers asking for help unless the caller can describe her own
location, which may be difficult in certain emergency situations and
places an extra burden on anyone who has a communication disability or
additional language barrier. Elsewhere, AT&T's Wireless Home Phone
product--marketed as a replacement for traditional landline phone
service--tells customers in the fine print they will be required to
give 911 operators their address, rather than have their location
information transmitted to PSAPs automatically.\10\ But it doesn't have
to be this way. The technology transitions offer opportunities to
integrate multiple location technologies to give more specific location
information and to find more efficient ways to notify emergency
services when help is needed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See What You Need to Know About Text-to-911, FCC (May 23,
2014), https://www.fcc.gov/text-to-911.
\9\ Letter from Danita L. Crombach, CALNENA, to Mignon Clyburn,
Chairwoman, FCC (Aug. 12, 2013), http://www.calnena.org/communications/
To-FCC-08-12-2013/CALNENA-Letter-to-FCC-081213.pdf.
\10\ AT&T Wireless Home Phone & Internet, http://www.att.com/shop/
wireless/devices/att/wireless-home-phone-and-internet-black.html (last
visited June 2, 2014).
\11\ See Henning Schulzrinne, Public Safety Communications in a
Time of Transition, FCC (Apr. 17, 2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/
bureaus/pshs/docs/2014-PublicSafetyWorkshop.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public safety rules must ensure emergency services like 911 and
geolocation technologies continue to help first responders offer
emergency care, regardless of whether the network the customer uses is
wireless or wireline, copper or fiber. The conversion to an all-IP
network offers an opportunity to further facilitate emergency
communications, and that opportunity must not be squandered. This also
includes ensuring that the thousands of alarm systems and alarm system
standards that rely on access to a ``telephone line'' are not disrupted
by the transition, as we have seen them be disrupted by the attempted
transition to Voice Link in Fire Island, New York.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Jodie Griffin, The Phone Network Transition: Lessons from
Fire Island, Public Knowledge (Mar. 7, 2014), http://
www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/the-phone-network-transition-
lessons-from-fire-island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the traditional architecture of the PSTN no longer exists, it
is crucial that consumers are able to contact emergency services when
they need it most. The moments in which the public relies upon
emergency services like 911 are literally life-or-death, and it is
crucial that policymakers implement rules that maintain the public
safety components of the phone network. To its credit, the FCC has
already begun the process of creating a framework for Next Generation
911 services, but these issues must also be considered in the broader
context of the overall shift of the PSTN to new technologies.
Network Reliability
The basic mechanisms of the network must continue to function
throughout and after the PSTN transition, even and especially in
emergency situations. Above all else, Americans rely on their
communications networks to work consistently and reliably. Above all
else, a successful transition means that phone numbers still work and
calls still go through with the same reliability they do today.
One important part of making sure the phone network just continues
to work on a day-to-day basis is ensuring the network's numbering
system continues to function throughout and after the transition.
Contrary to the beliefs of some, what defines the ``public switched
network'' is not its underlying technology, but rather its use of phone
numbers under the North American Numbering Plan.\13\ Fortunately, the
FCC has recognized the importance of ensuring the continuing
functionality and security of our numbering system, and has included a
phone numbering testbed among its initiatives to more fully understand
the transition. The FCC should use the lessons it learns in this
testbed to determine the requirements for future Local Number
Portability Administrators (LNPAs) and to ensure smooth transitions
between administrators when they occur. The FCC could also use this
opportunity to consider authorizing multiple LNPAs under Sec. 251(e),
given the increasing ease of coordinating data between multiple
databases.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 20.3.
\14\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC currently exercises its authority over phone numbers to
distribute phone numbers through the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP). This raises the stark and critical question: who will be able
to obtain numbers when all carriers have transitioned to IP-based
technology? How will phone numbers work in a world with no TDM-based
PSTN? These are questions that we absolutely must answer if the phone
network as users now know it is to continue operating post-transition.
After the transition, there will also be no ``copper safety net''
to offer the reliability that users have come to expect with basic
phone service. Nevertheless, users' phone service--regardless of the
protocols or materials it uses--must be able to withstand emergency
situations. Even now we are still witnessing phone network technology
``upgrades'' result in less redundancy and backup power in the system
and increased reliance on the commercial power grid, creating a single
point of failure when disaster strikes and users need to communicate
most.
The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau has acknowledged that
policymakers must be mindful of the network transition's impact on
reliability and performance during power outages, even when the network
is transitioning to a technology like fiber that it commonly considered
to be an improvement over copper networks.\15\ Fiber offers the
potential for faster data speeds and more network capacity, but, unlike
the traditional copper network, is not self-powered and needs battery
backup during power outages. Similarly, fixed wireless services require
batteries, and the battery backup for AT&T's Wireless Home Phone
product, for example, only offers 1.5 hours of talk time and 18 hours
of standby time.\16\ As many communities that have experience
hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters can attest,
commercial power can be down for much longer than 18 hours, but users'
need to have access to reliable communications remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Julie Veach, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau,
Protecting Consumers in the Transition from Copper Networks, FCC Blog
(May 7, 2014), http://www.fcc.gov/blog/protecting-consumers-transition-
copper-networks.
\16\ AT&T Wireless Home Phone & Internet, http://www.att.com/shop/
wireless/devices/att/wireless-home-phone-and-internet-black.html (last
visited June 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not to say that we must reject any technology that is not
self-powered, but we must ensure the network continues to be as
reliable as possible during power outages while minimizing the burden
on consumers to make it so. And where a new technology differs from the
network customers have come to rely on, we must make those differences
clear to customers so they are not caught unawares after the power has
already gone out. We can recognize consumers' justified expectations
based on the traditional network they've known for decades and pursue
policies to meet those needs without demanding that technological
change be stopped in its tracks.
As the PSTN continues its transition, the FCC and other
policymakers must determine how they can ensure the post-transition
PSTN continues to guarantee robust service for everyday uses and for
emergency circumstances, when users need communications services most.
Universal Access
Issues of public safety and network reliability also raise the
question: what is the basic service we're aiming to give everyone
access to? This transition is an opportunity to look forward: what new
opportunities are made possible by new technology, and how does that
impact what we determine to be the ``basic service'' that all should
have access to? The Communications Act specifies that universal service
encompasses ``an evolving level of telecommunications services'' and
that the FCC should take into account ``advances in telecommunications
and information technologies and services'' as it decides what
universal service will look like for homes, schools, libraries, and
health care providers across the country.\17\ Access to basic
communications services reaps tremendous social and economic benefits
to users, regardless of the material or technology used to transport
the communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 254(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot simply sit back and assume that new technologies will
continue to reach everyone at affordable prices on their own. Even now,
we see indications that the transition could result in customers losing
access to wireline service--or indeed, any service at all--and having
to pay more for services that might not even offer all of the features
and reliability of the existing network. For example, AT&T is currently
seeking FCC approval of a wire center trial proposal that offers no
plan for serving 4 percent of the population at all in one of the trial
areas.\18\ AT&T's trial proposal also puts forward a plan to offer only
a wireless product to a substantial percentage of the population, even
though that wireless service currently cannot support features like
medical alerts, alarm monitoring, credit card processing, 800 number
service, dial-around calls, collect calls, elevator phone service, and
E-911.\19\ Technological transitions in the network should be a step
forward for everyone--we cannot allow everyday networks users to fall
through the cracks in a process that is supposed to help people obtain
better affordable access to communications platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ AT&T Proposal for Wire Center Trials, Technology Transitions,
GN Docket No. 13-5, AT&T Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the
TDM-to-IP Transition, GN Docket No. 12-353, at 14 (Feb. 27, 2014).
\19\ AT&T Proposal for Wire Center Trials, Wire Center Trial
Operating Plan, Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5, AT&T
Petition to Launch a Proceeding Concerning the TDM-to-IP Transition, GN
Docket No. 12-353, at 14-15 (Feb. 27, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policymakers should also consider the impact of the phone network
transition on the availability and affordability of Internet access.
For example, the Wireless Home Phone and Internet product that AT&T
currently offers costs $80.00 for unlimited calling and just 10 GB of
data (the package is $140.00 for voice and 30 GB of data).\20\ Under
these plans, customers do not have the option of purchasing standalone
broadband, so the least expensive package that includes broadband would
be $80.00 for a mere 10 GB of usage. As a comparison, AT&T offers
wireline Internet access over its DSL infrastructure for $14.95 for 150
GB of data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ AT&T Wireless Home Phone & Internet, http://www.att.com/shop/
wireless/devices/att/wireless-home-phone-and-internet-black.html (last
visited June 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most important goals of communications policy in the
United States is reaching universal service for all Americans across
the country. The transition of the PSTN is an opportunity to expand and
improve the communications service that all Americans receive, and our
communications authorities must determine how they can continue to
serve that goal as the traditional make-up of the PSTN changes.
Competition
Interconnection and other competition policies lie at the heart of
the development of a robust and competitive communications network. As
we saw more than 100 years ago, without mandatory interconnection the
phone network will slide inevitably toward monopoly as the largest
carriers can gain anticompetitive advantages by withholding access to
their customers from competitors. As carriers now move toward all-IP
networks, policymakers must determine how they will ensure
interconnection and competition among providers post-transition. These
policies are critical to creating and maintaining a functioning
interconnected network and a competitive market for communications
services.
For example, subscribers to different networks must not find
themselves with dropped calls or degraded quality of service due to
``peering disputes'' between carriers. If NBC and AT&T have a
retransmission dispute and AT&T video subscribers temporarily lose NBC
programs, it is annoying. But if Comcast and AT&T have a ``peering
dispute'' and millions of AT&T wireless customers cannot reliably call
Comcast landlines, it is a disaster. It is not enough to speculate that
incentives will prevent such a thing from occurring. Policymakers must
make sure such an event continues to be impossible after the
transition.
The phone network transition also calls into question the future of
other rules and policies designed to encourage competition among
communications providers. For example, local number portability (LNP)
obligations have currently been extended to VoIP providers so that VoIP
customers may keep their North American Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone
number when changing providers. LNP rules encourage competition by
allowing consumers to respond to providers' price and service changes
without losing their phone numbers. But at this juncture the questions
inevitably arises: when the traditional PSTN is gone, what will happen
to the NANP? How can LNP rules extend to all phone service providers
without revisiting the foundation of the NANP or classifying VoIP
service?
As the PSTN transitions to new physical facilities and IP
protocols, it is critical to the competitive future of the market that
the law and rules ensure carriers will continue to interconnect and
rules will continue to promote competition in the marketplace to the
benefit of consumers.
Consumer Protection
When we talk about a system that everyday Americans count on to
call 911, businesses, and loved ones, we cannot ignore users' need for
consumer protections in the network. Competition is important, but it
does not always guarantee consumer protection. From the privacy of
phone calls to truth-in-billing to slamming and cramming, Americans
rely on a safety net of rules that protect them when they communicate
with one another. Throughout and after the PSTN transition, consumers
must continue to be adequately protected--including effective recourse
through the timely resolution of complaints.
But on the Federal level, the Federal Communications Commission has
only extended privacy rules to interconnected VoIP services by
reasoning that those VoIP services send calls to and receive calls from
the traditional phone network.\21\ Customers should be able to rely on
the same protections they have always enjoyed when they switch to what
by all appearances seems like a pure replacement for ``regular
telephone'' service. After the DC Circuit's recent decision in Verizon
v. FCC, we can be more confident that the FCC could use its section 706
authority to continue consumer protections in the IP world, but
Congress should continue to monitor movements in this space and ensure
important consumer protection rules are actually carried over onto IP-
based networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the PSTN begins to transition to IP protocols and other upgraded
technologies, policymakers must come to terms with how they will
continue to protect consumers post-transition. All signs indicate that
consumer protection rules will be equally, if not more, important post-
transition than they are today, and if anything consumer protection
agencies will need flexibility to ensure that current and future
consumer protection rules serve the same basic social needs as they do
today.
The IP Transition and Rural Communities
The new pattern of carriers eager to replace existing networks with
new, untested technologies after natural disasters or when wireline
networks have simply been allowed to degrade will have especially
strong consequences for rural communities. Rural areas depend on
wireline services more than most, especially because wireless
deployment--even beyond its general limitations compared to wireline
service--is not very strong in rural areas. And when a rural community
loses a wireline service provider that offered DSL or other broadband
service, there is rarely any competing service to turn to for continued
Internet access. At the very least, the rural farmers who grow our food
should know that they will be able to make phone calls and access the
Internet when needed to check weather patterns, predict crop growth,
and make business arrangements to harvest and transport crops. This
also impacts more than just rural communities themselves--when farmers
are arranging food shipments to your town, do you want them to lose
service?
The recent rural call completion problem also reminds us that rural
communities may bear the brunt of unexpected complications tied to the
IP transition, with potentially devastating consequences. As carriers
switch to IP technology, it becomes possible for them to route calls
through Least Cost Router systems, creating latency and sometimes
trapping calls in perpetual loops so calls to or from rural areas do
not go through. The Commission has rightly recognized that this issue
speaks to our foundational expectation that the phone network will be
reliable for all Americans, including those in rural areas, and has
opened a proceeding to learn more about exactly why the rural call
completion problem is getting worse.\22\ But even so, the FCC has
received some shockingly inadequate carrier responses to rural call
completion complaints. For example, one carrier told the FCC: ``We have
contacted the [rural complainant] and have successfully resolved this
matter by advising [her] that due to living in a rural area she will
experience service issues.'' \23\ As discussed below, the DC Circuit's
recent decision overturning parts of the FCC's net neutrality rules
call into question how the FCC could effectively solve this problem
absent classification under Title II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Rural Call Completion, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 13-39 (rel. Nov. 8, 2013).
\23\ FCC Enforcement Advisory, Rural Call Completion: Long Distance
Providers Must Take Consumer Complaints About Rural Call Completion
Problems Seriously (July 19, 2013), http://transition.fcc.gov/
Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0719/DA-13-1605A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why we need rules of the road: problems will inevitably
arise as old systems fade away and new ones arise, but carriers have
clearly shown that we cannot simply assume that companies will
voluntarily defend the fundamental principles that have made our
communications networks great. Meanwhile, 25 states have eliminated or
reduced state commission authority over telecommunications services,
and 12 states (all of which are in AT&T's incumbent local exchange
carrier territory) have eliminated or reduced carrier of last resort
obligations.\24\ Particularly where the states have effectively written
themselves out of the conversation through deregulation, everyday
Americans are relying on Federal authorities as their sole defender to
protect the reliable, affordable communications access they count on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Sherry Lichtenberg, Ph.D., Telecommunications Deregulation:
Updating the Scorecard for 2013 National Regulatory Research Institute,
at 1, 20-22 (May 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IP Transition and the Elderly
Perhaps the community that stands to be the most impacted by the IP
transition is the elderly community. Older Americans have traditionally
been later adopters of broadband and wireless technologies. Older
Americans also opt for wireline voice services to a greater extent than
other demographics, with 89.5 percent of households aged 65 and above
living in homes with wireline voice service according to a National
Health Interview Survey. In households in the 45 to 64 range, 74.2
percent choose to maintain wireline voice service. Studies show that
while more wireless options have increased, this community to prefers
to have both options available.
Maintaining a network that can support Life Alert technologies for
health related emergencies, public safety alerts, and reliable access
to 911 capability is critically important for this fast growing
demographic. Additionally, although the phone provided by a cable
company may generally look and function like a telephone, an older
person might not realize the technology used to deliver their voice
service is different and not held to the same regulatory protections
that they may be dependent on.
While carriers may cite regulation as a reason for the lack of
broadband deployment to rural and high cost areas, it has more to do
with the low population density that fails to deliver a sufficient
return on investment. The lack of investment in broadband and wireless
infrastructure in low population density areas raises serious concerns
for the future quality of services available to the elderly community
over an IP-based network. The relief from ``regulatory burdens''
described by AT&T its FCC proposal could have serious consequences for
communities that depend on the reliability ensured by wireline
regulation like 911 functionality, equal access requirements, and COLR
obligations.
Finally, many older Americans also lived on a fixed income, and
could be subjected to paying for expensive bundles on upgraded networks
in part due to the lack of maintenance or availability of traditional
copper based networks. These bundles may not qualify for crucial
Lifeline subsidies that provide older and low-income Americans with
critical access to phone service.
Moving Forward in the IP Transition
We are now in the midst of the network transition, and the FCC has
taken action to gather information and begin creating a framework in
which to address the policy questions raised by these technological
changes. As policymakers continue working on this issue, the near-term
focus should be on collecting data about new technologies, clarifying
what standards carriers must meet to replace existing networks with new
technologies, and protecting network users throughout and after the
transition.
Clarifying the Sec. 214(a) Standard
Before a carrier can discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a
community, it must receive authorization from the FCC certifying that
the change will not adversely affect the present or future public
interest.\25\ This system was not designed with the IP transition in
mind, and it is simply not suited to situations where a carrier wishes
to replace its existing service, still high in demand, with another
service. The FCC must therefore take steps now make clear what specific
changes would ``impair'' service under Sec. 214(a) in the context of
the network transition, ensuring that its analysis continues to serve
the values identified in the unanimous Commission Order beginning the
trials process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 214(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three areas in particular that need guidance. First, what
policies should the Commission adopt as applicable to any new service?
These questions would be best handled in the FCC's existing open
proceedings addressing these issues.\26\ Second, what technical
standards for covered services must the new service meet? For example,
what consistent voice quality standards should new services meet (as
measured in quantifiable--not merely qualitative--measurements)? This
should be a pure question of engineering, supported by technical trials
and other relevant engineering data, industry standards and best
practices, and other technical sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Letter from Angie Kronenberg and Karen Reidy, COMPTEL, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Apr. 2, 2014), available at http://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017610666.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, what services must be covered? This is a mixed question of
policy and engineering. For example, the FCC has long required
providers to permit any network attachment that does not harm the
network.\27\ Whether the loss of this capability would constitute an
impairment or reduction in service is a question of policy. But if the
FCC determines that the new service must permit network attachments,
then the question of how to do so becomes an engineering question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 68 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, the FCC should also give guidance for when
natural disasters damage networks and carriers wish to replace the
network with new technologies instead of rebuilding the copper network.
Communities and their residents have always had to deal with temporary
network outages after natural disasters, but now that we are in the
midst of the phone network transition, we are seeing instances where
carriers want to respond to damaged networks by replacing the existing
networks with new, untested services, rather than repairing or
rebuilding the infrastructure the community has relied on for decades.
Like the rest of the phone network transition, this can be an
opportunity for better, newer service for the community, but
unfortunately we have already seen how it can also force customers--who
are already trying to rebuild their lives after a devastating natural
disaster--to accept less reliable, more restricted services than what
they had before.
Collecting Data to Inform Policy Decisions
The FCC is currently in the process of arranging and approving a
series of technical experiments designed to better understand the
impacts of new network technologies on consumers. Policymakers should
use these trials to better understand the transition's technical
challenges and opportunities and inform policy decisions going forward.
The trials are an opportunity to collect technical data about new
network technologies under a variety of parameters.\28\ This data can
be used to inform policies that ensure we continue to protect the
fundamental values of the network. Ideally, the FCC will be able to use
the information collected in the trials to create a detailed
``checklist'' of technical standards that would guide companies seeking
permission under Sec. 214(a) to replace their existing networks with
new technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See A Brief Assessment of Engineering Issues Related to Trial
Testing for IP Transition, CTC Technology & Energy (Jan. 13, 2014),
http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/CTC-PK%20PSTN
%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also worth confirming that the trials, while a useful tool
for policymakers, cannot become a vehicle for the transition itself. A
trial is not a product launch. The trials must be limited, transparent,
carefully controlled experiments, with definite start and end points
and definite metrics by which to collect data. Any attempt by a carrier
to co-opt a trial into a permanent deployment plan should be firmly
rejected to protect customers and avoid distracting from the trials
process.
Continuing to Protect Consumers
We cannot let customers be left behind while we are in the midst of
these policy debates. We have already seen customers across the country
report that they have experienced dropped calls and degraded service
quality, and that their carriers responded to their requests for help
by aggressively upselling them instead of maintaining the network (as
they are legally required to do).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Letter from Jodie Griffin, Senior Staff Attorney, Public
Knowledge, et al., to Julie A. Veach, Chief, Wireline Competition
Bureau, FCC (May 12, 2014), available at http://www
.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/blog/14.05.12_Copper_Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This state of affairs, as reported by consumers across the nation,
is unacceptable. Congress and the FCC should both look into the
industry practices that led to these complaints, and where appropriate
the FCC could also begin enforcement proceedings or information
requests. Failure to take any action will only undermine the public's
confidence in the network that we have relied on for decades and puts
network users across the country at risk of losing access to basic
communications service.
Authority to Preserve the Network Compact
As we move forward with the network transition, it is imperative
that the FCC continues to have authority to implement policies that
serve the network's enduring values.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's recent decision
overturning the FCC's no-blocking and nondiscrimination Open Internet
rules called into question the FCC's ability to continue applying
certain fundamental policies to the phone network as it transitions to
IP-based technology.\30\ Essentially, the DC Circuit ruled that when
the FCC has put something in the Title I ``information service'' box,
it cannot then treat that service like the phone system. This can
become a serious problem when the service at issue is the phone system.
Thus far, the FCC has classified Internet access service as an
information service, but has not classified interconnected VoIP as
either an information service or a telecommunications service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Verizon v. FCC, Case No. 11-1355 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that parts of the phone network's post-transition
infrastructure fall under Title I, the FCC now has expanded authority
to implement consumer protection rules like extending slamming and
cramming rules to IP-based services. However, the DC Circuit's decision
casts doubt on the FCC's ability to require VoIP providers to complete
all phone calls, prohibit VoIP providers from blocking calls, and
implement ``carrier of last resort'' obligations for VoIP service.
In 2012, the FCC's declaratory ruling addressing the problem of
rural call completion was grounded in Title II common carrier authority
and the duty to serve everyone.\31\ But, as the DC Circuit explained in
the net neutrality context, this is precisely the type of action the
FCC cannot take for non-common carrier services. So, post-transition,
absent reclassification, the FCC would be unable to ensure that all
calls go through when someone dials a 10-digit phone number. The FCC
could--as it can with net neutrality--require companies to disclose if
they are blocking calls or otherwise ``managing'' traffic in a way that
degrades rural traffic. But, as too many in rural America can already
tell you, this has not been effective at curbing the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Develop an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, CC Docket
No. 01-92, Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange
Carriers, WC Docket No. 07-135, Declaratory Ruling (rel. Feb. 6, 2012),
available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-
154A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly the FCC's inability to apply common carriage-like rules
to IP-based services could mean the FCC will be unable to implement
``carrier of last resort'' (COLR) rules after the phone network has
transitioned to IP.\32\ After all, the obligation to serve the public
indiscriminately is at the core of common carriage, so without
authority under Title II the FCC could be unable to ensure that
everyone in the country has at least one option for standalone basic
communications service. Particularly as states deregulate their own
COLR rules, the FCC's continued role is critical to achieving universal
service throughout and after the transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Incidentally, carriers deploying new networks like fiber-based
infrastructure may be willing to accept Title II classification when
they wish to invoke their common carrier privileges to install fiber
over private property or use public rights-of-way. Bruce Kushnick, It's
All Interconnected: Oversight and Action is Required to Protect Verizon
New York Telephone Customers and Expand Broadband Services, Public
Utility Law Project of New York, Inc. (May 13, 2014), http://
newnetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/PublicNN3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent policymakers ever had the luxury of avoiding the
question of the FCC's authority over IP-based services, the phone
network transition and the recent net neutrality decision in the DC
Circuit make clear that the time for putting off this decision has
ended. The underlying technology of the network may be changing, but
the fundamental values of the network remain the same, and the FCC must
continue to have the authority it needs to protect users and honor the
network compact.
Conclusion
The transition of the phone network presents new opportunities and
new challenges for policymakers seeking to ensure new networks
constitute a true step forward, not a step backward, for everyday
Americans. The stakes are high. The choices policymakers make now will
impact how the public conducts business, communicates with loved ones,
and reaches emergency services. Public Knowledge urges policymakers to
follow the basic values that have informed our communications networks
since the founding of our country to ensure we can all continue to
enjoy a communications network we can count on.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Ms. Honorable?
STATEMENT OF COLETTE D. HONORABLE, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS
(NARUC)
Ms. Honorable. Good morning, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member
Wicker, and the members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the IP transition and its
impact on public safety and network resiliency.
My name is Colette Honorable. I have the honor of serving
as Chairman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission, and I am
especially honored to appear here before my senior Senator,
whom I think is an outstanding public servant. I am also
testifying in my role as President of the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
I applaud the Subcommittee for holding this hearing, which
is focused on the proper question, which is which public policy
value should be preserved? What consumers care about is that
their telecommunications work and are reliable, regardless of
the technology used to provide them.
As we transition from traditional circuit-switched
technologies to an IP- and wireless-based system, Federal and
State policymakers must work together to ensure that emergency
911 service and network resilience do not suffer. Public safety
is, indeed, a core value that should not and cannot be
compromised.
As Senator Pryor and Ranking Member Wicker know all too
well, the recent tornados in Arkansas and Mississippi were
another unavoidable reminder of how important these
collaborative efforts are to ensure the resilience of our
critical infrastructure and the safety of our citizenry. The
April EF-4 tornado not only took the lives of many, but damaged
hundreds of homes in one county alone.
I am very pleased with the recovery and restoration
efforts, which included the immediate response of our Governor,
Mike Beebe, the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management,
first responders and emergency personnel, and the utility and
telecommunication sectors.
Two large cell towers were destroyed, interrupting
communications throughout the affected area. However, the
carriers responded quickly, bringing in mobile towers that
helped to return some level of service. While the situation is
devastating, it could have been worse.
Superstorm Sandy demonstrated the frailties of our utility
infrastructure, knocking out power for days and weeks, cutting
off telecommunications networks. While new IP- and wireless-
based systems can be more efficient than traditional landline
services, they do not have the same back-up power capabilities
as the older networks. Circuit-switched technologies are
supported by robust, independent power sources and continue to
function during prolonged outages.
Many of the new IP systems rely on a back-up power in the
consumer's home. These back-up units are, indeed, the
responsibility of the consumer, and therefore, it is important
that consumers are educated and are aware about these issues
and how they can prolong the life of their infrastructure at
home. As more consumers switch to IP-based systems, we must
ensure that the technologies provide the same kind of support
or that consumers are aware that they may not.
In conclusion, what is important are the values we apply to
the communications network, not the technology used to deliver
it. FCC Chairman Wheeler espoused the four values of universal
accessibility, reliable interconnection, consumer protection,
public safety and security. NARUC agrees.
While technology may change, the expectations of consumers
do not. Consumers expect the same quality of service,
reliability, and access to emergency service to which they have
grown accustomed.
When hurricanes, tornados, or other natural disasters
unleash their destructive force, they don't discriminate
between a copper, fiber, or wireless networks. It is precisely
for this reason that we, as policymakers, should not
discriminate in applying our values. These values must be
applied consistently and in a technology-neutral manner,
especially when it relates to public safety.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Honorable follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colette D. Honorable, President,
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)
Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the IP
Transition and its impact on Public Safety and network resiliency.
Since 2007, I have been a Commissioner with the Arkansas Public Service
Commission. Governor Mike Beebe designated me the Commission Chair in
2011. I am also President of the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners (NARUC). NARUC is--like Congress--a bipartisan
organization. Our members include public utility commissions in all of
your States, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories with
jurisdiction over telecommunications, electricity, natural gas, water
and other utilities. NARUC member commissioners are the in-State
experts on critical infrastructure in the utility sector and we are
very familiar with network resiliency and service restoration issues.
I applaud the Subcommittee for holding this hearing because it is
focused on the correct question--which public policy values should be
preserved--rather than just on the particular technologies being used
to provide services today. NARUC has consistently supported
technological innovations that promote more resilient networks and
provide better service. But preserving public safety and network
reliability, along with other values that customers expect--such as
universal access, competition (interconnection), and consumer
protection--are also important concerns in any technology transition,
including this one.
Federal and State policymakers must work together to ensure that
emergency 911 services and network resiliency do not suffer as
consumers migrate to new technologies. Advances in technology often
call for new regulatory policies for both new and existing services.
As FCC Chairman Wheeler noted in a recent posting:
``When the original 911 rules for wireless providers were first
adopted, they were built on the assumption that the primary
place consumers would use their wireless phones would be
outside. But today, the vast majority of wireless calls are
made from indoors, including 911 calls made from wireless
phones. Commercial location-based services are raising
consumers' expectations--if a smartphone app can locate them
within seconds, why can't a 911 call center?'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, Official FCC Blog: ``Access and Public Safety: Enduring
Elements of the Public Interest,'' By Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman,
January 30, 20144, available online at: http://www.fcc.gov/blog/access-
and-public-safety-enduring-elements-public-interest.
Why indeed?
To the Chairman's credit, the FCC initiated a proceeding to correct
this deficit earlier this year in February. It was an initiative NARUC
specifically endorsed by resolution.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., NARUC's May 14, 2014 Comments on Wireless E9-1-1
location accuracy requirements, at: http://www.naruc.org/Filings/
14%200512%20NARUC%20Comments%20on%20911%
20location%20accuracy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of these public-interest values present challenges that
require the FCC to act--while others require close State-Federal
collaborative efforts. The recent tornado in my home State of Arkansas
was another unavoidable reminder of how important those collaborative
efforts are to ensuring the resiliency of our critical infrastructure
and the safety of our citizens.
An EF4 tornado hit Arkansas in April of this year. In one county
alone, it destroyed 328 homes; significantly damaged 111 more, and
impacted hundreds of others. A new intermediate school which had been
rebuilt after a 2011 tornado was once again demolished. It was one of
the worst storms during my tenure at the Arkansas Commission and grim
evidence that no matter how well utilities and others plan and prepare,
the awesome force of nature can and will find vulnerabilities in our
critical communications and power infrastructures. It was another
reminder of how important it is for policymakers to focus on the right
questions.
As we transition to newer technologies, it is crucial for Congress
and State and Federal regulators to continue to focus on the right
issues and recognize that our collective focus must be the consumer,
especially with regard to public safety.
IP-based technologies can be more efficient than the technologies
they are replacing. If properly implemented, they also can be more
resilient than the old networks in certain ways. Networks that shift to
IP-technology are designed to be highly robust to random failures.
However, such networks have new vulnerabilities that the earlier
technologies did not. For example, so-called ``circuit-switch''
services are self-powering. The electricity that carries your voice on
such system also provides power. IP-based services rely upon external
power sources. Therefore if your landline telephone company still
provides circuit-switched service, your phone will continue to work
even through an electricity outage. If, however, the power goes out in
your home and you have an IP-based phone system, you will only retain
phone service--even if the rest of the network is operational--as long
as your backup batteries last.\3\ During prolonged outages, IP-based
residential customers will almost certainly lose phone service.
Wireless phones that require external power to recharge once their
batteries drain have the same problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g. Giorgianni, Anthony, ``Verizon to eliminate free
backup batteries for new residential phone customers: Decision by
telecom giant could prevent 911 access during blackouts'' Consumer
Reports (December 12, 2013), online at: http://www.consumerreports.org/
cro/news/
2013/12/verizon-to-eliminate-free-backup-batteries-for-new-residential-
phone-customers/index
.htm. (``The company said that as of early as December, new FiOS
customers who want a backup battery will have to pay a one-time charge
of $29.99, buy it elsewhere, or do without. During a blackout, FiOS
customers without a battery, household generator, or other type of
backup power system will lose their landline voice service, including
access to emergency 911.'') See also, U-verse Voice battery backup
specifications, ``Upon installation of your AT&T U-verse Voice service,
you are provided with a backup battery (or batteries) to help maintain
your digital home phone service in the event of a short disruption of
electrical power to your home.'' at: http://www.att.com/esupport/
article.jsp?sid=KB409162&cv=814#fbid=esUgRWuZWBu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one example where regulatory oversight remains necessary
regardless of changes over time in the technology used to provide a
service. It is why NARUC has for years consistently urged Congress and
Federal regulators to take a technology-neutral approach to
regulation.\4\ The consumer cares if the phone service works during
power outages and emergencies. When she calls 911, she wants that call
to go to the right call center--she wants the call center to know where
she is. The consumer does not distinguish whether the network provides
the service using IP-protocol based or circuit-switched technology.
Though sometimes a technology can engender a new problem,\5\ the basic
reasons why public service commissions and agencies like the FCC were
created remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NARUC Legislative Task Force Report on Federalism and Telecom
(July 2005). See also, NARUC's February 2003, NARUC passed Resolution
Relating To Voice Over The Internet Telecommunications, available
online at: http://www.naruc.org/Resolutions/voice_over.pdf, that notes
``a significant portion of the Nation's total voice traffic could be
transported on IP networks within a few years'' and urged the FCC to
``confirm its tentative decision that certain phone-to-phone calls over
IP networks are telecommunications services.'' In November 2003, NARUC
passed a Resolution on ``Information Services'', at http://
www.naruc.org/Resolutions/info_services.pdf, cautioning the FCC to
consider the negative implications associated with a finding that IP-
based services are subject to Title I jurisdiction, including the (i)
uncertainty and reduced capital investment while the FCC's authority
under Title I is tested; (ii) loss of consumer protections applicable
to telecommunications services under Title II; (iii) disruption of
traditional balance between Federal and State jurisdictional cost
separations; (iv) increased risk to public safety . . . content; (vi)
loss of State and local authority over emergency dialing services . .
.'' Those warnings remain valid today. See also, NARUC's 2008
Resolution Regarding the Interconnection of New Voice
Telecommunications Services Networks, online at: http://www.naruc.org/
Resolutions/TC%20Interconnection.pdf. (``NARUC applauds the numerous
advances in technology . . . to enable the efficient transmission of
voice telecommunications traffic and the continued successes in
developing innovative means to deliver voice telecommunications
services . . . it is in the public interest for telecommunications
carriers to interconnect their networks to exchange traffic in a
technologically neutral manner, as provided for under Sections 251 and
252.'') See also, NARUC's February 2012 Resolution on Mandatory
Reporting of Service Outages by Interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol Service Providers, asking the FCC to, inter alia, extend the
mandatory service outage reporting requirements in 47 C.F.R. Part 4 to
interconnected VoIP service providers.
\5\ Some argue some technology specific rules may be needed to
address the reduced resiliency of wireless and fiber networks. But
there is no question that competing services should face similar rules.
Both rely more on commercial power both at the network level and at the
customer premise. The battery backup system installed with FiOS service
is the responsibility of the consumer, after one year. There is a
similar question, given the increasing number of wireless-only
households, of backup power to cell towers. NARUC has raised concerns
about the problem and had a panel on the interdependencies between the
telecom and energy sectors at our conference last November.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there are only two.
First, we regulate where competition \6\ is not vigorous enough to
adequately protect consumers. Where competition is sufficient to
protect consumers and ensure market choice and innovation, then there
is a reduced need for regulatory oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Experts will always argue about how to define a competitive
marketplace or what level of competition is needed to eliminate market
power concerns but that is a different question and debate. It is also
a broader question than the one facing policymakers under the current
law. Here the question is, does the 1996 Act allow the FCC to treat
functionally equivalent services differently under an ad hoc (FCC-
created) regulatory regime. And if it does, how on earth does it make
sense for them to do so. Shouldn't competitors be subject to the same
set of rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we intervene to impose public interest obligations.
Regardless of the level of competition, some oversight is always
necessary to provide things the market will not. This includes
protecting consumers from fraudulent actors and poor service quality,
imposing requirements to facilitate or enhanced competitive forces,
e.g., (1) requiring local number portability \7\ and (2) facilitating
interconnection in markets with competing carriers with widely
divergent market power, assuring disabled access, emergency calling
services and universal service, and, of course, today's topic--assuring
a proper level of network reliability, as well as adequate plans that
provide robust service restoration after disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Number portability, which unquestionably facilitates
competition, had to be forced on the wireless industry at a time when
many considered that sector to be the poster child for a competitive
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the recent storm in Arkansas, I remain very pleased
with the recovery and restoration efforts in Vilonia and Mayflower.
This included the immediate response of Governor Mike Beebe and the
Arkansas Department of Emergency Management (ADEM), first responders
and emergency personnel, along with the prompt response of our
telephone companies. As an example of how important connectivity is
during an emergency, I received a call at home near midnight after the
storm from our Attorney General who was on the ground assisting with
rescue efforts in Vilonia. He was concerned about a significant gas
leak and requested expedited gas-service disconnection in the
neighborhood at issue. I contacted Centerpoint's Regional Vice
President and head of Arkansas operations who responded immediately,
terminating service to the subdivision where a Level B leak was
subsequently discovered. This was but one example of the excellent
coordination among all involved in the emergency response effort that
night.
As I touched on earlier, the recent storm outages have raised
questions about the resilience of these new networks, as both wireless
and fiber-based IP services are much more reliant on commercial power
from end-to-end.
While regarded by some as old-fashioned, conventional wireline
circuit-switched packetized technologies are supported by robust
independent back-up power supply resources (e.g., central office
standby diesel generators and battery banks), and continue to function
during prolonged commercial power outages. As more consumers switch
from wireline to IP or wireless service, we must assure that these
technologies continue to provide back-up power during outages to
maintain emergency communications.
This raises the real question of whether consumers signing up for
fiber-based services are fully aware of the trade-offs inherent in
shifting to a different protocol. Do they know of the backup power
limitations of the network and at their premises? Are they aware of the
additional burdens that making this change places upon them to assure
their own safety?
For example, Verizon policy states that the battery backup system
installed with FiOS service is the responsibility of the consumer,
after a one-year warranty.\8\ The condition of the battery can
dramatically impact the length of backup power a customer will
experience in a power outage. While future back-up units may use simple
batteries available at the local grocery store or pharmacy, current
models require specialized batteries that are not readily available and
can be difficult to change. Are most customers who switch aware of and
educated about these issues? For many, I suspect the answer is no.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Verizon battery backup policy,'' available online
at: http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/tv/fiostv/
general+support/new+to+fios+tv/questionsone/121498.htm#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the wireless side, severe weather can also wreak havoc. As we
learned after Superstorm Sandy, there can be problems with backup power
at cell towers. NARUC voiced concerns about this by adopting a
resolution in July 2013 urging State and Federal regulators ``to engage
in meaningful dialogue with industry decision makers to develop
policies and procedures that ensure telecommunications are maintained
during power outages regardless of the technology and the
communications protocols used to provide the services.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NARUC Resolution Calling for National and State Collaboration
to Ensure Reliable Wireline and Wireless Communications during Power
Outages, adopted July 24, 2013. Available at: http://www.naruc.org/
Resolutions/Resolution%20Calling%20for%20National%20and%20State%
20Collaboration%20to%20Ensure%20Reliable%20Wireline%20and%20Wireless%20C
ommunicati
ons%20during%20Power%20Outages.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the issue in Arkansas after our recent storm was not a
lack of backup power at the cell tower but the complete destruction of
some of the towers themselves. There really is no protective measure
that can guarantee this type of situation will not occur again. The
storm in April destroyed two large cell towers--a 300-ft tower in
Vilonia and a 250-ft tower in Mayflower. Multiple wireless providers
utilized both towers so coverage to the area was lost across almost all
providers. Fortunately, the carriers know this kind of damage is a
possibility and, because the equipment shelters were spared, wireless
providers brought in temporary mobile tower units the night of the
storm and restored some service, as well as additional equipment in the
days after the storm.
I commend the carriers for their quick response. While the shorter
mobile towers lacked the same coverage and capacity, it was nonetheless
a big step forward. Verizon provided mobile towers, Wi-Fi and charging
stations at the storm command center within hours of the tornado. AT&T
also deployed several mobile charging stations so those in the impacted
community could charge their devices and stay connected to friends and
loved ones. They waived voice, data and text overage charges for a
certain time period as well as set up a hydration station to provide
water, snacks and shelter for volunteers. Windstream's service
territory was also impacted. The company brought in a temporary trailer
to provide power for charging cell phones, etc and it had 10 MB
broadband services with computers available to members of the
community. They also provided volunteers from other markets to assist
in the repair and clean-up effort.
For any policymaker to decide whether any intervention or oversight
of a carrier or carriers is necessary, access to information is
crucial.
For emergency systems, policymakers at both the Federal and State
level need access to outage reporting data submitted by all competing
providers, including interconnected VoIP carriers. Without information
about the root causes of outages, whether they are on the rise or the
wane, we have no way of determining if any action is warranted.
Literally, lives hinge on such decisions and, by extension, on access
to such data.
In February 2012 the FCC adopted a Report and Order addressing
outage reporting requirements by interconnected VoIP providers.\10\
NARUC urged the FCC to act on this issue and in a resolution adopted
earlier that month called for the agency to: (1) Extend the mandatory
service outage reporting requirements in 47 C.F.R. Part 4 to
interconnected VoIP service providers; (2) Require interconnected VoIP
service providers to report service outage information comparable to
that required from other communications service providers, and on a
detail level and timeliness that will provide adequate network status
information in support of State, county, and local emergency response
efforts; (3) Expand the criteria in 47 C.F.R. Part 4 that defines a
significant service outage to specifically include VoIP service
problems affecting public access to 9-1-1, emergency service
communications, utilities, and other telecommunications service
providers; and (4) Provide State commissions with the opportunity to
have direct and immediate access to the FCC's outage reporting database
and to all outage reports filed by interconnected VoIP service
providers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ FCC Report and Order on The Proposed Extension of Part 4 of
the Commission's Rules Regarding Outage Reporting To Interconnected
Voice Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and Broadband Internet
Service Providers; PS Docket No. 11-82, Adopted: February 15, 2012
Released: February 21, 2012. Available at: http://www.google.com/
url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=
s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftransition.fcc.gov%2FDa
ily_Relea
ses%2FDaily_Business%2F2012%2Fdb0221%2FFCC-12-
22A1.pdf&ei=C02GU8eQOemhsATdm4
HYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFk05jz3-
notvngKPR21ZABHWcvSA&bvm=bv.67720277,d.cWc&cad=rja.
\11\ NARUC Resolution on Mandatory Reporting of Service Outages by
Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol Service Providers, adopted
February 8, 2012, available online at: http://www.naruc.org/
Resolutions/Resolution%20on%20VoIP%20Outage%20Reporting.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carriers almost unanimously opposed the FCC's extension of
mandatory outage reporting requirements to VoIP technologies. While it
is easy to understand why a carrier might not want such data available
to policymakers, it is not prudent for those with the responsibility to
assure public safety and network resiliency to eschew such information.
Carriers posited a series of unpersuasive ``arguments'' ranging
from outage reporting is a waste of time to the specious argument that
the FCC lacks the authority to impose such a mandate on interconnected
VoIP providers just because they use IP protocol.\12\ Similar arguments
proliferate before NARUC member commissions. Carriers have denied some
states access to outage data claiming State commissions do not have
authority to require reporting solely because of the technology they
use to carry their traffic. This is disappointing and contrary to the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ FCC Report and Order on The Proposed Extension of Part 4 of
the Commission's Rules Regarding Outage Reporting To Interconnected
Voice Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and Broadband Internet
Service Providers; PS Docket No. 11-82, Adopted: February 15, 2012
Released: February 21, 2012. Available at: http://www.google.com/
url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc
=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftransition.fcc.gov%2FD
aily_Rel
eases%2FDaily_Business%2F2012%2Fdb0221%2FFCC-12-
22A1.pdf&ei=C02GU8eQOemhsATd
m4HYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFk05jz3-
notvngKPR21ZABHWcvSA&bvm=bv.67720277,d.cWc&cad=rja.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my state, under our State Emergency Plan, the PSC is responsible
for coordinating between the jurisdictional utilities and other State
agencies, principally the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management
(ADEM). During emergencies, we provide a greater emphasis on the
restoration of electric and natural gas service. As a result of State
deregulation and existing jurisdictional ambiguity, because of the
FCC's refusal to provide any regulatory classification of VoIP
services, we play less of a role in telecom restoration.
It is imperative that we assist in the coordination between the
electric and telecommunications utilities in the event of an emergency
to understand the timeframes for the restoration of electric facilities
and communications facilities, and aid in rescue and recovery efforts.
We also assist by providing reports to ADEM on the status of any
outages and restoration of electric, natural gas, and to a lesser
extent telecommunications service.
We were pleased when the FCC extended its outage reporting
requirements to interconnected VoIP providers as NARUC recommended.\13\
However, it failed to address our request to provide State commissions
with direct and immediate access to the FCC's outage database and to
all outage reports filed by interconnected VoIP providers.\14\ This is
a problem. states play a key role in coordination of outage
restoration. We are the ``boots on the ground'' when disasters strike.
Limited access to this information is counterproductive to our joint
goal of quick and timely service restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ February 8, 2012 Letter from James Bradford Ramsay, to FCC
Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners McDowell and Clyburn, filed In
the Matter of the Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the Commission's
Rules Regarding Outage Reporting to Interconnected Voice Over Internet
Protocol Service Providers and Broadband Internet Service Providers, PS
Docket No. 11-82, at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/
view?id=7021858903.
\14\ See In the Matter of the Proposed Extension of Part 4 of the
Commission's Rules Regarding Outage Reporting To Interconnected Voice
Over Internet Protocol Service Providers and Broadband Internet Service
Providers, PS Docket No. 11-82, Report and Order, FCC 12-22 (rel. Feb.
21, 2012, at note 230, mimeo at 43: (``We note that, in its ex parte
filing on February 8, 2012, NARUC requests that the Commission provide
State commissions with an opportunity to have direct and immediate
access to outage reporting data and to all outage reports filed by
interconnected VoIP service providers. See, NARUC February 8, 2012 Ex
Parte Filing. NARUC's request is beyond the scope of this
proceeding.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is concern about the confidential treatment of such data in a
handful of states due to their open record laws. However, that should
not prevent the sharing of vital public safety information. The FCC
should grant immediate access to the outage database and reports for
those states meeting the confidentiality requirements. For those that
do not meet such requirements the confidentiality issues can be easily
resolved by requiring them to issue a certification that the
information will be kept confidential, as has been done in the past. In
addition, many states have statutory authority to protect highly
sensitive or competitive information from public disclosure.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Arkansas Commission's authority to keep information
confidential is in Ark. Code Ann. Section 23-2-316(b): ``(b) (1)
Whenever the commission determines it to be necessary in the interest
of the public or, as to proprietary facts or trade secrets, in the
interest of the utility to withhold such facts and information from the
public, the commission shall do so. (2) The commission may take such
action in the nature of, but not limited to, issuing protective orders,
temporarily or permanently sealing records, or making other appropriate
orders to prevent or otherwise limit public disclosure of facts and
information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency 911 services are a top priority in every State. Even in
states that have adopted deregulatory telecom policies in recent years,
all of them have focused on the need for continued oversight of 911
services. Emergency services and network reliability are a core value
that does not change with the evolution of technology.
The IP transition is not about regulation or deregulation. The FCC
has ample tools in the 1996 Act to eliminate unneeded regulation
through the forbearance process.\16\ Nor should the debate be
technology-focused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160(c) (``Any telecommunications
carrier, or class of telecommunications carriers, may submit a petition
to the Commission requesting that the Commission exercise the authority
granted under this section with respect to that carrier or those
carriers, or any service offered by that carrier or carriers.''). See
also, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A change in the technology to provide a ``functionally equivalent''
voice service cannot allow carriers to escape State and Federal
disaster recovery, service quality, law enforcement access, universal
service, disabled access and interconnection obligations. If the FCC is
truly interested in a resilient network and reliable emergency 911 the
best thing it can do is provide legal certainty over the classification
of VoIP services and apply its policies in a technology-neutral manner.
In conclusion, what is important are the values we apply to the
communications network not the technology used to deliver it. Chairman
Wheeler has espoused four key values, which he refers to as the
``Network Compact''. They are universal accessibility, reliable
interconnection, consumer protection, and public safety and security.
The FCC reiterated these values and noted the need for the agency to
work with State, local and tribal governments to uphold these values in
its IP-transition trials order.\17\ NARUC agrees that is what the Act
requires. We have adopted our own set of guiding core principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``State, local and Tribal governments and leaders share this
challenge, along with other Federal entities. We will work alongside
each other to ensure that, as networks transition, public safety is
assured, access is universal, competition is promoted, consumers are
protected, and the Nation remains well-served by its critical
communications infrastructure.'' From paragraph 9, Page 5, FCC Order,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Report and
Order, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Proposal for
Ongoing Data Initiative, GN Docket No. 13-5, GN Docket No. 12-353, WC
Docket No. 10-90, CG Docket No. 10-51, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket
No. 13-97, adopted January 30, 2014, available online at: http://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0131/FCC-14-
5A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2012, NARUC chartered a task force on Federalism to
review NARUC's 2005 policies and paper and to determine any changes to
those policies required by the changing communications landscape. The
resulting whitepaper was unanimously adopted at the NARUC Annual
Meeting in November 2013.\18\ At its foundation are core principles in
line with that of the 1996 Act, and Chairman Wheeler's ``network
compact.'' They are: consumer protection; network reliability and
public safety; competition; interconnection; universal service; and
regulatory diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NARUC Federalism Task Force Report: Cooperative Federalism and
Telecom In the 21st Century, adopted November 2013 and available at:
http://www.naruc.org/Publications/Federalism-task-force-report-
November-20131.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While technologies change the expectations of consumer do not.
Consumers expect the same quality of service, reliability, access to
emergency service and the protections to which they have grown
accustomed.
When hurricanes, tornadoes or other natural disasters unleash their
destructive force they do not discriminate between a copper, fiber, or
wireless networks. It is precisely for this reason that we as
policymakers should not discriminate in applying our values. These
values must be applied consistently and in a technology-neutral manner,
especially when it relates to public safety.
Consumers moving to these new services must be educated on their
limitations and vulnerabilities as much as they are about the exciting
bells and whistles. They must be informed of their new obligations,
such as the responsibility to maintain battery backup systems. Failure
to provide such vital information could prove deadly. NARUC members
deal with network resiliency on a regular basis across the utility
spectrum. We stand willing and able to work with this subcommittee, the
whole of Congress, the FCC and industry to make sure all Americans
enjoy the benefits of a resilient communications network. Thank you for
your time and I look forward to any questions you may have.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Ms. Smith?
STATEMENT OF GIGI SMITH, PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS
OFFICIALS (APCO) INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Smith. Good morning, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member
Wicker, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gigi Smith,
and I am the President of the Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials, or APCO. Thank you for inviting me
back to testify on yet another important public safety matter.
APCO is the world's oldest and largest organization of
public safety communications professionals. Our members field
911 calls, dispatch critical information to first responders,
and manage the communications networks used by first
responders.
I have been active in public safety for over 28 years,
starting as a 911 call-taker and now serving as the police
operations manager for the Salt Lake Valley Emergency
Communications Center in West Valley City, Utah. I bring the
perspective of an association that is focused on how technology
shifts, including the IP transition, impact public safety.
The IP transition will bring a number of benefits. We are
fully embracing efforts to bring IP technologies into public
safety communications by supporting the FirstNet network,
driving Next Generation 911 deployment, and ensuring
development of the most effective apps for public safety, among
other initiatives.
I would like to now briefly mention a few considerations
regarding the impact of the IP transition on public safety.
First, IP-based networks must be reliable, supporting
access to 911 communications between dispatchers and first
responders, and communications of emergency operations centers
and first responder agencies.
Second, IP networks present new vulnerabilities. Service
providers should incorporate security procedures, failover
plans, and mitigation strategies to best protect public safety
communications.
Third, copper networks are self-powered, whereas IP
networks rely on power from the consumer electric grid. IP
network designs need to consider stand-by power, battery back-
up, and other contingency plans.
Fourth, IP networks must maintain the quality of location
information for 911 calls, and we encourage exploration of how
IP can offer improved capabilities.
Fifth, IP and Next Generation 911 transitions in the public
safety community will be more gradual than for nonpublic safety
networks. Certainly, additional funding at the national level
would support more rapid adoption of next-generation technology
by PSAPs and, thus, help public safety keep pace with the
industry's IP transition.
Finally, some service providers offer or may require
wireless replacements to landlines. We need to preserve
existing levels of 911 service in these cases.
In summary, we believe that the IP transition holds great
promise. APCO looks forward to working with the Subcommittee
and all stakeholders to help guide the best path forward.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith Follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gigi Smith, President, Association of Public-
Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International
Good morning Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of
the Subcommittee.
My name is Gigi Smith, and I am the President of the Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials International, or APCO
International. Thank you for inviting me back to testify on yet another
important public safety matter.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to highlight the public safety
implications of the transition of the Nation's communications
infrastructure to IP-based technologies.
I have been active in public safety communications for over 28
years. I started as a 9-1-1 call taker, and then worked my way through
the ranks of dispatcher, trainer, supervisor, and I now serve as the
Police Operations Manager for the Salt Lake Valley Emergency
Communications Center in West Valley City, Utah. My Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) is a 9-1-1 police, fire, and emergency medical
services dispatch center.
Thus, I am very familiar with the impact of changing technologies
on the 9-1-1 system and emergency dispatch operations, including how
best to ensure that as we embrace new technologies, we preserve, and
improve, the safety of the public and first responders.
APCO International is the world's oldest and largest organization
of public safety communications professionals, at over 20,000 members.
Our members are mainly state and local government employees who manage
and operate communications systems for law enforcement, fire, EMS and
other public safety agencies. Effectively, our members field 9-1-1
calls, dispatch critical information to first responders, and are
integral to the implementation of the critical communications networks
used in the field by first responders. In all of these respects, APCO
International provides the training, certification, technical, and
standards development resources to make the most effective and
efficient use of communications technologies in use today or planned
for the future.
So as President of APCO, I also bring the perspective of an
association that is focused on current and future implications of
technological shifts, including the IP transition.
We recognize that the transition of the Nation's communications
networks to IP technology will bring many benefits to the public at
large, such as the ability to deliver and share content rich video and
multimedia messages, with increasing quality.
At the same time, maintaining and improving voice quality remains
very important. This is because sometimes the ability of 9-1-1 call
takers to hear and pass along subtle background sounds, like someone
racking a shotgun, can make a significant difference to the first
responder.
Just as another example, IP and related technologies also present
us with an opportunity to acquire and utilize data on a large scale,
which can help to identify ways to improve efficiencies in emergency
response like never possible before.
Indeed, we are fully embracing efforts to bring IP and other
advanced technologies into the public safety communications arena. We
are actively supporting the FirstNet network, leading the way to
responsibly drive implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1 (``NG9-1-1'')
networks, and ensuring development of the most effective mobile apps
for public safety and emergency response purposes, among other
initiatives. And there are other public safety communications
capabilities that APCO is involved with that also will be impacted by
the IP transition, including priority services, emergency alerting, and
other existing and growing sources of information such as alarms,
sensors, video, and social media.
For the remainder of my testimony, I will offer a few
considerations we believe should be kept in mind as we explore how best
to preserve the needs of the public safety community.
Reliability
Let me begin with reliability, as this was a term wisely included
in the title of today's hearing.
Reliability has a unique importance in public safety--for example,
when else would you want to have a more reliable communications
capability than during a large-scale emergency? This means that
communications networks need to continue to serve the 9-1-1 system, and
the first responder community, in the wake of wide-scale physical
damage, at times without advance warning, and with rapid and sustained
surges in traffic demand.
Over decades, current time-division multiplexing (TDM) copper
networks have been built to a very high reliability level of 99.999
percent. While more capable, and feature rich, IP-based networks may be
less reliable. Thus, the design of IP-based networks should incorporate
a reliable, redundant standard that anticipates real world conditions
such as the ability to handle scalable traffic in emergencies. This
includes supporting the ability of the general public to reach 9-1-1,
the communications between dispatchers and first responders, and the
communications systems supporting emergency operations centers and
first responder agencies. IP-based networks, when properly designed and
implemented, should be both logically and physically redundant.
APCO has been at the forefront of identifying reliable and
redundant standards for advanced communications networks. Most
recently, APCO worked with the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council to develop and deliver to FirstNet a report
on ``public safety grade'' requirements. While these requirements were
designed to provide guidance to FirstNet, many aspects of this report
are equally applicable to, and should be part of, any IP network design
intended for use or interconnection with public safety.
A related matter is service quality. In the IP world, as in
wireless, ``quality of service'' is a key indicator. Thus, IP networks
not only need to be reliable, but deliver the priority and quality of
service required for public safety-related communications.
Also related to reliability is recovery and restoration
particularly in the wake of severe natural or man-made disasters. On
the plus side, IP networks are redundant by design. But as Hurricane
Sandy and other disasters have shown, Mother Nature can defeat even the
best designed networks. And the rollout of IP networks will involve
multiple components serviced by multiple companies, which will require
a new level of coordination and associated procedures to ensure rapid
service restoration. Further, response plans should include appropriate
priority for public safety communications.
Security
As public safety and the industry have already experienced,
security is a critical issue. IP networks present new cyber-security
and related vulnerabilities as compared to the ``closed loop'' legacy
communications infrastructure. IP networks have been compromised by
hackers, and denial of service, spamming, swatting, and other attacks
are even more easily perpetrated on an IP-based system, including 9-1-1
networks. Security also becomes a cascading and increasingly complex
problem to address, since an all-IP environment introduces a new
variety of transport providers, network service providers, and
interconnect players.
Thus, service providers should incorporate security procedures,
failover plans, and mitigation strategies into their network design to
best protect PSAP and other public safety communications.
Power
Copper-based networks are self-powered, whereas IP-based networks
rely on power from the consumer electric grid. Thus, IP-based networks
are more susceptible to power outages. During power outages, telephone
service will not be available unless sufficient backup power is
available. Further, IP networks bring a paradigm shift for the
consumer, as the customer now becomes responsible for maintaining and
ensuring battery back-up. Consider how important it has become for
people to be able to-recharge their mobile devices in the wake of power
outages that accompany emergencies. In this respect, consumer education
will also be key. IP-based network designs need to consider stand-by
power, battery back-up, and other contingency plans for power supply.
Location Information
Today's wireline networks typically provide very dependable and
actionable, or as we say, ``dispatchable'' addresses, such as the
specific street address of a 9-1-1 caller. Of course, this issue is
near to me, as I spoke on the topic of wireless location accuracy in
January before this very subcommittee. As I said back in January, the
prompt and effective dispatch of appropriate emergency services to any
reported event is dependent upon obtaining the best location
information possible from the caller. Further, this essential element
of dispatching must occur regardless of the technology used to access
9-1-1.
As it relates to the IP transition, ensuring that the general
public can reach emergency services in the first place is paramount. At
the same time, new technology permits innovative solutions that can
improve upon existing location technologies. Thus, we encourage active
exploration of how to harness and implement such capabilities from the
start.
Impact on 9-1-1 and Next Generation 9-1-1 Networks
We expect that the transition of the Nation's communications
networks will be an evolution, following a relatively steady process.
But as compared to the transition to NG9-1-1, it will likely occur much
more rapidly. To date, IP and NG9-1-1 transitions in the public safety
community have been partial, and typically on a PSAP-by-PSAP and
carrier-by-carrier basis.
Thus, IP networks will need to interconnect effectively with both
legacy 9-1-1 and Enhanced 9-1-1 networks, as well as new text-to-911
services and future NG9-1-1 networks. Further, service providers will
have to account for the fact that public safety networks will be
provided by a variety of service providers, both private and public. In
addition, IP networks will need to adhere to the two prevailing
standards that are being deployed for NG 9-1-1 services. One is known
as ``i3'' that some PSAPs are deploying today, and the other is IMS (IP
Multimedia Subsystem), which we expect will be the standard used by
many PSAPs as well as by FirstNet.
In the current economic environment, local governments are more
likely to devote scarce resources first to public safety operations
that directly impact both responders and the public (e.g., radios,
squad cars, fire engines, ambulances, and related equipment and
supplies). As a result, legacy PSAPs are likely to remain operational
for some time, and there will be a need to interconnect new IP-based
networks to multiple PSAP types for many years to come. Certainly,
additional funding mechanisms at the national level would support more
rapid adoption of next generation technology at the Nation's PSAPs, and
thus help public safety keep pace with the industry's IP transition.
At the same time, public safety's transition to NG9-1-1 will
present a number of opportunities and synergies with the evolution of
communications networks to IP. Commonalities will include increased
multimedia features, new network redundancy options, standardized
interfaces for improved interoperability and information sharing, and a
broader vendor and service provider ecosystem. APCO has been working
with the industry with all of this in mind, and intends to continue to
pursue ways to collaborate on network design and implementation to
anticipate and meet the needs of the public safety community.
Wireless Options
Finally, let me briefly touch on how the IP transition can lead to
wireless replacements of copper and TDM-based networks. In some early
offerings, service providers offer wireless replacements as an option
to consumers, and in others, a wireless replacement product may be the
only option.
In such cases, we believe that certain steps will be necessary to
preserve existing levels of 9-1-1 service. We support development of
technology that can provide the equivalent of the home address, and
detect when the device has been relocated to ensure the address is
updated. Also, we recommend that the wireless network serving a
wireless-only residence is made as redundant and resilient as possible
to withstand natural or man-made disasters and afford sufficient
network access and capacity.
In sum, we believe that the IP transition holds great promise for
public safety communications, provided that the aforementioned issues
are addressed. In this regard, APCO looks forward to working with this
Subcommittee, and all stakeholders, to help guide the best path
forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Ms. Honorable, let me start with you, if I may, and that is
kind of pick up where Ms. Smith left off there about 911
service.
As we move forward, does it make sense that 911 service is
more of a Federal function or a State function? Specifically,
you know, I think we all recognize how important 911 service
is, what a great success it has been, but as we transition to
IP-based--you know, how should we make sure that our 911
service has the integrity that it has up to this point?
Ms. Honorable. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
The NARUC community believes that it is a proper State
function. I believe the success that we have enjoyed thus far
has been precisely because of the ability of the states to work
very nimbly and with flexibility within their borders to not
only coordinate and have oversight, but also to respond in
emergent situations.
When I think back over the severe weather events that we
have had over the past few years--and we have, indeed, had
many, as many of the members of the Subcommittee have--the
ability of first responders of our State Department of
Emergency Management, of our Governor's office, of the local
and county officials, as well as the State public utility
commissioners, to participate very aggressively with
coordination efforts, even at heightened levels than ever
before, it is imperative that we have the ability to respond
quickly, that we have the ability to oversee 911 efforts
locally because the ultimate goal is safety.
The ultimate goal is public safety and ensuring that we use
every tool to respond as promptly as possible, and the best way
to do so is to ensure that that is occurring at the State
level.
Senator Pryor. Are there any States, though, that have
State laws that would prohibit the State PSE or PUC, whatever
they call it in their State, to do 911 requirements on an IP
system? Are you aware of any?
Ms. Honorable. No, I am not aware. There are certainly
other State prohibitions with regard to telecommunication
services more broadly. As you know, many states have undergone
deregulation. But certainly, the 911 core functions are carried
out at the State and local levels.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Banks, let me ask you, I have a concern
about us going to IP, and some of you all have mentioned this.
I mean, obviously, there is great innovation with it, and there
is a lot of good things with it. I don't want to say it is all
bad because it is not at all.
But we all know and our experience has been that when a lot
of people are on the Internet, sometimes it runs slower, and we
talked about the power, the need for, you know, electricity,
and if electricity goes out, you lose your power. So how do we
resolve that with--how do we resolve that in the 911 world, or
when there are emergencies or some crisis, that too many people
get on the system, and how do we make sure as we go forward
that we don't have that problem?
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
There is always an issue around disasters when networks can
be overloaded, and that can be a wireless network, a
traditional copper network, or another network. I think the
first thing that puts us in a better position for all this than
we were a decade or two ago is that there are multiple networks
throughout the country.
So, in general, people can use their traditional wireline
network. Their neighbor might be on a cable network. There are
four or more wireless networks, and 90-plus percent of
Americans have at least one mobile phone in the home. So there
are these multiple networks people can turn to, and if any one
network gets overloaded, that doesn't mean no one can get
through to 911.
But fundamentally, you are asking a very good question
about designing robustness into these systems, and that--that
is a challenge for our industry, the wireless cable industries,
and the public safety community to work together to make sure
that there are the right number of trunks to PSAPs, that there
are back-ups and overflow systems.
So, you know, this is one of these technological challenges
we are working through with this transition and working through
at DHS, with APCO and the public safety commission, with the
FCC, and you know, we are very focused on that.
Senator Pryor. Senator Wicker?
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Let me ask about the transition between the copper line
networks and IP, fiber. It obviously doesn't all happen at
once. So there is a lag there.
Let me start with Mr. Banks. Substantial geographic areas--
and therefore, substantial numbers of individuals--will be
living in areas that will continue to be served by copper,
which we call TDM, and others will be in the transition to IP
areas. How will providers and your members ensure that these
communities will maintain the ability to communicate with areas
served by all IP networks?
Mr. Banks. Well, thank you.
I think that the customers you are talking about, the TDM
or the old-fashioned copper customers, are all customers of the
members of USTelecom. They are our customers. We have been
serving them for decades. Our companies have every intention of
making sure those people can call whomever they want, and when
people call them, that those calls go through.
So I think the commitment is there. I think there are
occasional unfortunate rural call completion issues that your
question probably touches on. But our members who serve these
people every day are going to make sure that those calls can go
through, for the next--for however long it takes to get through
the IP transition.
Senator Wicker. Do you need any help from--from the
Congress in that regard?
Mr. Banks. There is a substantial effort at the FCC to
understand some of these rural call completion issues going on,
and the FCC is gathering data from across the industry. So I
think--we are very involved in that, in the provision of data,
and I think we need to see the outcome of that FCC
investigation.
Senator Wicker. Let me toss this topic to you, Mr.
Schulzrinne. Are there any novel technical challenges to
maintaining connectivity in this incremental area-by-area
phaseout?
Mr. Schulzrinne. Yes, I believe there are. The challenge is
always when you have an old technology and a new technology.
The danger is that investment in the old technology lags and
that there are complexities that are incurred because you need
to interconnect the old technology to the new technology.
I briefly mentioned the CAMA trunk problem, where even in
areas which are now served by IP, for example, most of the
cable customers are typically on Voice over IP systems, they
still reach PSAPs through these legacy trunks, which are often
capacity limited, that are brittle, poorly maintained in terms
of their vendor support, and very few people still understand
how they operate. So the transition, I believe, in many cases,
if it happens faster across the network, can prevent these
types of interruptions.
For the call completion issues, I do believe there are
opportunities that as we transition to Voice over IP-based
interconnection, as opposed to TDM-based interconnection, that
the number of places where things can go wrong decreases.
Similarly, the Commission has started an effort, as part of
its investigation of telephony numbering, to improve the data
bases, which, at least in some cases, are implicated in making
it difficult to route calls to the correct destinations and
leads to call failures.
Senator Wicker. Ms. Honorable, do our friends at the State
regulatory level have any insights to offer in this regard?
Ms. Honorable. Yes sir, Senator Wicker. Yes, we do, thank
you.
We have been engaged with the FCC, even at the highest
levels. I have personally met with Chairman Wheeler about the
IP transition issue, and I want to applaud the FCC for engaging
the states.
They recognize that we have a significant role to play in
aiding in a smooth transition, and we have been particularly
interested and concerned about doing our part to ensure a
smooth, or smoother, transition. And we hope to watch with
great interest the IP trials, and we have been following and
working with the FCC and its staff to ensure that State
regulators are involved, offering feedback.
Again, the ultimate goal that we share is the same, and it
is to ensure public safety, but also from a regulatory
perspective, ensuring the same tenets we have come to know, the
same quality of service, the same ability for consumers to have
optionality, and for them to have consumer protections as well.
Senator Wicker. Thank you all.
Ms. Honorable. Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Senator Klobuchar?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Pryor, for holding this important hearing.
Senator Wicker, if there is one thing every person is
concerned about, I know from my former job as a prosecutor, is
public safety, and we need to make sure that these new
technologies are functional.
There are many opportunities. You know, firefighters
walking into a building that will maybe be able to see
immediate blueprints or video of what is in there. And you have
Minnesotans who get stranded out on snowmobiles when they break
down, and they are--their only hope is to have some kind of a
GPS system if they are lost. And we have seen some really good
rescues, actually, because of technology, but we know that
there are also challenges.
I am the Chair of the Next Generation 911 Caucus, and I
continue to be an advocate for deploying this community
technology and this modern technology and our efforts. As with
many members of this subcommittee, I have been concerned about
call completion. It is not going to help if people are making
911 calls, if they can't complete them. And this is especially,
as you know, Ms. Smith and Ms. Honorable, is a problem in the
rural areas.
And what I wanted to know from the NARUC perspective, is if
you have been supporting the action by the FCC? As you know,
they just issued a new consent decree, announced yesterday,
with Matrix Telecom, and can you expand on how this issue is of
a concern to public safety if we can't complete the calls?
Ms. Honorable. Senator, thank you for the question.
Thank you for your concern, also we share in that, on both
points that you have mentioned. One, regarding public safety.
And after Hurricane Sandy, NARUC issued a strong resolution,
which calls for heightened coordination, particularly among the
utility and telecommunication sectors.
For some time, we have been operating within our own silos,
but the lesson we have learned from Sandy and the derecho storm
and others is that there is a strong symbiotic relationship
between both the utility sector and telecommunications. They
need one another.
The telecom sector can't do an effective job without the
electric infrastructure, and the electric infrastructure can't
communicate and get the lights back on without a strong
telecommunications effort to restore service once there has
been an interruption. So we have been very active there.
Particularly also on call completion, too, the second issue
that you raised, we have also issued resolutions on call
completion. We commend the FCC's efforts, even yesterday, with
regard to that consent decree.
This is such an important issue. The calls have to go
through because lives are on the line, and we recognize that.
And we are very committed to continuing to raise these issues
and aiding where we can, as State regulators, to making sure
that we see this through because lives depend on it.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
And Senator Fischer has been working with me on that
effort, and I appreciate your help on this as well.
We are starting to see text to 911 services, as I
mentioned, being launched, and someday we may be able to see,
as I mentioned, video to 911 services. Ms. Smith, how do you
view the potential for these innovations, and how will the IP
transition help or hinder these efforts? What is the balancing
act that we need to see to ensure that the new networks have
what they need to provide the services?
Ms. Smith. Well, there is a balancing act, and as Mr.
Wicker mentioned earlier, this is an exciting transition. So,
for me personally, being the police operations manager of a 911
center, it is exciting to see what the future lies ahead, to be
able to have these resources for my responders and to be able
to offer them the information that is needed.
But with the balancing act, there are pros, and there are
concerns. And those concerns or those challenges, as we have
mentioned earlier, come with--you know, we need to have
reliability, and we have to have security. Reliability. We need
to ensure that those systems are up, and in the time of need,
our citizens can call in and reach 911 and get the help that
they need.
But we also need to be aware of the security issues. There
is, you know, cybersecurity to be aware of--TDOS, Telephony
Denial of Service, swatting, spamming, those types of things.
So that our systems aren't taken down, but instead, we know
that they are reliable, that they are there when they are going
to be needed.
Senator Klobuchar. And one last question. When we passed
the Spectrum Act, I included an amendment that would allow
revenue from the incentive auction that wasn't allocated to
FirstNet or paying down the deficit to go to Next Generation
911 upgrades, including the implementation of IP-enabled
emergency services and applications. We expect the auction to
put--take place next year.
I know we hope the auction raises enough revenue to provide
these resources to upgrade our 911 systems, but in the
meantime, what other Federal resources are available to help
PSAPs as they work to keep up with this evolution to IP?
Ms. Smith. I think funding is a very important question,
and I don't have the answer specifically as what other fundings
are available, but I can definitely look into that, and we can
respond back.
But I do--I would like to say that, you know, funding is
important in as much as that, I know my own center, we just
went through where we are now able to connect with IP, and I
know how much we spent, just under $400,000. And with that,
that is just for the equipment only. That doesn't include the
training, the personnel, and the other equipment that is going
to come with it.
Times that by approximately 6,000 PSAPs that are across the
Nation. There is going to be a large cost, and it is very
important that--you know, we understand and we are very
appreciative that those funding sources may come, and will be
coming later, but the same time, we need to have something
immediate in order to ensure that public safety does not lag
behind and that we can keep up with the industry.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Johnson?
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for not being here for all of the testimony,
but Mr. Banks, I am a numbers guy. It looks like your testimony
had more numbers----
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. --so I want to try and define the problem
here. We are talking about transition from, you know, copper to
IP. How much has already been transitioned? I mean, how much do
we have left to go?
Mr. Banks. Well, I would say that if you look across
America's households, about 25 percent still have regular, old-
fashioned POTS, copper-type phone service. I would say the vast
majority of America's businesses have switched to IP-based
systems.
Senator Johnson. Of that 25 percent, though, how much--how
many have easy access to upgrade, to make the transition?
Mr. Banks. Uh----
Senator Johnson. Or is it all, is that 25 percent just a
problem?
Mr. Banks. No, no. So the most--much of that 25 percent
also has a cable system available or, like many households,
could switch to wireless. The upgrade path for those homes to
go to IP is--depends very much on where they are. In some of
the more rural areas, it is a longer term issue.
Senator Johnson. That is what I am trying to find here.
What percentage of people that haven't transitioned is the real
problem? Where we really have to be concerned about, you know,
companies like yours, you have made significant investments,
$671 billion, into--you know, into the infrastructure, but what
percent is really the problem?
Mr. Banks. That is a difficult number to give you, but
having the FCC follow through on the right universal service
reform to ensure that people that have these really old--the
older networks in rural areas, that there is a business case to
upgrade.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Schulzrinne, you look like you want to
jump in here?
Mr. Schulzrinne. I just wanted to comment from a technology
perspective and, as Mr. Banks alluded to, somewhat different
circumstances. So the one is where only TDM is available, and
that is, I think, a relatively small number of places, but they
exist where no robust IP networks exist and, in particular,
where not all rural telecom providers offer Voice over IP
services because that would run over copper.
Senator Johnson. So just give me a percent. Are we talking
about 1 percent? Are we talking 10 percent?
Mr. Schulzrinne. It is hard to pin that down.
Senator Johnson. I am just looking for a ballpark.
Mr. Schulzrinne. Order of magnitude, I would say, it is
probably in the 5 percent-ish range.
Senator Johnson. OK.
Mr. Schulzrinne. But that changes on a year-by-year basis.
Senator Johnson. But again, we are talking about we have
got a 5 percent problem here.
Mr. Schulzrinne. Yes, the problem is, however, also one
where a number of consumers have chosen to retain a landline
because they value the features of a landline. So, indeed, one
carrier has recently offered a 911-only service on a
traditional landline for a relatively modest fee, presumably to
address consumers that want to retain those or that do not want
to subscribe to, say, a cable service.
Senator Johnson. OK, I know there has been some discussion,
I think, action, of course, as to how we are going to actually
regulate broadband. Anybody here on the table really want to
regulate broadband under the telecom rules? Is there anybody?
I mean, guys, I assume nobody wants to do that? Or----
Ms. Griffin. I would say that I think that the values that
underlie the phone network apply just as much as we move to the
next generation of communication services and broadband. I
think that how those rules look may be a little different than
what we have done in the phone network because it is a
different technology, and it operates differently.
But at the end of the day, we still want everybody to have
access to what the basic service is, and as that moves to
broadband, then we need to make sure that we still have rules
that are ensuring everybody has access to that, too.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Griffin, in notes on your testimony,
it sounds like you are not necessarily believing the broadband
companies have an incentive to make sure that, you know, the
majority of the calls go through and that you really think
Government has to--is that--is that your position? Do you
really need Government to force broadband providers to make
sure that their service is excellent?
Ms. Griffin. I think that--we have seen some reports where
there have been failures, like cases in rural call completion,
and the lesson I take there is that even in situations where
there may not be any bad actors, new technologies can create
situations where nobody really has an incentive to absolutely
guarantee that calls go through, and then maybe----
Senator Johnson. Do you think Government can absolutely
guarantee that every call goes through? Do you think Government
really has got a better capability, as opposed to the broadband
carriers themselves, to provide excellent customer service. If
you have a company and you are providing a service, if it
doesn't work very often, don't you think customers are going to
switch to a different company?
Don't you think competition would actually do a far better
job than having the heavy hand of Government try and guarantee
that, which, I don't think it would do?
Ms. Griffin. Well, I think in too many areas, competition
doesn't exist or isn't robust enough to really guarantee that
people are going to have a meaningful choice, particularly,
say, if they are using a heart monitor, and they may be able to
switch to a wireless service, but it wouldn't support the heart
monitor or something like that, or if the new service isn't
affordable.
So I think that the essential promise of the phone network
is that when you make a call, it goes through, and that should
be the goal of the Government is to make sure that we are
fulfilling that promise.
Senator Johnson. Mr.--I am running out of time, but Mr.
Banks, would you just like to respond to Ms. Griffin there?
Mr. Banks. I think that the vast majority of Americans have
multiple choices for how they communicate, and that
interconnection is part of how the whole industry works. So
completing calls is essential to any company being able to sell
voice service, and you see this on the wireline side.
On the wireless side, the Government does not get involved,
telling wireless companies how to connect and not connect. And
interconnection happens in the free market there. There is no
reason to think it wouldn't happen throughout the rest of the
industry.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Senator Ayotte?
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all of you for being here.
I want to follow up on some of the points Senator Johnson
has made. As I understand it, the purpose of the Universal
Service Fund is really to build out capacity--used to be hard
lines, now we are looking at broadband because of what we are
talking about today in terms of an IP transition, which makes
sense, in terms of technology.
I represent a state that gets really shortchanged under
this fund, 37 cents on the dollar, and, I would love to have
any of you drive around New Hampshire with me in the rural
areas, and you can see that we really have significant needs
that aren't being addressed. So I have introduced legislation
to make it more equitable, reform this fund. I want the FCC to
act further, to reform universal service.
But, Mr. Banks, when we are thinking about this percentage
that Senator Johnson asked you about, really what we are
talking about perhaps are rural areas where you are not going
to have the business incentive to build out capacity, and that,
as I understand it, is why we have the Universal Service Fund.
So what are your thoughts, in terms of IP transition, as a way
of more effectively using the Fund, and what opportunities do
you see for rural America with the Universal Service Fund in
this IP transition?
Mr. Banks. Yes.
Senator Ayotte. And please correct me if I am wrong in
terms of what I think the purpose of this fund is in terms of
what we are trying to accomplish here.
Mr. Banks. No, you are absolutely right. The purpose of the
USF fund is to connect Americans. The FCC is engaged in a major
reform of a big part of that fund, the part of the fund for
larger companies, and increasing the funding available to
larger companies to serve people who wouldn't be served
otherwise.
The FCC--that was an FCC 2011 reform order. The FCC is
still working to implement that, to operationalize it.
Hopefully, that will be in place by 2015, and for the larger
companies, funds will flow in a much more targeted way, more
funds to connecting people in census blocks where they have no
options, no other service.
Senator Ayotte. What about the smaller companies as well? I
mean, as we think about----
Mr. Banks. Right.
Senator Ayotte.--this IP transition, how do we think it
will impact competition? I think that is an important issue for
consumers, and also as we look at reform of the USF fund. And
you know, I have heard a lot of concerns, obviously, with this
transition from rural carriers as well.
Mr. Banks. Right. So part two of the USF reform is
reforming the smaller company, the rural company fund. The FCC
made some reforms that were ill advised. To the FCC's credit,
and Chairman Wheeler, he has taken those off the table and is
going to issue a notice of rulemaking to modernize the fund for
rural carriers, just like they modernized the fund for larger
carriers. That is a very big deal and very important to get
that right.
In terms of rural carriers and the IP transition, many
rural carriers have invested heavily in broadband and fiber and
IP. So, in many rural areas, IP services are available. The
right reform of the fund should help a lot with that.
Senator Ayotte. Mr. Schulzrinne, would you like to comment
on this? I am sure you have some thoughts on it.
Mr. Schulzrinne. Yes, let me comment on the technical
aspect. Thank you for the question.
The IP transition, unlike in the old--older days where,
essentially, rural meant you had to extend copper lines to
remote areas, now offers several choices that will make it,
hopefully, possible to cost effectively reach all Americans,
whether that is through fiber, the long-term, probably
preferred option in terms of capability; extending the
capability of copper; fixed wireless; and in really remote
areas, satellite.
It is important to provide robust broadband to all
Americans. It allows modern applications--voice, as well as
video and other applications--to function well. And indeed, to
explore these technologies in new ways of providing broadband--
robust broadband services as part of a reform effort, Mr. Banks
mentioned we are looking at an experiment to provide funding to
both traditional and nontraditional providers to extend
broadband into rural areas.
We have received over 1,000 indications of interest from a
wide variety of organizations--electric utilities, traditional
carriers--communities working well with these organizations to
explore providing robust, mostly fiber, but also robust
wireless services, into areas that are not currently being
served.
So I believe that technology transition gives us additional
opportunity to do that cost effectively and on a schedule which
may be more aggressive than what we have been able to do in the
past, where we had to rely on one technology only.
Senator Ayotte. Well, that actually would be good news for
many rural areas because, as you know, having the ability to
connect can determine the economic viability of rural areas as
well. So I see this as a very important jobs issue.
So, thank you.
Senator Pryor. Senator Nelson?
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. A hurricane approaches, knocks out the
power. Somebody is in dire straits in their home, and they need
to make a 911 call. In the copper wire, that power source is
there. In fiber optic, there has generally got to be a power
source in the house or a battery back-up.
What do we do? Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith. Yes, that is very important. Thank you for the
question.
There is going to be a paradigm. There is going to be the
change. Our consumers, they are used to that. They are used to
just picking up the phone, and it works for them.
And I think a lot is going to have to come back on
education, and that is going to have to be from the industry
and both from the PSAPs ourselves to educate the consumers how
important that back-up power is going to be, whether that be,
as we, in public safety, call our ``plan B,'' meaning that we
have those sources available to us, whether that be supplied
with the equipment, whether I know--I know my equipment well. I
know if it takes an extra battery and how I am going to
recharge that battery.
But, that is so important, again, to bring to their
attention so that they know what the expectation is, and they
know that they could have those challenges ahead of them, so
that they can reach help when they need it.
Senator Nelson. Well, you have got a lot of educating to
do, if it is anything like smoke detectors and the batteries in
the smoke detectors.
Ms. Smith. Well, and absolutely, I realize that. Think
about how stressed you are now when you have your smartphone,
your cell phone, and you see that the battery is getting low,
and you have nowhere to plug it in. Imagine in an emergency,
you need to make that phone call, you need help, and you don't
have the power that is necessary.
So to be able to educate and to put that information out
there, but also to ensure that the industry is creating what is
necessary, whether it be, you know, those battery packs they
are putting into the homes or making those available to the
customer so that they can have those in their time of need.
Senator Nelson. Anybody else?
Mr. Schulzrinne. Let me comment on that from a technology
perspective briefly. The opportunities are that I think
industry is learning, and based on consumer experience I
believe partially that, I think, could help to make that less
onerous than it is for smoke detectors, for example.
First, unlike for smoke detectors, these devices typically
are rechargeable batteries. So, in most cases, they should be
charged up. However, often, the duration that they provide may
be sufficient to bridge short disruption, but not longer
disruption.
I believe, and this is reflected in some of the comments
that our technological advisory council has been offering, is
that there are opportunities, for example, with user
exchangeable batteries. So you can go to the drugstore and pick
up new D cells, for example, and some carriers are starting to
do that.
With standardized connectors, so that you can use, for
example, the backpacks that some people have on their cell
phone to power their own connectivity. And importantly, to
reduce the power consumption of network units. That has two
benefits. It reduces the use of energy during normal times, but
it also allows households to sustain operation, and I believe
it is important to sustain it for both voice and Internet
connectivity for much longer duration than we are currently
able to do.
Senator Nelson. Well, that is a good suggestion from a
technological standpoint. Say, for example, with an elderly
population, the easier that you can make it to recharge those
batteries, for example, what you just suggested, with the kind
of thing that we do with cell phones, that is--that
interconnectability so that a senior citizen knows what to do,
that is a good suggestion.
Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Markey? And I am actually going to turn the gavel
over to you, Senator Nelson, because they need me for a quorum
in another committee. So, thank you.
Senator Markey?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very, very much.
It was just 18 years ago, when the Congress passed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. I was the House author, and not
one home in America had broadband in February of 1996. So,
today, a 12-year old believes that broadband and a 50-inch HD
screen is a constitutional right, huh?
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. That is how quickly it all moved. No two
ways about it. And simultaneously, you know, out of my
committee, we moved the spectrum for the third, fourth, fifth,
and sixth cell phone license. It was all bottled up, just
bottled up, so that a couple of companies, you know, controlled
everything, and you couldn't have a Facebook and eBay and
Amazon or Hulu, YouTube. You couldn't have all these other
issues because they were all bottled up by companies,
competitors that did not want to see that kind of a
competition.
And what we had to do as part of that act was to ensure
that reliability, competition, consumer choice, economic growth
were all a part of this, and a trillion dollars worth of
private sector investment went into the marketplace because of
those couple of laws. Trillion dollars of private sector
investment, because there was more opportunity for people to
get out there with their new ideas, their new products, their
new ways of doing business. But they needed the Government to
set the rules so the private sector could act.
And the principle definition of the Act was that everything
was going to be technology neutral. We weren't going to decide.
The marketplace was going to decide. So we need to make sure
that the system is reliable. We have to make sure that public
safety remains at the core, and we have to make sure that the
phone network works every single time. We learned that again at
the marathon bombing in Boston. We each learned it in each one
of our communities over and over and over again.
Ms. Griffin, what implications on public safety does the
D.C. Circuit's Net Neutrality decision have for the transition
to IP?
Ms. Griffin. Thank you.
That court decision has tremendous implications for the
phone network and the IP transition. One lesson that we can
take from it is that if the FCC has put a service into the
information service box, in terms of its regulatory
classifications, the one thing it can't do is make it act like
the phone network, and that becomes a huge problem when the
service we are talking about is the phone network.
So if we can't--if the FCC can't require carriers to
complete every call and make sure that we have complete
reliability in the phone network without reclassifying these
services as Title II telecommunication services, then that is
what it needs to do to avail itself of the authority it has.
Senator Markey. And I agree with you. Ms. Griffin, the
chairman is from Florida, but how should we evaluate the
results of AT&T's IP trials in Florida and Alabama? What would
a success look like?
Ms. Griffin. I think successful trials would be trials that
have rigorously and objectively collected data that--on a
variety of parameters that is designed to inform us about these
new technologies so we know, for example, what is the impact on
voice quality, what is the impact on reliability? And trials
that do so transparently and continue to protect consumers
throughout the trials so that, even though this is an
experiment and we are learning, we have safeguards to know that
people won't be left behind during the trial.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
And there are concerns that the IP transition will impact
vulnerable populations--including seniors, minorities--
disproportionately, who rely on traditional telephone service.
What steps have to be taken to ensure that the broadband
services and other services are provided to the public,
regardless of age or economic circumstances? Does anyone want
to take that so they can give us an answer as to how we should
do that?
Ms. Honorable. Senator Markey, thank you for the question.
I believe, and certainly, NARUC, the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has been very engaged with
the FCC on this issue, and I believe that a very broad
stakeholder involvement process is critical. It is critical to
make sure that we leave no consumers on the side of the road,
particularly where so many of our states have substantial rural
areas, significant senior populations, significant minority
populations. It takes an ``all hands on deck'' approach, and
NARUC is certainly part of this process going forward.
Senator Markey. And Ms. Griffin, there are--some people say
that because we are moving toward mobile, we really don't have
to keep a lot of the protections on the books from the 1996 Act
for the land-based, you know, wireline services. What are the
potential unintended consequences of removing protections that
were built into the 1996 Act?
Ms. Griffin. Well, I think, first of all, whether it is a
mobile call or a landline call, when someone places a phone
call, they expect it to work, and a lot of times, they are
expecting the exact same guarantees they had on the traditional
copper network, even if they are making the call via a wireless
network. Also, wireless networks rely on wireline networks for
backbone--for their backbone service. So we can't ignore
wireline just because more people have cell phones.
And additionally, 100 million people still have traditional
copper-based service, and 85 million of those people have it in
addition to another type of voice service, usually wireless. I
don't think that is because they like paying two bills. I think
that is because they get protections from the landline service
they don't get elsewhere.
Senator Markey. OK. Do you all agree that we should keep
the protections from the 1996 Act on the books, even as we move
more toward a wireless world? Do you all agree with that? Ms.
Smith?
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Banks. Yes. I think from our perspective, the network--
--
Senator Markey. Ms. Honorable? Mr. Banks?
Mr. Banks.--compact idea that Chairman Wheeler has
articulated is--is something we believe in, and defining those
and figuring out how to best apply them to everybody is a
challenge.
Senator Markey. OK. Thank you all so much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Klobuchar [presiding]. Thank you very much.
I have a few more questions, and then I think we are going
to be joined by Senator Booker.
Our public alert systems are crucial to making sure that
the public is notified of any oncoming danger. In my State, it
is very important because of tornados. We actually have a lot
of tornado touchdowns in Minnesota.
Mr. Schulzrinne--OK, how do you say it again?
Mr. Schulzrinne. Schulzrinne.
Senator Klobuchar. Schulzrinne. OK. It is almost as good as
my name----
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar.--so there we go. How will pubic alert
systems operate in an IP-enabled world?
Mr. Schulzrinne. So public alert systems, currently, we
have essentially a hybrid system between a traditional system,
namely, the Emergency Alert System, that uses radio and
television largely; the wireless system that is limited to very
short messages; and a backbone system, if you like, that is
behind the scenes, namely, IPAWS, that distributes various
messages to both.
I believe that as we move to a mostly IP environment, that
the existing components will continue to be fulfilling a very
vital role, but that we can supplement those. In particular,
the limitations that we have of the wireless emergency alert
system, the short messages may no longer be necessary in an
all-IP environment, and importantly, we can now leverage new
ideas on how to distribute wire--alerts.
For example, since many people no longer watch TV or listen
to radio continuously, they have the opportunity, for example,
to inject alerts into Internet content, be it video streaming
or maybe through advertising networks that might be placing--
that people might be viewing.
So we have to see that as an integrated system that is
available regardless of technology, maintains the legacy
protections and capabilities, because many of those are robust
in large-scale disasters in particular, but also provides much
more precise targeting and much more detailed information.
Finally, it is important to not just think about the first
minute or so of an alert, as important as they are, but also to
think about the whole lifecycle of a disaster. For example,
during Sandy, it was important to inform consumers as to where
could they get gasoline, where could they find grocery stores
that were open, what roads were passable. All of those were
much more readily conveyed by maps and other IP-based
information, and so we need to integrate those longer-term
recovery functions with the important short-term, seek shelter,
immediate response type of capabilities.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you.
We have talked here about how we can see failure with IP
over fiber, particularly during natural disasters, and that
depending on the situation, copper technology can be more
effective. Mr. Banks, what can be done to ensure that people
are able to communicate effectively via IP technology? Do you
think this transition to fiber is the answer?
Mr. Banks. OK. So I think there are a number of things,
like Mr. Schulzrinne has said. There is a lifecycle to this. So
disaster preparedness is important, and there are sites like
Ready.Gov that our industry contributes to that can help people
think through what they need to do first.
Alerting is very important, reliability, and then
restoration. So we have talked a lot about copper and the
advantage it has in powering, which is a significant and
meaningful advantage. But we shouldn't overlook that fiber has
some advantages. Fiber is generally a more reliable technology
and less prone to going out, and in general, fiber is quicker
to restore than copper.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Banks. So when a tree falls over on a power line and a
phone line, if the phone line is fiber, it is quicker to
restore than for copper. So it is a balancing act here, and I
think we recognize that the copper network and the switches
that run it are deteriorating. There aren't people making those
switches. There aren't--there is not a real market for spare
parts. People are retiring----
Senator Klobuchar. Are you aware of the copper theft issue?
Mr. Banks. There is the copper theft issue. Yes. It is very
driven by the market price of copper.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Banks. And so, the movement to fiber is----
Senator Klobuchar. And do you know that Senator Graham and
I have a bill to try to do something about it?
Mr. Banks. Well, we have worked with your staff and Senator
Graham's staff. We are active with a number of State commission
groups. The copper theft problem is a real problem because you
don't know your copper is gone until you pick up the phone and
it doesn't work.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Banks. So I think you are illustrating that disasters--
there is a large range of disasters, and it is hard to balance
all of this.
But the movement to fiber is important, and I think it is
really consumer education. The FCC has a CSRIC group devoted to
studying back-up power best practices and how best to inform
consumers and things. So I do think it is like we need to work
together on doing the education and understanding the benefits
of the transition.
Senator Klobuchar. Of the copper to fiber?
Mr. Banks. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Banks. And reducing copper theft.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Well----
Mr. Banks. We are in favor of that.
Senator Klobuchar.--we really want to get that bill passed
because, as you know, it is not just because telephone lines--
--
Mr. Banks. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar.--it is also about buildings and
infrastructure, and they have broken into a lot of electric
companies.
We have substantial support from every police group, and we
are working with the veterans community because we have seen
thefts from veterans' graves of medals on the graves, 200 in
Isanti County in Minnesota alone. Some just this past week
because of the value of copper, and yet the scrap metal dealers
lobby is stopping the bill----
Mr. Banks. Right, right.
Senator Klobuchar.--on the floor and have put a hold on it,
basically, through Senators. And so, anything you can do to
help, we would appreciate. All it does, as you know, is require
a check be written when it is over $100, the purchase, so that
the police can track down, when they need to, who it is that is
bringing the copper in.
Many states have those rules in place, but a number of
states don't. And so, what people are doing is stealing copper
from whatever source--electric companies, telephone lines,
veterans' graves--and then bringing it to other states that
don't have the rules in place, and it's just an outrage, and
that--the bill won't go through given the widespread support we
have from the business community and others.
So I am just talking about it every single day until people
start to see that this is the kind of bill that is bipartisan,
with Senator Hoeven and Senator Schumer and others, that needs
to get done and that they should stop holding the bill up.
So, thank you. I see that Senator Booker is here, and I am
going to turn it over to him.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you so much, Senator.
First of all, I want to thank you all for being here.
Forgive me for running in late. But I just think this is a
critically important issue that we are discussing, and
actually, Senator, I think your issue is an incredibly
important one. I can tell you stories about copper theft from
my days as a mayor.
You know, Superstorm Sandy actually came into our area, and
folks in New Jersey and New York area are very, very familiar
with it. And the communications networks and problems that I
witnessed firsthand were particularly severe during that time,
and we experienced power outages, and wireless and wireline
services were unavailable due to flooding and other storm
conditions, of which I know you all are very familiar.
As this technology transition moves forward, I just think
it is paramount that we have reliable, consistent access to
these critical safety resources like 911 and others, which,
again, I am sure you all are very familiar with this.
What was made crystal clear in the experiences we saw in my
region, in places like Fire Island, New York, and Mantoloking,
New Jersey, is how technology transitions can pretty
significantly impact consumers in ways that is not always
evident at the outset, and there have been a lot of very strong
feelings about this. And so, I guess the first question would
be, simply, do you agree that there are many instances in which
a copper network must be maintained because IP services do not
meet all the needs of consumers? And that is a really open
question to the panel.
Ms. Griffin. Thank you.
I would say that we need to maintain the protections of the
networks that we have now, as we are figuring out what the new
technologies are and what opportunities we have to make sure
that they are serving the same values as the existing networks
did.
As you mentioned, after Hurricane Sandy in Fire Island and
Mantoloking, New Jersey, Verizon decided to replace its copper
network with a fixed wireless service, and there was an outcry
from everybody because people really cared, and they realized
that this service wasn't as good as what they had on the copper
service. People had heart monitors, security systems, Internet
access that they lost because the fixed wireless service didn't
offer it.
And luckily, the FCC and the State commission there, in New
York at least, were able to step in and protect consumers, and
Verizon is now deploying fiber instead. But we still need to
make sure that consumers know the differences between these
technologies and are prepared for more outages.
Senator Booker. Somebody want to--yes, Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith. Yes, if I may contact--or comment as well?
Public safety's view is that it is so important to maintain,
and I am echoing Ms. Griffin, on exactly what they get now.
They--it needs to be seamless when we move towards this
transition.
But the other thing, as far as public safety is concerned,
is we are excited for the future, and we look to see the
improvements. Anything, the capabilities to improve
communications is so important. But currently, yes, absolutely,
we need to maintain what the expectations are from our
consumers.
Senator Booker. And maintaining that means maintaining the
copper, correct? Or no?
Ms. Smith. If that--if that means maintaining----
Senator Booker. Can you push your button, please?
Ms. Smith. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, if that means maintaining
it at this point, yes. But again, knowing that as the future
approaches, that we need to look at those capabilities and what
we can do to improve.
Senator Booker. OK. Any other thoughts?
Ms. Honorable. Senator, thank you for the question, and
certainly NARUC would concur.
Our core objective is safety and ensuring the safety of the
people that we serve. And to respond to some of the tenets that
you have mentioned in your remarks, coordination of this effort
is important. We have learned so much from Hurricane Sandy.
Our National Association of Utility Commissioners, NARUC,
issued a resolution after Hurricane Sandy, calling for better
coordination, heightened coordination, not only with regard to
mutual assistance and how the utilities have traditionally
worked, what do we do in response to a storm of such a
magnitude as Hurricane Sandy? What are we doing to educate the
public?
And we are--we believe that the--we are technology neutral.
So whatever the platform might be, the consumer comes to expect
a certain level of service, a certain level of quality of
service, certain consumer protections, and we support
continuing that. We also support preparedness efforts,
coordinating among the electric sector, the telecom sector, the
Departments of Emergency Response throughout the country,
county and local officials.
We also, too, want to ensure reliability. That is our core
mission, as economic regulators, ensuring safe, reliable, and
affordable utility service.
Senator Booker. And I guess my response is that we all want
the same--we all have the same ambition and the same goals. My
concern, especially as we get into hurricane season again,
which means that the Gulf Coast and the East Coast could see
another major weather event, is how do we--are we stress
testing?
How are we sure that as we go through this time of
transition, that we don't have more vulnerable communities that
can find themselves--and again, as a guy who was in the
trenches, sort of, with my first responders trying to deal with
this crisis, it really is a difference between life and death.
And so, my worry is, is not that we--that we are not all
affirmatively desirous of the same thing, but what are we doing
to--during this time of transition to ensure that we get the
result that we all want?
Ms. Honorable. Senator, I believe the work that we are
doing is the work we do in advance, the work we do proactively.
In Arkansas, as I am sure it is in New Jersey, we work
proactively around tabletop exercises. I will participate in
one this month, in which we are very focused on continuity of
operations efforts and ramping up the broad range of
potentials.
So it is a hurricane in your part of the country. For us,
it is ice storms and tornados, and any other severe weather
event that might occur, as well as other attacks on the grid or
disruptions to the grid. But we believe that the core effort
has to be proactive.
Senator Booker. No, and I agree. I am sorry to interrupt.
And I had the privilege and pleasure of being in your state
this weekend and surveyed the tornado damage in Mayflower.
I guess, to be even more specific with my question, and
anybody on the panel can pick this up, is that I don't want us
to be doing conversions that are creating problems that we
could be anticipating and that we or that FCC, frankly, could
be helping us to avoid. And so, what happened in Mantoloking
and Fire Island is that we made a technology switch that proved
far less reliable, especially in a crisis. Consumers not only
didn't get what they want, but I felt that they were much more
exposed to a crisis.
And so, I guess what I am saying is that I understand. I
have gone through my--my team has gone through our tabletop
exercises ad nauseam, as you should do when you are in the
field and dealing from an executive position at local
government. But I guess my concern is on this technology
transfer--transition, how do we make sure that we are
avoiding--and if we are seeing that we are creating a situation
that is ripe for a crisis to emerge, how are we not deciding
not to do that or not to do that transition from copper, for
example?
Mr. Schulzrinne. Let me--thank you for the interesting
question. Let me address it from two technical perspectives.
As others have alluded to, in principle, rain and fiber are
a much better combination than water and copper. So, in long
term, I believe, and particularly in flooding-prone areas, the
goal should be that we have a fiber-dominated network simply
because it will continue to function even when flooded.
The other aspect is that as communities plan their utility
infrastructure, considering burial of utilities, particularly
as they transition to fiber, would probably make the
infrastructure much more reliable. So coordinating, and this is
for long term perspective, as we do road repairs and roadwork,
so that utilities, particularly fiber-based utilities, are
planned for--dig-once type of policies, coordination between
communication providers and the local department of public
works--so that conduits are buried, for example, when roads are
opened up.
That, besides opening up new opportunity for higher
bandwidth communication, also, I believe, will facilitate the
deployment of much more robust infrastructure that is not
susceptible to wind damage and is much more resilient when
water comes flooding in.
Senator Booker. OK. All right. And allow me to push
forward, if I can, with one more question, with the permission
of the chair.
One of the things I am concerned about is the penetration
then of those changes, and I agree with the technology shifts.
Ultimately, I think I am in concurrence with what you are
saying. That is the ultimate goal. During a time of transition,
I am worried about holes or gaps.
But if I can go down that way of this idea of the
penetration we are seeing sort of equally applied. You know,
access to technology is, to me, a great democratizing force in
our society. It is powerful in terms of being a ladder for
social and economic mobility.
But there are--right now, there are really significant
discrepancies in the adoption and availability of a lot of
these technologies, such as broadband, in lower income
communities. And so, I am concerned about that these
communities are often the vulnerable populations and that they
are often adversely affected by technology transitions.
And so, the question very simply is, is what can we do--
what should we be doing to ensure that reliable voice and
broadband services are delivered to the public, regardless of
economic background or geography?
Mr. Banks. Well, if I can just jump in a little bit? I
think it is really two questions. One question is the--the
rural question. How can you get these facilities that are very
expensive built in very rural areas? And that the FCC and a
number of states have Universal Service Funds that help get
infrastructure built.
The other question, the adoption question, is really a
question that there has been a lot of study of, whether it is
at NTIA, at FCC, states, Pew, many places. And there seems to
be a real consensus that there are a couple of barriers to
adoption. One is, you know, having a computer or a smartphone.
Does a family have one of those?
Education is important. There are, for whatever reason, a
chunk of Americans who believe the Internet does not offer
value to them. And, you know, an education effort with them is
important.
There are a lot of programs for adoption. The FCC is
considering helping to fund or create an E-Rate program for
broadband adoption. So there is a lot going on that recognizes
what you are illustrating, that there is an adoption issue in
America.
Senator Booker. And so, you are saying that the research is
showing that the issue, some of it has to do with the end
user's lack of appreciation or access to some of the--to
laptops or to smartphones. But then--but some of your answer
indicates that it is on us as well, that we are not getting it
to the end user in the way that we could be?
Mr. Banks. Certainly in rural areas it is a challenge to
build networks where there are very, very few people, and that
is where the availability gap would be.
Senator Booker. And is the shortfall--and again, I am just
looking for action steps to address this, and there are a lot
of conversations I am having with folks that are trying to make
cheap laptops available for students, and really exciting
things going on. But on the getting the technology to that end
user, give me your sort of unbiased appreciation of the
Universal Service Funds. Do we have the resources necessary to
take on that end of the issue, and if not, what would--what is
a more realistic approach?
Mr. Banks. Well, the FCC is in the middle of reforming the
USF fund to make it more efficient and more focused. So I think
if they can get that operationalized and in the field, we will
really be able to see if there is enough money in that fund.
There is about $4.5 billion in the high-cost fund that is
devoted to expanding availability.
Senator Booker. And can you just for a Senator that is sort
of new, can you tell me what some of the issues that you are
working on to make that fund more efficient?
Mr. Banks. How best to target funding. How best to identify
areas that really need the funding, versus areas that can get
by without it. The current fund is sort of an old fund that
allocates money in kind of unusual ways. This is a much more
modern, targeted fund with a cost model to focus the money.
Senator Booker. Unusual ways. That sounds like a euphemism.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Banks. Well, the old fund sort of was built on a series
of implicit subsidies that were not well quantified, and in the
funds itself, particularly for the larger carriers, was based
on statewide averaging, so that you could have a state with
dense areas that, on average, would seem like it didn't need
funding, although there could be parts of the state that could
be very rural that did need funding.
So we are trying to target the funding much more accurately
now.
Senator Booker. OK. I am grateful. Thank you very much.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, very good.
Well, I want to thank our witnesses and thank Senator Pryor
for holding this hearing, and Senator Wicker.
And we will keep the record open for 2 weeks for questions.
It was a really interesting discussion with a lot more work to
do.
And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you to our witnesses.
[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Henning Schulzrinne
Question 1. What measures are being taken by the FCC to protect
consumers who use services such as alarms, health monitoring, and other
personal emergency response services as the IP transition is taking
place, as well as after the transition?
Answer. There are three separate technical issues that affect the
services you describe during the transition, depending on the nature of
the services and the transition. These issues are, in part, raised in a
recent FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (FCC 14-185 \1\). The
three main technical concerns are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-consumer-competition-911-
safeguards-tech-transitions-1
Transition from landline to wireless-only: If carriers cease to
offer landline residential voice services, services that rely
on either voice-data (modem) or DSL may not be able to continue
to function. This issue arose when Verizon announced plans,
later abandoned, to offer only 3G wireless service to residents
of Fire Island, New York, after Hurricane Sandy had severely
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
damaged the island's wireline infrastructure.
Analog terminal adapter incompatibility: Devices that rely on
voice modem services for low-speed data may not function
properly with some analog terminal adapters (ATAs) that are
used to connect in-home devices to landline VoIP networks. Such
adapters are typically built into cable modems. There is
currently no interoperability testing mechanisms or
certifications for such devices, so that making modem-based
devices work with such systems is a trial-and-error process.
The FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has raised this
issue recently; the Commission intends to follow up to
encourage industry standards and interoperability
organizations, such as ATIS, TIA or CableLabs, to take on this
challenge.
Battery backup: If commercial power fails, alarm systems, even
those with their own backup power, will only function if the ATA and
cable or DSL modems provide backup power. The NPRM cited above asks how
consumers can best be protected against such outages, e.g., by allowing
use of standard consumer batteries or USB power packs instead of
special-purpose lead acid batteries. (Currently, some cable and DSL
modems with ATA functionality include battery backup functionality. The
duration of coverage varies, but is typically eight hours.)
Each of these issues requires a different approach. Some alarm
systems, for example, can use cellular data services, but this may not
work where cellular coverage is unavailable or the signal is too weak
for indoor coverage. In roughly 85 percent of the country, consumers
may be able to switch to a VoIP service offered by the local cable
company if the incumbent LEC no longer offers landline voice. The table
below summarizes which of the two main technology transition options
may cause the issues noted above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition Low-speed data ATA compatibility Power backup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landline-to-fiber available 3 3
Landline-to-cellular may not be available 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1a. Additionally, how is the FCC working with network
operators and others to promote functionality of these services on
fiber optic networks just as they have on traditional copper networks?
Answer. As noted above, two separate technical problems need to be
addressed, namely the ability to use low-speed data over voice channels
and the power backup problem. The NPRM asks how to best solve the power
backup problem. For many networks, ATAs appear to work well with low-
speed data services such as alarms, but we have no good estimate on
whether problems are indeed isolated or more common. I believe that the
technology transition trials will provide quantitative evidence and
opportunities to assess the best approach. I encourage alarm equipment
vendors to work with carriers and ATA vendors to improve
interoperability through industry standards bodies.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Henning Schulzrinne
Question 1. Because most alarm systems currently depend on
traditional telephone services, as we move to IP-networks, it is
important that we consider compatibility issues and the implications
for homeowners and businesses reliant on alarm systems for safety. I am
concerned that consumers moving to IP networks will unknowingly
disconnect their alarm systems and leave their homes and businesses
vulnerable. How will IP providers work with consumers to avoid
instances of unintentional system disruptions and ensure a smooth IP
transition that does not compromise safety?
Answer. Please see the response to Chairman Pryor's question for
general background. There are three kinds of IP (or VoIP) providers:
(1) ILECs that transition from landline service to VoIP (e.g., Verizon
FiOS Digital Voice in New Jersey); (2) cable companies that offer voice
services; and (3) over-the-top VoIP companies.
The NPRM includes proposals to update rules protecting consumers
faced with network changes and discontinuance of service as the
transition moves forward. Ensuring consumers have the information they
need to make informed decisions is one of the top goals of the NPRM.
Question 2. Alarm systems connected via traditional telephone
service have line seizure capabilities that enable the systems to
communicate with monitoring stations in the event of an emergency and
allow for the timely dispatch of emergency services. What are the line
seizure capabilities of VoIP networks?
Answer. There are two cases: In the most common case, the
residential VoIP connection simply connects to the inside analog phone
wiring. In that case, assuming proper installation, the alarm system
still retains the same line seizure capabilities as before.\2\ Some
over-the-top residential interconnected VoIP services may connect
directly to a cordless or corded phone, or use a software phone. In
those cases, the alarm system would have no access to the phone service
at all. Many commercial (e.g., small business) VoIP systems have IP-
based end systems that connect to the VoIP system (PBX) via Ethernet.
In that case, having a separate device that connects only to the alarm
system would be advisable, as VoIP PBX can easily place multiple
simultaneous calls for the same number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In standard residential landline alarm systems, the outside
phone line is connected to a special jack (``RJ31X'') for the alarm
system, which in turn connects to the phone jacks in the home. Since
the special jack is first in line, the alarm system can disconnect
other phones in the home and seize the line if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Jonathan Banks
Question. Some features that work for the traditional network based
phone services (such as alarm signaling) may no longer work once the IP
Transition is complete. How are your member companies working with
consumers to ensure they are well informed about the functionality of
these services over IP-based networks?
Answer. In most cases, customers will gain functionality rather
than losing it when they migrate to IP-based services. A fully IP-based
network provides a more efficient platform than traditional
communications networks, and one that is far more flexible for
innovation in services and how they are provided to customers. As a
general rule, customers can continue to use fax machines, medical
monitoring devices, home alarms, and accessibility services in a manner
similar to what they experienced with traditional TDM service. For
example, millions of customers across the country are currently using
alarm systems with IP-based services.
Our industry is working to ensure a smooth transition to fully IP-
based networks and services in several ways. Customers are informed of
the functionality of their services during the ordering and
provisioning process. Customers receive detailed information about
those changes during initial contacts with a company's representatives
and again at the time of installation. Technicians are trained to work
through issues related to services that may require special handling
(e.g., home alarm systems) during installations. Information is also
generally provided on a company's website or in a product guide. AT&T,
as part of the wire center trials that it is conducting in Florida and
Alabama, has begun a special community outreach effort to educate
consumers about the IP Transition and any changes that may come about
as older technologies are replaced with newer IP-based technologies.
In addition, our industry is working with standards bodies to
address a range of potential public safety issues raised as we
transition to more modern IP-based networks. For example, the Alliance
for Telecommunications Industry Solutions announced in June of this
year the formation of the IP-Transition of Public Safety Related
Applications Task Force. The press release announcing the formation of
the task force notes that ``the task force will work with a broad array
of industry associations to analyze the issues central to transitioning
critical public safety communications infrastructure to All-IP
technologies. Based on its findings, the Task Force will make targeted
recommendations to both public safety and industrial associations and
state and local regulators. It will also engage in outreach and
education efforts to the professionals who manage critical circuits to
increase their understanding of and confidence in the evolution to next
generation communications.
Our industry is committed to ensuring that the transition to more
modern communications networks protects public safety and supports the
services that consumers want and value.
[all]