<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:30555.wais]
S. HRG. 109-690
9-1-1 AND VoIP
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-555 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Hon. Conrad Burns, U.S. Senator from Montana 1
Statement of David Jones, President, National Emergency Number
Association (NENA)............................................. 3
Statement of Jeffrey Citron, Chairman and CEO, Vonage............ 10
Statement of Wanda McCarley, President-Elect of the Association
of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO). 13
Statement of Greg Rohde, Executive Director, E-911 Institute..... 16
Statement of George Heinrichs, President and CEO, Intrado........ 22
Statement of Janet Kelly, Director, Department of Administration,
State of Montana............................................... 29
Statement of Jeremy Ferkin, General Manager, CenturyTel, Inc..... 32
Statement of William Squires, Sr. Vice President and General
Counsel, Blackfoot Telecommunications Group.................... 36
Statement of Greg Jergeson, Chairman, Public Service Commission
of Montana..................................................... 39
9-1-1 AND VoIP
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation,
Great Falls, MT.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m. at the
Great Falls Civic Center, Hon. Conrad Burns, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. We'll call the Committee to order, and this
is a Committee of one today, I see. If I've got the vote, we'll
go ahead and pass this bill, and let's do away with the
hearings.
But we want to welcome you all to this field hearing on
Voice Over IP and E-911. We thank you for coming today. It's
nice to have this, and a lot of our friends to be welcome to
the Big Sky Country. This is really the last best place, and we
don't need anyone out here in the state to tell us so, or
should we try to control our words and the way we feel about
Montana. I think I might need to place a call to the Copyright
Office once I go back to Washington, however. We're arguing
over, ``The last best place.'' I don't think it's going to go
inside the beltway.
It's not often that we get to do official business, Senate
business here in Montana, but when we do, I'm always glad to
welcome folks from around the state to take part. I find the
people have a lot more sense outside the beltway, and
Washington D.C. continues to be one of the logic-free zones of
the country. So I welcome all of the people from Great Falls
and around the state who are here today, and I'd also like to
thank the city of Great Falls for making this great facility
available to us today for this hearing.
Today's hearing is on a subject near and dear to me,
emergency communication systems to first responders, making
sure that they have access to the latest technologies that they
need: 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 system in Voice Over Internet
Protocol Services. We call that VoIP, Voice Over Internet.
That's quite a mouthful in itself. But it only describes
the latest challenge in what is truly a simple and necessary
matter of public policy, that our Nation's communications
infrastructure, as it moves forward with technological change
and new business models, must incorporate universal access to
9-1-1 and emergency services as it does.
A few years ago, with this important goal in mind, we set
up the Congressional E-911 Caucus, which takes a leading role
in identifying issues of pressing concern to public safety and
the community, and helping us in Congress to understand what
needs to be done, and what should be done to ensure that the 9-
1-1 system is up to date, and responsive as it needs to be.
New technologies such as Voice Over IP are beneficial to
telecom carriers, businesses, and consumers alike. My
philosophy is that we should not do anything in Congress that
would harm or impede the deployment of beneficial technologies.
But at the same time, it is clearly in the public interest
for the Nation's emergency response infrastructure, including
over 6,000 Public Safety Access Points, or PSAPs as we call
them, to be included in the technological advances. And
although they clearly understand the need to move forward, the
PSAPs do not always have the resources or incentives to move
quite as quickly as the private sector does. I think we in
Congress can help all the affected stakeholders to achieve that
common goal.
With that in mind, we worked on the ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act,
which the President signed into law last December, that will
provide matching grants to PSAPs that upgrade their system to
receive enhanced 9-1-1 data from mobile phones, which is the
location and the number of the caller, so that first responders
can get to them the same way they get to the addresses of the
landline callers, or the hard wire, as we call them. I hope to
get full funding for that program this year.
But today we are here to talk about VoIP, and its services,
what the best way might be for them to include 9-1-1 and E-911
in their services. Voice Over Internet Protocol services are
growing dramatically. There are currently over three million
Voice Over IP subscribers in the United States, with over 25
million expected in the next five years. I hope we're closer to
that number than when we estimated cell phone users in 2000
when we passed the 1996 Act.
But we know that those services are minimally intrusive for
providers and ensure subscribers that they have access to 9-1-1
service as they expect when they dial their phone.
It's important that we move quickly. There are a few well
publicized cases of people actually dying earlier this year
when they dialed 9-1-1 from a VoIP phone, and could not get
through to 9-1-1 call centers. That kind of thing is shocking.
It is also unacceptable.
With these stories in mind, last May the FCC issued an
order making 9-1-1 and E-911 mandatory for VoIP providers, and
requiring that incumbent Bell providers make access to the 9-1-
1 infrastructure available to those companies.
In Congress on the same day, we introduced bills in the
House and the Senate to do basically the same thing. I'm the
sponsor of the Senate bill, and would like to thank my fellow
Senators, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Hillary Clinton of New
York, both Democrats, for their leadership as well on this
issue. Public safety is not a partisan issue, and I'm proud to
work across the aisle with Democrats if it will help save lives
of Americans all across this country.
I understand Senator Nelson has inserted a statement in the
record, and we're going to accept that by unanimous consent. So
ordered. But being as he couldn't be here today, and there's
good reason for that. So I would like to make note of that.
So I look forward to hearing testimony today on the state
of 9-1-1 and VoIP services in general, the FCC order, and the
bill that we will have before the Senate. I hope each one of
you is going to tell us what the FCC order does right, and what
it does wrong, and how the bill might be improved to fix some
of the things that are especially difficult for companies to
do.
I know you won't be shy in telling me what the problems
are, but you should also be aware that this is a problem which
we need to fix, and fix it very soon. So I look to you for your
expertise in how we accomplish this great job.
Now, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the
table today our witnesses, and then we will start the dialogue.
First of all, we have David Jones, president of NENA--and thank
you, David, for your kind words today--Jerry Citron of Vonage,
co-founder, and Chairman, and CEO; Wanda McCarley, APCO; and
Greg Rohde, of course, you heard from today on E-911; and
George Henry, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Intrado. So we
welcome all of these folks. And David, we'll start off with
you. Thank you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF DAVID JONES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER
ASSOCIATION (NENA)
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator Burns. Thank you for
providing me the opportunity to appear before you today. Again,
my name is David Jones, and I currently serve Spartanburg,
South Carolina as the Director of Emergency Services. I'm also
the President of the National Emergency Number Association, an
organization consisting of more than 7,000 members in 46
chapters across the U.S. and Canada. Additionally, I serve as
the Vice Chair of the Federal Communications Commission's
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee representing the interests
of local government and public safety.
Senator, I applaud your leadership, as well as that of your
colleagues and staff, in bringing the 9-1-1 community to the
table for these vital discussions about the future of public
safety communications. The 9-1-1 community has known no greater
friend than you, Senator, and we sincerely thank you for your
continued leadership that you have provided on 9-1-1 issues
over the years.
I'm here today to testify in support of the IP-Enabled
Voice Communications in Public Safety Act of 2005. We applaud
the recent actions taken by the FCC in adopting its order on E-
911 requirements for IP enabled service providers, but NENA
believes Congressional action in this area is needed as well.
As legislation to update our communications law is drafted,
NENA encourages Congress to include provisions that address
critical 9-1-1 and public safety concerns. The IP Enabled Voice
Communications and Public Safety Act provides a foundation for
such action.
As 9-1-1 in emergency communications continues to advance,
it is critical that communications regulation evolve in a
parallel fashion, and is flexible enough to accommodate future
advancements that have yet to be considered. Today IP is where
we were with wireless some ten years ago, and industry and
technology are advancing at a rapid rate with unlimited
promise, facing the challenge, and regulatory requirement to
provide E-911 to all customers.
Even today, though, after more than ten years of discussion
and debate, wireless E-911 is available in less than 50 percent
of the PSAPs in the U.S. We must not allow history to repeat
itself with Voice Over IP.
Last June I testified before this Committee supporting the
need for targeted Federal regulation for E-911 and VoIP,
suggesting that this would most appropriately be handled by the
FCC. Since then, the Commission has acted, and we applaud their
leadership. Now we must work together at all levels of
government and with industry to plan for a nationally
standardized and coordinated approach to deployment of Voice
Over IP E-911.
Too often in the past we have tried to draft new laws and
regulations for 9-1-1 requirements for innovative technologies
as they are introduced, including wireless VoIP. In recognition
of this issue earlier this month, NENA joined APCO and several
other groups in a letter asking Congress to include a clear
statement on the jurisdiction of the FCC to establish rules
requiring providers of interconnected voice telecommunications
services to provide their customers with E-911 capabilities.
We certainly agree that this is an important topic to
consider, given today's 9-1-1 system, but NENA asks Congress to
go a step further. NENA believes that regardless of the service
classification, telecommunications information, or otherwise,
if a service provides a communications capability, in which a
customer can reasonably expect to be able to reach a public
safety answering point when dialing 9-1-1, whenever the PSTN,
an IP network, or some other yet to be identified path, the FCC
should have the clear regulatory authority to address the 9-1-1
aspects of these services.
This is not to suggest that the FCC should enact regulation
to cover all potential service types, but the FCC should have
sufficient authority if regulation is deemed necessary.
Congress does not have to continually go back and update laws
based on every new communications technology or service that
need 9-1-1 access.
Therefore, we support the provisions in the IP-Enabled
Voice Communication and Public Safety Act that authorizes the
FCC to regulate in the area of IP-enabled voice communications,
but we ask Congress to extend that authority to any service
that provides a communications capability in which a customer
can reasonably expect to reach a PSAP when dialing 9-1-1.
Funding for IP-enabled 9-1-1 services in the development of
the next generation 9-1-1 systems is perhaps most important
issue of 9-1-1 today. The public safety community is extremely
concerned by the need and growing impact of VoIP on the loss of
conventional service fees and surcharge revenue, and the
uncertainties of any requirement to replace that critical
operational funding stream in the VoIP environment.
Thus, in addition to establishing clear FCC regulatory
authority, it is essential that Congress do nothing to
compromise state and local authority to impose and collect 9-1-
1 fees on all services where a customer has a reasonable
expectation of being connected to 9-1-1, again, regardless of
the type of technology. As technology evolves, the
classification of service or technology type should not have an
effect on the ability of state and local government to address
those issues.
Congress should also consider ways to facilitate state and
local funding of critical 9-1-1 emergency communications
systems. Last year Congress effectively acted in this regard by
passing the ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act of 2004, and authorizing up to
$250 million per year in grants for 9-1-1 system upgrades.
However to date, no monies have been appropriated to fund such
a grant. NENA implores Congress to fund the ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act
of 2004. The continued success and sustainability of our 9-1-1
system will greatly benefit from such action.
The IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Safety Act of 2005
requires each entity with ownership or control of a 9-1-1
infrastructure, known commonly as 9-1-1 system service
providers, to provide requesting IP-enabled service providers
access to the equipment, databases, network, and other
necessary capabilities on a non-discriminatory basis. The bill
also provides immunity from liability to the same extent as
provided to local telephone exchange companies for providers of
IP-enabled 9-1-1 service.
Additionally, the bill provides liability protection to the
users of such services, as well as liability protection for
PSAPs to the same extent they currently have for non-IP-enabled
service.
On the issue of liability parity, the bill mirrors the
language granted to wireless carriers, users of wireless
service, and PSAPs that is contained in the Wireless
Communications Act of 1999.
It is important to note that the Wireless Act of 1999 was
passed before the widespread deployment of Phase I and II, an
action that was deemed critical and applauded by both the 9-1-1
community and industry.
NENA believes it is also important to have liability parity
for IP-enabled services enacted into the law before the quickly
approaching 120-day VoIP E-911 deadline of November 28th.
Past experience in the deployment of E-911 has shown that a
lack of legal clarity on important topics, such as liability
parity and nondiscriminatory access to E-911 capability, can
lead to a delay in the provision of E-911 service.
Therefore, NENA wholeheartedly supports the provisions, as
we believe they are essential to ensure the timely deployment
of E-911 for IP-enabled services.
Finally, NENA believes that planning now for the future 9-
1-1 system is of paramount importance, and fully supports
Section 3 of the IP-Enabled Voice Communications Act. We hope
the telecom reform will be done this year, and include the
important 9-1-1 provision identified in my testimony.
However, past experience has shown this type of reform can
become bogged down in negotiations, and take longer than
expected to complete. Should this happen, NENA believes it is
very important that the 9-1-1 provisions discussed here be
included in the stand-alone bill, such as a slightly modified
version of the IP-Enabled Voice Communication Act, and
considered by Congress before the session ends this year.
To conclude, NENA fully supports each of the provisions in
this act as they pertain to VoIP 9-1-1, but asks Congress to
broaden the scope of the bill to include any service that
provides communications capability in which a customer can
reasonably expect to reach a PSAP when dialing 9-1-1. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of David F. Jones, President, National Emergency
Number Association (NENA)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you very much for
providing me the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is
David Jones and I'm a nationally certified Emergency Number
Professional (ENP), serving Spartanburg County, South Carolina as the
Director of Emergency Services.
I'm also the President of the National Emergency Number Association
(NENA), an organization consisting of more than 7,000 members in 46
chapters across the U.S. and Canada representing public officials,
fire, EMS, law enforcement, equipment and service providing vendors of
the 9-1-1 community. Additionally, I serve as the Vice Chair of the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Intergovernmental Advisory
Committee (IAC), representing the interests of local government and
public safety. I am also a longtime member of the Association for
Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) International.
Today I appear before the Committee on behalf of NENA, but also
standing on the shoulders of the thousands of 9-1-1 professionals in
America who work tirelessly to help those people who dial 9-1-1 in
times of need. Admirable colleagues, like those on my team in
Spartanburg, who continue to find ways to get the job done regardless
of the technical obstacles or challenges of modern communications in
our Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). National leadership, like
that of Senators Burns and Clinton, as well as Representatives Shimkus
and Eshoo, co-chairs of the Congressional E-911 Caucus. I thank all of
you for your tireless work to make our 9-1-1 system work like it
should.
Opening Comments
Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership, as well as that of your
colleagues and staff in bringing the 9-1-1 community to the table for
these vital discussions about the future of public safety
communications. The 9-1-1 Community has known no greater friend than
Senator Conrad Burns. I sincerely thank you for the continued
leadership you have provided on 9-1-1 issues over the years. NENA
represents the national 9-1-1 community as the ``Voice of 9-1-1'', but
if there is truly one voice of 9-1-1 in the halls of Congress, surely
it is Senator Conrad Burns.
In the late 1990's, Senator Burns led an effort to recognize `9-1-
1' as the universal number for emergency calling and to ensure the
deployment of wireless E-911. Enacted by Congress, ``The Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999'' is our foundation for
greater 9-1-1 policy goals.
Building off of the success of that legislation, Senator Burns
helped found the E-911 Caucus, along with fellow co-chairs Senator
Hillary Clinton, Congressman John Shimkus and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo,
a group whose leadership on 9-1-1 issues has been unparalleled. Most
recently Senator Burns, along with the other E-911 Caucus co-chairs,
successfully led the charge to pass the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004. Signed
into law by President Bush on December 23, 2004, the ENHANCE 911 Act
authorized the creation of a national 9-1-1 Implementation and
Coordination (ICO) office and up to $250 million per year for grants to
upgrade enhanced emergency communications services. This was monumental
legislation for 9-1-1 and I thank Senator Burns and the E-911 Caucus
co-chairs for their efforts this year to secure an appropriation to
fund the provisions in that law.
Thank you Senator Burns, and fellow E-911 Caucus co-chairs, for
your continued leadership and support of 9-1-1.
I am here today to testify in support of the IP-Enabled Voice
Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005. We applaud the recent
actions taken by the FCC in adopting its Order on E-911 requirements
for IP-enabled service providers, but NENA believes Congressional
action in this area is needed as well. We appreciate the need to enact
communications legislation that encourages innovation and the
widespread deployment of broadband service which we believe will not
only provide benefits to the general public, but will also have an
enormous positive impact on public safety communications. As
legislation to update our communications laws is drafted, NENA
encourages Congress to include provisions that address critical
9-1-1 and public safety concerns focusing on today's needs and taking
into consideration the progression towards the next generation 9-1-1
and emergency services system. The IP-Enabled Voice Communications and
Public Safety Act provides a foundation for such action.
In my statement today, I will refer to our vision, our needs and
respectfully make recommendations to improve the legislation before the
Committee, emphasizing fundamental points for NENA, 9-1-1 and IP-
enabled services.
The Changing Landscape of 9-1-1
Since its inception, the 9-1-1 system has been THE first responder
in times of individual and mass emergencies. Every day, Americans call
9-1-1 at the time of their greatest need. Today we are averaging over
200 million 9-1-1 calls per year. Ninety-six percent of the Nation's
geography is covered by at least some basic
9-1-1; ninety-nine percent of the American public has access to 9-1-1.
For the caller and the public, the successful completion of a 9-1-1
call can mean the difference between danger and security, injury and
recovery, or life and death. The ability to call for help in times of
an emergency is not `voluntary'--it's mandatory.
Yet the advancement of communications and network technology is
quickly blurring the lines of familiarity in the world of emergency
communications and 9-1-1. No longer can we discuss 9-1-1 solely in the
context of the public switch telephone network (PSTN). No longer can we
discuss the routing of 9-1-1 calls as being dependent on the use of the
existing analog, circuit switched telephone network. In fact, just last
week NENA introduced for public comment its first ever VoIP 9-1-1
standard. NENA started with ``One nation--One number'', and now we add,
``any device, from anywhere, at anytime.'' As 9-1-1 and emergency
communications continue to advance, it is critical that communications
regulation evolves in a parallel fashion and is flexible enough to
accommodate future advancements that have yet to be considered.
Truly the future is happening now. Already, over fifty million
Americans are using some form of broadband Internet access offering
exciting new communications possibilities. Voice over IP is coming. In
many places it's already here. IP-enabled services are dynamic,
competitive, innovative and most of all, an opportunity to improve all
of our communications systems. Better, faster, cheaper technology and
communications service is vital to American consumers and business, but
it may prove even more vital for our public safety and security.
With our excitement for IP-enabled services comes some trepidation.
Today, IP is where we were with wireless ten years ago; an industry and
technology advancing at a rapid rate with unlimited promise facing the
challenge, and regulatory requirement, to provide E-911 to all
customers. Even today, after more than ten years of discussion and
debate, wireless E-911 is available in less than fifty percent of the
PSAPs in the United States. We must not allow history to repeat itself
with VoIP. It is critical that all parties, public and private, come
together in the spirit of cooperation, collaboration and good faith, to
plan a national deployment for VoIP. To make this happen will require a
good deal of leadership at all levels of government, starting with the
United States Congress.
National Plan for 9-1-1 and IP-Enabled Communications Services
Last June I testified before this Committee supporting the need for
targeted Federal regulation for E-911 and VoIP, suggesting that this
would most appropriately be handled by the FCC. Since then the
Commission has acted and we applaud their leadership. Now we must work
together at all levels of government and with industry to plan for a
nationally standardized and coordinated approach to the deployment of
VoIP E-911.
To be effective and meaningful, E-911 must be included in a wide
range of VoIP and IP-enabled products and services. This includes both
voice and data, whether serving a fixed location, or nomadic locations
that may change from day to day, or operating wirelessly in a much
greater area over Wi-Fi or Wi-Max networks for example. Each of these
service types offers different challenges.
The technical development of 9-1-1 must be convergent with its
policy direction. Today's regulations for 9-1-1 are fragmented,
consisting of a jurisdictional patchwork of rules for various types of
communications, providers and stakeholders Wireline issues are
regulated by states. Wireless issues are regulated by the FCC. 9-1-1
public safety answering points are often local. Consumer expectations
are national. VoIP can be international.
9-1-1 needs to be treated as an integrated public safety service,
part of a larger whole for our safety and national security. This
concept has been recently tested with the deployment of wireless E-911.
Through this process, we've learned some important lessons in
implementing new technologies with E-911 systems: (1) E-911 must be
treated as an inter-dependent overall system; (2) coordination is very
important; (3) Federal leadership is necessary for national
implementation and resolution of issues.
In our experience, voluntary consensus development, within
reasonable timeframes, of requirements and rules for technology and
service integration provides the best results. To enable a coordinated
national deployment of VoIP it is very important that Congress and the
FCC provide directive influence to encourage the development of
national standards and require the early adoption of recognized
national standards when they become available. Federal rules and
regulations should provide reasonable guidelines to enable a path
forward but should allow the appropriate standards processes to
determine the specific methodologies to meet such guidelines. In doing
so, the FCC and Congress will contribute needed leadership toward the
facilitation of a nationally-coordinated effort in delivering IP-
enabled E-911 service.
NENA strongly encourages both the FCC and Congress to work closely
with the joint NHTSA/NTIA national 9-1-1 Implementation and
Coordination Office once established. We believe the ICO should manage
all 9-1-1 specific functions at the Federal level. The ICO is uniquely
positioned to coordinate and provide guidance to multiple ongoing 9-1-1
efforts at the national, state and local level. This will ensure that
individual efforts are not occurring in a void and are not duplicated
or at cross purposes.
Regulatory Authority
Too often in the past we have tried to draft new laws and
regulations for E-911 requirements for innovative technologies as they
are introduced, including wireless and VoIP. Recognizing this issue,
earlier this month NENA joined APCO and several other groups in a
letter asking Congress to include a clear statement in any telecom
reform language on the jurisdiction of the FCC to establish rules
requiring providers of interconnected voice telecommunications services
to provide their customers with E-911 capabilities.
We certainly agree that this is an important topic to consider
given today's 9-1-1 system, but NENA asks Congress to go a step
further. NENA believes that regardless of the service classification--
telecommunications, information or otherwise--if a service provides a
communications capability in which a customer can reasonably expect to
be able to reach a PSAP when dialing 9-1-1, whether over the PSTN, an
IP network or some other yet to be identified path, the FCC should have
the clear regulatory authority to address the 9-1-1 aspects of those
services.
This is not to suggest that the FCC should enact regulations to
cover all potential service types, but the FCC should have sufficient
authority so that if regulation is deemed necessary, Congress does not
have to continually go back and update laws based on every new
communications technology or service needing 9-1-1 access. Therefore we
support the provision in the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public
Safety Act that authorizes the FCC to regulate in the area of IP-
enabled voice communications, but we ask Congress to extend that
authority to any service that provides a communications capability in
which a customer can reasonably expect to be able to reach a PSAP when
dialing 9-1-1.
State Authority
Funding for IP-enabled E-911 services and the development of the
next generation 9-1-1 system is perhaps the most important issue for 9-
1-1 today. The public safety community is extremely concerned by the
immediate and growing impact of VoIP on loss of conventional service
fees and surcharge revenue, and the uncertainty of any requirement to
replace that critical operational funding stream in the VoIP
environment. We support the need for national direction from the FCC,
just as we support cabinet-level attention to 9-1-1 issues through the
national 9-1-1 Program Office.
Thus, in addition to establishing clear FCC regulatory authority,
it is essential that Congress do nothing to compromise state and local
authority to impose and collect 9-1-1 fees on all services where a
customer has a reasonable expectation of being connected to 9-1-1,
again regardless of the type of technology. In addition to funding,
there will be other state and local issues as well that are best
addressed at that level, but it is clear that as technology evolves,
the classification of service or technology type should not have an
effect on the ability of state and local government to address those
issues.
Congress should also consider ways to facilitate state and local
funding of critical 9-1-1 emergency communications systems. Last year
Congress effectively acted in this regard by passing the ENHANCE 911
Act of 2004 and authorizing up to $250 million per year in grants for
9-1-1 system upgrades. However, to date no monies have been
appropriated to fund such grants. NENA implores Congress to fund the
ENHANCE 911 Act. The continued success and sustainability of our 9-1-1
system will greatly benefit from such action.
While ensuring that states have the authority to impose fees on
VoIP services is important, NENA also acknowledges that a shift in the
9-1-1 funding model may be needed as we move to the next generation IP-
enabled E-911 network. This subject is a main topic of the NENA Next
Generation NG E-911 Program, a year long effort that is also addressing
key next generation technical and operational 9-1-1 issues. All Program
participants agree that until a clear solution is identified for the
immediate and long term 9-1-1 funding problem, attention to the need
for technological change and evolution of the E-911 system itself is
difficult to achieve.
It is important to add here that NENA continues to emphasize the
necessity of state coordination in the deployment of E-911 services,
regardless of service type. The importance of state coordination for
wireless E-911 has been recognized by Congress through the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 and the ENHANCE 911 Act of
2004. This has proven to be a valid position as states with a
coordination entity are generally further along in the Phase II
wireless E-911 deployment process. While recognizing that the delivery
of 9-1-1 service is managed at the local level and that local PSAPs
have an important role to play, Congress and the FCC should encourage
coordination at the state level for the deployment of IP-enabled E-911
services.
Non-Discriminatory Access to Capabilities and Liability Parity
The IP-enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005
requires each entity with ownership or control of 9-1-1 infrastructure,
known commonly as E-911 system service providers (SSPs), to provide
requesting IP-enabled service providers access to the equipment,
databases, network and other necessary capabilities on a
nondiscriminatory basis. The bill also provides immunity from liability
to the same extent as provided to local telephone exchange companies
for providers of IP-enabled 9-1-1 service. Additionally, the bill
provides liability protection to users of such services as well as
liability protection for PSAPs to the same extent they currently have
for non-IP enabled services.
On the issue of liability parity, the bill mirrors the language
granted to wireless carriers, users of wireless service and PSAPs
answering 9-1-1 calls that is contained in the Wireless Communications
and Public Safety Act of 1999. It is important to note that the
Wireless Act of 1999 was passed before the widespread deployment of
Phase I and Phase II wireless, an action that was deemed critical and
applauded by both the 9-1-1 community and industry. NENA believes it is
also important to have liability parity for IP-enabled services enacted
into law before the quickly approaching 120-day VoIP E-911 deadline of
November 28, 2005.
Past experience in the deployment of E-911 has shown that a lack of
legal clarity on important topics, such as liability parity and non-
discriminatory access to E-911 capabilities, has led to a delay in the
provisioning of E-911 service. Therefore, NENA wholeheartedly supports
both of these provisions as we believe they are essential to ensure the
timely deployment of E-911 for IP-enabled services.
Next Generation E-911
As noted earlier, NENA believes that planning now for the future 9-
1-1 system is of paramount importance and is why we have launched the
NG E-911 Program. NENA plans to release a comprehensive report on the
findings and recommendations of that initiative in early 2006 and will
communicate the results with Congress. Therefore, NENA fully supports
section three of the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety
Act requiring the national 9-1-1 Implementation and Coordination Office
to provide a plan for the migration from today's 9-1-1 system towards
an IP-Enabled emergency network.
Timeframe for Action
We hope that telecom reform will be done this year and will include
the important 9-1-1 provisions identified here. However, past
experience has shown that this type of reform can become bogged down in
negotiations and take longer than expected to complete. Should this
happen, NENA believes it is very important that the 9-1-1 provisions
discussed here be included in a stand-alone bill, such as a slightly
modified version of the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public
Safety Act of 2005, and considered by Congress before the session ends
this year.
Conclusion
Our Nation's 9-1-1 system is a homeland security asset. Everyday 9-
1-1 callers are the eyes and ears of our defense. It is also a system
that citizens depend on daily in times of need. Modern communications
capabilities offer an opportunity to improve the system as we know it,
but they also offer challenges. The 9-1-1 community must embrace and
react to change quickly, to better serve the American public, industry,
and the mobile consumer in all emergencies. We need help from Congress
in doing so.
NENA fully supports each of the provisions in the IP-Enabled Voice
Communications and Public Safety Act as they pertain to VoIP E-911 but
asks Congress to broaden the scope of the bill to include any service
that provides a communications capability in which a customer can
reasonably expect to be able to reach a PSAP when dialing 9-1-1.
With some modifications, the legislation will make great
contributions toward public safety and security. On behalf of thousands
of NENA members, the 9-1-1 professionals and all involved in supporting
their work, I thank you for your support and the opportunity to be here
today.
Senator Burns. Thank you. I forgot to announce--if you
could keep your statements within five minutes--and your full
statement will be made part of the record--it would certainly
help us a little bit. But you're just such a nice fellow, and
you had nice words for me, I decided to give you extra minutes.
Jeffrey Citron, Vonage. He is the Co-founder, Chairman, and
CEO of Vonage. Mr. Citron, thank you very much for coming
today.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY CITRON, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, VONAGE
Mr. Citron. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Burns, Members
of the Committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
appear here today. I'm Jeff Citron, CEO of Vonage Holdings
Corporation. We are the leading provider of consumer and small
business Voice Over IP or VoIP Services in the United States,
which nearly one million people are using our service today.
Vonage is at the forefront of this new emerging market, which
has approximately 2.3 million users, and as such, we are
quickly becoming a leader in E-911.
As we speak, Vonage is building the first ever nationwide
E-911 network designed for an all-IP environment. This new
network will link hundreds of locally controlled selective
routers, and thousands of public safety answering points across
the country, allowing us to provide comprehensive service. This
is a very serious undertaking. At Vonage, we are embracing this
challenge as a critical partner in the Nation's E-911 system,
as we blend voice and data into exciting new offerings.
Unfortunately, we are also confronting long standing
technical, operational, and competitive barriers, as we try to
connect to a system that is nearly obsolete. Vonage's leading
challenge is deploying enhanced 9-1-1 Internet phone service
for all our users as quickly as possible. There is no higher
priority within our organization today. Vonage demonstrated
commitment in this area by becoming the first mobile VoIP
provider to adopt a basic 9-1-1 solution. We have continued
this commitment by offering the first nomadic Voice Over IP E-
911 solution in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here today to make three points. First,
Vonage is running very hard and fast to build the best E-911
system that is possible. Second, as an industry, Internet phone
service providers face a number of challenges trying to deploy
E-911. And third, I would like to highlight what assistance
Congress can lend to ensure the industry deploys a functioning
enhanced 9-1-1 service for all of our customers and their
communities.
To date, Vonage has been working diligently with many
companies, along with public safety officials, to architect a
solution that works well for the entire industry, as well as
our customers. Beginning at the grass roots levels with public
safety officials, Vonage is already offering enhanced 9-1-1
service in New York City and Rhode Island, and in New York City
alone, we have fielded thousands of successful E-911 calls.
Despite this great progress thus far, significant
challenges do remain. For instance, the geographically based
numbering system of the original 9-1-1 network is meaningless
to Internet-based communications. The old 9-1-1 system required
that all calls be local. If a citizen in Montana tried to place
a 9-1-1 call with a Montana phone in Washington D.C., the old
9-1-1 system would have rejected this call.
In order to accommodate that mobility, wireless carriers
patched up the old network to allow for out of area 9-1-1 calls
to go through, and this is the exact same solution we are
trying to use for Internet phone calling.
Furthermore, VoIP providers do not have access to all the
elements necessary to create a comprehensive 9-1-1 solution.
Such elements include access to selective routers in the Master
Street Address Guide, also known as MSAG, as well as ``Pseudo-
ANIs,'' which we need to get calls from non-local phone
numbers.
And because there are no standards for implementation, let
alone access to the elements, novel 9-1-1 architectures make it
impossible to implement a uniform nationwide solution. Instead,
service providers like Vonage are forced to deploy a patchwork
of local solutions to meet the various needs of PSAPs and
network owners. Implementation of the FCC's 9-1-1 obligation
within 120 days is extremely challenging.
We believe that a standardized approach giving VoIP
providers access to these elements would accelerate our
deployment, and create a uniform solution for the entire
country.
Finally, Congressional action and authority can help speed
Voice Over IP 9-1-1 deployment in several key areas. Currently
Voice Over IP providers do not have the same liability parity
with wireline or wireless operators. Vonage is not protected by
the existing law in the same way that other carriers are.
Therefore, every time we send a call to the 9-1-1 network, we
are putting our business at risk should there be an
unforeseeable network failure or mishap.
Additionally, in order to comply with obligations mandated
by the FCC 9-1-1 order, Congress may need to grant VoIP
providers access to the network elements necessary to complete
the enhanced 9-1-1 call. The 9-1-1 network is a public trust,
and should not be used as a competitive lever or barrier.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Vonage strongly believes it's
good policy for our customers and for the country for anyone
using Voice Over IP to be able to get help when they need it by
dialing 9-1-1. We also commend the FCC for the decisive action
mandating a Voice Over IP E-911 rollout. We now need Congress
to act to ensure VoIP providers have the tools that are
necessary to meet that mandate.
We enthusiastically support the IP-Enabled Voice
Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005, as a thoughtful,
balanced piece of legislation that would ensure Voice Over
providers can get access to the necessary technical elements,
legal protections, flexibility, to create the best solution for
our customers.
I look forward to answering any questions that you might
have, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Citron follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Citron Co-Founder, Chairman, and CEO,
Vonage
Good morning Senator Burns and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear here today. I'm Jeffrey Citron, CEO of
Vonage Holdings Corporation. We are the leading provider of consumer
and small business Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services in the
United States, with nearly one million subscriber lines. Vonage is at
the forefront of this new emerging market, which has approximately 2.3
million users, and as such we are also quickly becoming a leader in E-
911, as we move to deploy the first ever nationwide 9-1-1 service. This
will be the first 9-1-1 service designed for an IP environment, across
hundreds of locally controlled Selective Routers and thousands of
Public Safety Answering Points. This is a serious undertaking. And we
at Vonage are embracing this challenge not just for our customers but
as a partner in the Nation's E-911 system. As we move forward in this
exciting time in 9-1-1, VoIP is helping turn the notion of traditional
9-1-1 networking on its head. We are recognizing new opportunities to
blend voice and data into exciting new offerings, but we are also
confronting long-standing technical, operational and competitive
barriers, as we try to connect to a system that all too often is
obsolete and sheltered by old-fashioned telecom thinking.
To that end, Vonage is leading the charge to deploy Enhanced 911
Internet phone services for all of our users as quickly as possible.
There is no higher priority within Vonage today. Vonage demonstrated
commitment in this area by becoming the first mobile VoIP provider to
adopt a basic 9-1-1 solution, and we will further this commitment by
offering the first nomadic VoIP E-911 solution in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to make three points. First, Vonage
is running hard and fast to build the best 9-1-1 system possible.
Second, as an industry, Internet phone providers face a number of
challenges in trying to deploy Enhanced 911. These challenges are
similar to those faced by wireless companies when they began offering
E-911 services over ten years ago. Finally, I would like to highlight
what assistance Congress can lend to ensure the industry deploys a
functioning Enhanced 911 service for our customers and their
communities.
To date, Vonage has been working diligently with the technology
companies, Bells, CLECs and public safety officials to architect a
solution that works well for the industry and our customers. Working at
the grassroots level with public safety officials, Vonage is already
offering Enhanced 911 service in New York City and Rhode Island. In New
York City alone, we have already fielded thousands of successful E-911
calls. We recently signed a contract with SBC to gain access to the 9-
1-1 elements we need throughout their 13-state territory to begin
offering E-911 in SBC's footprint. Vonage is also working with Level 3
on a nationwide basis to use their existing network to route calls to
the E-911 system. With our technology partners TCS and Intrado,
Vonage's 9-1-1 solution enables calls to go to the right 9-1-1
answering center even when our users change physical location. Perhaps
most importantly, last month Vonage initiated an outreach program to
begin a dialogue with the public safety community regarding our plans
to implement a novel E-911 solution within a very short timeframe.
Despite this great progress thus far, significant challenges
remain. For instance, the geographically-based numbering system of the
original 9-1-1 network is meaningless to Internet-based communications.
The old 9-1-1 system required that all calls be ``local.'' If a citizen
from Montana tried to place a wireless 9-1-1 with her Montana phone in
Washington DC, the old 9-1-1 system would have rejected that call. In
order to accommodate that mobility, we patched the network to allow for
``dummy numbers'' to get those out of area 9-1-1 calls through. This is
the exact same solution we're using for Internet phone calls, but in
order to make it work for us, we need access to the same technical
elements that wireless companies use.
Furthermore, VoIP providers do not have access to all the elements
necessary to create a comprehensive 9-1-1 solution. Such elements
include access to selective routers and the Master Street Address Guide
(MSAG), as well as ``Psuedo-ANI'' (dummy numbers) which we need to get
calls from non-local numbers into the 9-1-1 system. And because there
are no standards for implementation, let alone access to elements,
novel 9-1-1 architectures make it impossible to implement a uniform
nationwide solution. Instead, service providers like Vonage are forced
to deploy a patchwork of local solutions to meet the various needs of
PSAPs and network owners, making the implementation of the FCC's 9-1-1
obligation within 120 days difficult if not impossible. We believe that
a standardized approach giving VoIP providers access to these elements
would accelerate our deployment and create a uniform solution for the
entire country.
Finally, Congressional action and authority can help speed VoIP 9-
1-1 deployment in several key areas. Currently, VoIP providers do not
have liability parity with wireline or wireless operators. Vonage is
not protected by existing laws in the same way other carriers are--
therefore every time we send a call into the 9-1-1 network we are
putting our business at risk should there be an unforeseeable network
failure or other mishap. Right now, the burden is singularly the VoIP
provider's to bear should something go wrong.
Additionally, in order to comply with the obligations mandated by
the FCC's 9-1-1 Order, Congress may need to grant VoIP providers access
to all the network elements necessary to complete an Enhanced 911 call.
The 9-1-1 network is a public trust, and should not be used as a
competitive lever.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, Vonage strongly believes it is good
policy for our customers and the country for anyone using a VoIP
application to be able to get help when they need it by dialing 9-1-1.
We also commend the FCC for their decisive action in mandating an
aggressive timetable for VoIP E-911 rollout. We now need Congress to
act to ensure VoIP providers have the tools necessary to meet that
mandate. We enthusiastically support the IP-Enabled Voice
Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005 as a thoughtful, balanced
piece of legislation that would ensure VoIP providers can get access to
the necessary technology elements, legal protections and flexibility to
create the best solution for our customers.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. I've got a couple
questions coming off that statement. Next we have Ms. Wanda
McCarley, who is with APCO. Thank you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF WANDA McCARLEY, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE ASSOCIATION
OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS-INTERNATIONAL (APCO)
Ms. McCarley. Thank you, Senator Burns, for the opportunity
to appear at this hearing today to discuss the critical issue
of Voice Over Internet Protocol services, and their impact on
the provision of 9-1-1 service by our Nation's public safety
answering points.
I am the President-Elect of the Association of Public
Safety Communications Officials International, known as APCO, a
professional association of over 16,000 individuals who manage
and operate public safety communications systems for state and
local government agencies across our Nation. APCO has long been
an active participant in FCC proceedings and Congressional
actions concerning public safety communications, addressing
both radio spectrum issues, and Enhanced 9-1-1 issues, that
impact the operational requirements of PSAPs, and the ability
of emergency personnel to respond quickly and accurately to 9-
1-1 calls.
I am also the operations and training manager for the
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District in Fort Worth, where I work day
to day on the challenges facing PSAPs.
APCO has long been deeply concerned with the ability of
PSAPs to respond effectively to 9-1-1 calls made through Voice
Over IP providers. Early on, there were problems with Voice
Over IP calls being routed to the wrong PSAP, in some areas to
PSAPs in distant states. Some Voice Over IP providers adopted a
strategy of routing 9-1-1 calls to PSAPs' ten-digit emergency
or administrative numbers. However, these administrative
numbers are not usually answered by trained 9-1-1 call takers.
Indeed calls to these administrative numbers often go to voice
mail systems with a taped message informing callers to hang up
and dial 9-1-1 if this is an emergency.
Unfortunately, that inability to get through to a 9-1-1
call taker from a Voice Over IP phone has led to dangerous
delays in dispatching emergency personnel, and as described in
recent testimony before the FCC, tragic, and perhaps avoidable
deaths in certain instances.
In May, the FCC addressed this problem with firm but fair
rules to ensure that Voice Over IP 9-1-1 calls will be
delivered to the correct PSAPs, with the location information
necessary for rapid emergency responses. APCO applauds FCC
Chairman Martin and his colleagues for this critical and
courageous decision. Absent FCC action, we would still be
searching for solutions to protect the safety of a growing
number of Voice Over IP subscribers, most of whom choose their
telephone service without realizing the potential difficulties
of calling 9-1-1, and receiving emergency assistance.
Of course, still more needs to be done. The definition of
Voice Over IP services covered by the new rules may need to be
refined, and we need to find ways for call location information
to be provided automatically without caller intervention. We
also need to find ways to locate Voice Over IP callers who
interconnect to the Internet from different physical locations.
The FCC is currently examining these issues, and we urge the
Commission, Voice Over IP providers, and the public safety
community to work together to find solutions as quickly as
possible. We commend those Voice Over IP providers who are
working cooperatively toward these goals.
APCO also believes that Congress and the FCC should look
into the future, and adopt a rule to ensure that yet to be
developed telephone technologies will be subject to appropriate
9-1-1 requirements. Unfortunately, Voice Over IP took off in
the marketplace before necessary 9-1-1 protections could be
adopted. That left the public at risk, even while they were
enjoying the fruits of the new technology. APCO believes that
all voice communications that interconnect with the public
switched telephone network, and use standard telephone
numbering, must provide full E-911 capability.
We know some have urged that PSAPs upgrade their systems to
IP technology. While APCO strongly supports technological
improvement to PSAPs, we urge extreme caution. First, under no
circumstances should the current state of PSAP technology serve
as an excuse for non-compliance by providers of Voice Over IP
and other telephone services. These services should be required
to deliver 9-1-1 calls to the existing PSAP networks.
Secondly, calls for PSAP system upgrades overlook the
fundamental financial constraints facing PSAPs. Most operate on
limited budgets, with funding coming from either subscriber
fees, or local government appropriations. Either way, most
PSAPs can not afford the enormous cost of switching to IP-based
technologies. Thus any discussion of upgrading PSAP capability
must be accompanied by discussions for full funding for these
upgrades.
Overall, funding for PSAPs is another critical issue that
we believe Congress needs to help us address. It is essential
that there continues to be a reliable source of funding for
PSAPs even as we move toward new forms of telephone
communications. One way or another, all users of the telephone
network who might someday need to call 9-1-1 must contribute
towards the cost of providing 9-1-1 services.
APCO has created a task force to examine the future funding
challenges for PSAPs, and has prepared a white paper on
sustainable funding models for emergency telecommunications
across the country, which we would be happy to make available.
Senator Burns, I want to sincerely thank you again for the
opportunity to appear at this important field hearing. APCO
looks forward to working with you and other Members of the
Committee, and other members of the public safety community, in
addressing this and other critical public safety issues.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wanda McCarley, President-Elect of the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International
(APCO)
Thank you Senator Burns for the opportunity to appear at this
hearing today to discuss the critical issue of Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) services and the impact of those services on the
provision of 9-1-1 services by our Nation's public safety answering
points (PSAPs).
I am here today in my capacity as the president-elect of the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
known as APCO, a professional association of over 16,000 individuals
who manage and operate public safety communications systems for state
and local government agencies across the Nation. APCO has long been an
active participant in FCC proceedings and congressional actions
concerning public safety communications, addressing both radio spectrum
issues and Enhanced 9-1-1 (``E-911'') matters that impact the
operational requirements of PSAPs and the ability of emergency
personnel to respond quickly and accurately to 9-1-1 calls.
I am also here today as the Operations and Training Manager for the
Tarrant County, Texas 9-1-1 District where I work day-to-day on the
challenges facing PSAPs.
APCO has long been deeply concerned with the ability of PSAPs to
respond effectively to 9-1-1 calls made through VoIP providers. Early
on, there were problems with VoIP calls being routed to the wrong PSAP,
in some cases to PSAPs in distant states. Some VoIP providers adopted a
strategy of routing ``9-1-1'' calls to PSAPs' ten-digit administrative
numbers. In may cases, however, those administrative numbers are not
answered by trained 9-1-1 call-takers. Indeed, calls to those
administrative numbers often go into voice-mail, with a taped message
informing callers to ``hang up and dial 9-1-1 if this is an
emergency.'' Unfortunately, that inability to get through to a 9-1-1
call-taker from a VoIP phone has led to dangerous delays in dispatching
emergency personnel and, as was described in recent testimony before
the FCC, tragic and perhaps avoidable deaths in several instances.
In May, the FCC addressed this problem with firm, but fair rules to
ensure that VoIP 9-1-1 calls will be delivered to the correct PSAPs
with the location information necessary for rapid emergency responses.
APCO applauds FCC Chairman Martin and his colleagues for this critical
decision. Absent FCC action, we would still be searching for solutions
to protect the safety of the growing number of VoIP subscribers, most
of whom choose their telephone service without realizing the potential
difficulties of calling 9-1-1 and receiving emergency assistance.
Of course, still more needs to be done. The definition of VoIP
services covered by the new rules need to be refined, and we need to
find ways for call-location information to be provided automatically,
without caller intervention. We also need to find ways to locate VoIP
callers who interconnect to the Internet from different physical
locations. The FCC is currently examining these issues, and we urge the
Commission, VoIP providers and the public safety community to work
together to find solutions as quickly as possible. We commend those
VoIP providers who have elected to work cooperatively with public
safety towards this goal.
APCO also believes that Congress and the FCC should look into the
future, and adopt a rule to ensure that yet-to-be developed telephone
technologies will be subject to appropriate 9-1-1 requirements.
Unfortunately, VoIP took off in the marketplace before necessary 9-1-1
protections could be adopted by the FCC. That left the public at risk,
even while they were enjoying the fruits of the new technology. APCO
believes that all voice communications services that interconnect with
the public-switched telephone and use standard telephone numbering must
provide full E-911 capability.
We know that some have urged that PSAPs upgrade their systems to IP
technology. While APCO strongly supports technological improvements for
PSAPs, we urge extreme caution. First, under no circumstances should
the current state of PSAP technology serve as an excuse for non-
compliance by providers of VoIP or other ``new'' telephone services.
Those services should be required to deliver 9-1-1 calls to the
existing PSAP networks. Second, calls for PSAP system upgrades overlook
the fundamental financial constraints facing PSAPs. Most operate on
limited budgets with funding coming either from subscriber fees or
local government appropriations. Either way, most PSAPs (many who have
just completed upgrades to accept wireless E-911 calls) cannot afford
the enormous cost of switching to IP-based technologies. Thus, any
discussion of upgrading PSAP capability must be accompanied by
discussions of full funding for those upgrades.
Overall, funding for PSAPs is another critical issue that we
believe Congress needs to help address. It is essential that there
continues to be a reliable source of funding for PSAPs even as we move
towards new forms of telephone communication. One way or another, all
users of the telephone network who might someday need to call 9-1-1
must contribute towards the cost of providing 9-1-1 services. APCO has
created a task force to examine the future funding challenges for
PSAPs, and has prepared a white paper on sustainable funding models for
emergency telecommunications across the country. I would be happy to
make copies of this white paper available to the Committee.
Senator Burns, I want to thank you again for this opportunity to
appear at this important field hearing. APCO looks forward to working
with you and other Members of the Committee in addressing this and
other critical public safety issues.
Senator Burns. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Greg
Rohde, who is Executive Director of the E-911 Institute. Thank
you for coming.
STATEMENT OF GREG ROHDE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, E-911 INSTITUTE
Mr. Rohde. Thank you for inviting me here to testify. I
really appreciate the invitation to testify here at this field
hearing. It's very fitting that this hearing is being held on
the first day of National Preparedness Month. In my judgment,
access to E-911 services is a fundamental component of
community preparedness. For our country to receive a sufficient
level of nationwide preparedness, we're going to need to have
universal access to E-911 services.
The legislation which is the subject matter of this hearing
really, as you know, parallels action by the FCC earlier this
year in June that requires VoIP, providers of VoIP services to
provide access to E-911 capabilities to their subscribers.
But you also know it goes further. In particular, the
legislation addresses two areas that the FCC asserted it did
not have authority to address. One area is the area of
liability protection; and the second is the area of requiring
access to emergency services infrastructure, such as selected
routers, on the part of VoIP providers.
In my judgment, both these areas are necessary for
successful implementation of E-911 over IP-enabled
communications systems, and these provisions, as well as other
provisions, really make your legislation necessary.
I'll restrict my comments to making just three brief points
about the legislation itself. One is: I would like comment on a
provision which is probably overshadowed by many of the other
provisions in the Act, and that is the provision that requires
the new Joint Program Office that was established in the
ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act enacted last year, to provide a national
migration plan for IP emergency communications systems.
While the provision might be overshadowed, it might very
well be in the long run the most significant provision in your
legislation, requiring the Administration to begin establishing
a migration plan for citizen activated national IP-based
communications system is badly needed, and the time to develop
it is now.
Certainly what gets the headlines, and what gets most of
the attention, are the aspects of this issue with respect to
the relationship between E-911 and VoIP services are on the
challenges that such relationships impose on the existing
system. Those challenges need to be overcome, and is clearly a
top priority.
However, that's not the whole story. The other piece of the
story is we can't forget that moving to an IP-based
communications system provides an enormous opportunity to get
ahead of the game, and potentially provide significant new
opportunities and tools for public safety and citizens to
respond to emergencies.
So I really applaud the foresightfulness of the
legislation, and the fact you appreciate the fact that IP
communications systems can in the long term greatly enhance
public safety. We cannot leave the emergency communications
systems in the country in a perpetual state of playing catch-
up. We have an opportunity now to get ahead of the game, and
pushing the Administration to develop a plan is essential.
In addition to pushing your legislation and this provision,
I would also suggest you consider ways to commit more resources
to either the Joint Program Office, or to the Institute for
Telecommunications Sciences, the research lab of the National
Telecommunications Information Administration. Both or either
of these entities and the Federal industry can work
cooperatively with industry on public safety, and really
develop an effective migration plan.
My second point is on the provision that requires the FCC
to establish requirements and obligations for IP-enabled voice
service providers to ensure that the customers have access to
9-1-1 and E-911 services. As I stated before, the FCC has
already taken this action. The FCC deserves an enormous amount
of credit. I think to a person, all four of the existing
Commissioners are very dedicated to public safety, and work
very hard to take this very important step.
However, this particular requirement is so important that
it should not be left to a regulatory rule. I think that it's
necessary for it to become a matter of statute. As you know,
commissions can change, new players can come in. We don't want
to have the circumstance of a future commission revisiting this
issue. So it should be made a matter of statute.
I also suspect that the deadline set by the FCC for
compliance is going to be less a finish line, and more the
beginning of the end. As we learned, and as we are currently
learning in the implementation of wireless E-911 services, that
you simply can't impose deadlines and expect it to happen. The
FCC is going to have to manage compliance, not simply assert
it, and it's going to work carefully with industry, and need to
maintain flexibility in imposing and enforcing the rules, but
allow the industry to have a flexible way of achieving those
rules.
This industry in particular is characterized by rapid
change and innovation, and should allow and foresee that as an
opportunity, not as a problem.
My third and final point is the issue of definitions--
telecommunications versus information services. In my judgment,
there we do have a circumstance of regulatory failure. The
regulators are in part responsible for problems that we've had,
and some of the early headlines we've seen of citizens calling
9-1-1 and VoIP not being able to connect.
The reason why is the FCC. The regulators have allowed the
providers to hide under the shroud of calling themselves an
information service, when in truth they are a
telecommunications service. As you know, Senator, it's very
clear from the letter of intent of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act, there was no such thing as a distinction between voice and
data service. The FCC over the past several years has pursued
an agenda to create escape hatches out of the statute.
I would suggest that you consider, either as part of this
legislation or some other legislation considered by the
Commerce Committee, that you address this issue head on, and
clarify to the Commission that any service that is sold, and
functions, and looks, and acts like traditional telephone voice
service is a telecommunications service, period.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rohde follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory L. Rohde, Executive Director, E-911
Institute
Introduction
Senator Burns, thank you very much for inviting me to testify at
this field hearing today on S. 1063, the ``IP-Enabled Voice
Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005.'' It is very fitting that
this hearing is being held on the first day of ``National Preparedness
Month.'' The nationwide emergency call number, 9-1-1, is the citizens'
link to emergency response. In my judgment, access E-911 (enhanced 9-1-
1) services is a fundamental component of community preparedness. For
our country to achieve a sufficient level of nationwide preparedness,
we need universal access to E-911 services. Addressing the challenges
in implementing E-911 over IP-based communications systems is one of
the many issues that require the attention of Congress and regulators
at the Federal and state levels to advance public safety.
My name is Gregory L. Rohde and I serve as the Executive Director
of the E-911 Institute. The Institute is a not-for-profit organization
and, as you know, works closely with the Congressional E-911 Caucus,
which you co-chair with your colleagues, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-
NY), Representative John Shimkus (R-IL), and Representative Anna Eshoo
(D-CA). The Institute is not an advocacy organization and my work for
the organization is completely voluntary, i.e., without compensation.
My testimony today reflects my personal views and I am not advocating
any particular position on behalf of the E-911 Institute members.
The E-911 Institute has approximately 600 members from around the
country. Our membership includes individuals from the public safety
community, first responders, academics, industry professionals, and
government officials at the local, state, and Federal levels. We
conduct educational events for policymakers, including community forums
done in conjunction with our affiliation with the Citizen Corps program
in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Our funding comes entirely
from donations from our members and organizations which share our
mission to advance E-911 through education and awareness efforts.
General Comments on S. 1063
As introduced, the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public
Safety Act of 2005 would:
<bullet> Require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to ``establish requirements or obligations on providers on IP-
enabled voice service to ensure that 9-1-1 and E-911 services
are available to customers of IP-enabled voice services;''
<bullet> Require IP-enabled voice providers to notify their
customers if their service cannot provide 9-1-1 or E-911
service;
<bullet> Require entities which own or control the ``necessary
emergency services infrastructure'' to provide non-
discriminatory access to IP-enabled voice service providers;
<bullet> Establish liability immunity related to IP-enabled
voice service that is on par with liability protections
afforded to 9-1-1 service over wireless or traditional landline
telephone service; and
<bullet> Require the Joint Program Office established under
the ENHANCE 911 Act to develop a plan for migrating from the
existing 9-1-1 system to a national IP-enabled emergency
network.
This legislation parallels the recent action by the FCC in June of
this year requiring interconnected VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol)
service providers to provide E-911 capabilities to their subscribers,
but it also goes further. In particular, the legislation addresses two
areas which the FCC asserted it lacked authority: (1) liability
protection and (2) requiring access to emergency services
infrastructure such as selective routers. In my judgment, both these
areas are necessary to ensure a successful implementation of E-911 over
IP-enabled voice service systems. This makes your legislation necessary
and would complement the actions already taken by the FCC to require 9-
1-1 and E-911 over IP-enabled telecommunications systems.
National Migration Plan Requirement
One unique provision in your legislation which merits further
discussion at this hearing is the provision requiring the establishment
of a national migration plan for an IP-enabled emergency communications
system. While the provision to require the Joint Program Office to
establish a plan to migrate to an IP-enabled emergency communications
system may be overshadowed by other provisions in S. 1063, it could
become one of the most significant aspects of your legislation. Until
recently, E-911 issues have received little Federal attention. The work
of the Congressional E-911 Caucus, including the successful passage and
enactment of the ENHANCE 911 Act, has helped to elevate the discussion
of E-911 issues at the Federal level. Requiring the Administration to
begin establishing a migration plan for a citizen activated national
IP-based emergency communications system is badly needed and the time
to develop such a plan is now.
Much of the focus on E-911 issues with respect to IP-enabled
communications systems is centered on the challenges that IP-enabled
systems impose on the current 9-1-1 emergency call number system.
Indeed, there are significant issues that must be addressed and the
``near term'' issues of ensuring E-911 access over the current
generation of VoIP systems is a top priority. Consumers expect that any
service which is sold to them as a ``telephone service'' will be able
to connect to 9-1-1 and Federal and state regulators should not allow a
voice communications service to be sold to the public without such
capability.
However, the story of how E-911 relates to the IP-enabled
communications system is not limited only to the challenges VoIP E-911
imposes on the existing system. As we address these immediate
challenges, we cannot lose sight of the potential benefits and
enhancements that IP-enabled communications systems can mean for
emergency communications. Significant research and development efforts
are underway which explore the next generation 9-1-1 systems that could
be created on an IP-based system. Such a system, if developed and
deployed effectively, could provide citizens, call centers, and first
responders with greatly enhanced tools to address calls for help via 9-
1-1.
I applaud your insightfulness to be forward looking and to
appreciate the fact that IP-enabled communications systems can, in the
long-term, greatly enhance public safety communications. Pushing the
Joint Program Office to explore these capabilities and develop a
national plan is the right step to take at this point in time. We do
have an opportunity to get ahead of the game. Our emergency
communications systems should not remain in a perpetual state of
``catch up.'' The proliferation of broadband access and the emergence
of new IP-enabled applications such as VoIP are creating an opportunity
to build a better, more capable system that enhances public safety.
Thoughtful planning, at the Federal level working in cooperation with
local, state, and tribal officials is a necessary first mover towards
this objective.
In addition to pressing the Joint Program Office, as provided in S.
1063, to develop a migration plan for the next generation E-911 system,
I would suggest, in addition, that you consider ways to commit more
Federal resources for research and development of IP-enabled emergency
communications systems through appropriating funds to the Joint Program
Office and/or to the Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS),
the research laboratory of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). Either ITS or the Joint Program
Office can work cooperatively with public safety, industry, and
academia to develop the next generation 9-1-1 system that is IP-based
and provides greatly enhanced capabilities than the present system
today.
E-911 Access Requirements for IP-Enabled Services
Section 2 of S. 1063 requires the FCC to establish requirements and
obligations on IP-enabled voice service providers to ensure that their
customers have access to 9-1-1 and E-911 services. While the FCC has
already taken this action under their authority, making this a
statutory requirement is very important. The current FCC displayed
admirable leadership in taking this action, but it is still only a
regulation that could be changed at a later point in time. A mandate to
provide access to E-911 over IP-enabled voice communications systems is
important enough that it should be a requirement in the statute. Going
forward, the FCC's role should be to manage the implementation of this
requirement and not to entertain considerations and appeals to reverse
course.
I suspect that the deadline set by the FCC for compliance is going
to be less a finish line and more the beginning of the end. As we have
learned from the FCC's attempt to implement wireless E-911, achieving
the goal is more complicated than simply setting deadlines. There are
technological limitations and the ability of providers to meet the
requirements changes as technology develops.
The FCC needs to manage compliance, not simply assert it. The
Commission should be clear in the objectives it desires from providers,
but allow the industry flexibility in meeting those objectives. The FCC
needs to be a strong enforcer, but more importantly, the Commission
needs to play the role of pushing providers under its jurisdiction to
optimize the performance of the best available technology and not
reduce their role into a ``gotcha game.'' The IP-enabled services area
is a highly innovative sector characterized by rapid change. It is
important to use this opportunity for innovation to the advantage of
public safety. Therefore, enforcement of FCC requirements should be
flexible and always mindful of technology evolution and the advantages
that innovation can provide.
As Congress considers directives to the FCC to require access to 9-
1-1 and E-911 service on IP-enabled voice service providers, assume
that the FCC will have to engage in some complex implementation
activity. The Congress should contemplate significant oversight and
require the FCC to continuously report on progress.
Telecommunications vs. Information Services
I would also encourage you to address the fundamental regulatory
cause of failure with respect to the availability of VoIP service to
provide access to 9-1-1 and E-911 services. The core of this problem
lies in the FCC's agenda to engage in definitional hairsplitting with
respect to telecommunications and information services definitions.
While the statute does not distinguish between voice and data services,
the FCC, nevertheless, has created this artificial distinction in order
to pursue a service classification game designed to undermine the
statute. In the process, the FCC has made it possible for voice
communications services to be sold to the public which lack access to
9-1-1 and E-911.
VoIP service that is sold to the public as an alternative to
traditional telephone service should have never been allowed to hide
under the shroud of being an ``information service'' and avoid the
obligations imposed on traditional voice service. One of those
obligations is to provide access to E-911. In my judgment, the VoIP
services that look, act, and function like traditional voice service
should have never been allowed to be sold to the public unless 9-1-1
and E-911 was a standard feature of the service. The current FCC
deserves credit for their leadership, but the previous FCC deserves an
equal share of responsibility for allowing this circumstance to emerge
in the first place.
This is 2005, not 1905. We live in an era of advanced
telecommunications services and there is no reason why services being
sold and marketed to the public would be absent the basic emergency
communications feature most Americans expect today--access to the 9-1-1
system. While I have very high praise for the leadership of Chairman
Kevin Martin and his fellow Commissioners who acted with speed and
clarity on this matter, I am deeply disturbed by the fact that the FCC
had to act after the fact.
But, we are where we are and it would not be in the best interest
of the approximately 2 million consumers with VoIP service to have
their service terminated. In fact, the Commission acted wisely last
week, in my judgment, in demonstrating some flexibility with respect to
enforcing the June 3rd order by extending the deadline for positive
affirmation from consumers that they are aware of the service
limitations of their VoIP service. While the FCC rule is a good one--
customers should be made aware of the service limitations of their
service--the FCC did the right thing in not using the ultimate hammer
by terminating service at this time. Termination of service should be
done only in extreme cases of non-cooperation by providers and imposed
by the Commission only with respect to actions that are in the control
of the provider. We need to move forward from this point and I am
confident that the Commission, with Congressional oversight, will
manage compliance with their requirements reasonably.
I suggest that the Congress clarify to the Commission that IP-
enabled voice services, including VoIP services, are telecommunications
services and should be treated like other voice services. The clear
meaning and intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to have
similar services treated in similar ways. The Congress needs to rein in
the Commission's efforts to find escape hatches out of the statute. The
problem of VoIP service being provided without access to E-911 is a
necessary outgrowth of the definitional gamesmanship environment that
has been fostered by the Commission since the enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Furthermore, it was the unwillingness of the Commission to classify
VoIP as a telecommunications service that became the grounds for
assertion that the Commission was unable to ensure that VoIP providers
could access the selective routers and emergency communications systems
they need to access to provide 9-1-1 and E-911 service. The Commission
left this important step up to voluntary negotiations among industry
segments. S. 1063, however, does address this specific issue of
requiring access to the selective routers and emergency communications
systems controlled by incumbent companies. As I alluded to earlier,
this is one of the provisions of this legislation which makes the
enactment of this measure necessary to ensure 9-1-1 and E-911 access
over IP-enabled systems.
I would suggest that either in S. 1063 or other telecommunications
legislation considered by this Committee, that you address this
classification problem that is undermining key social covenants that
many Americans have come to expect in modern day life--such as access
to 9-1-1 and E-911 service. I am by no means suggesting that IP-enabled
services be subjected to the whole range of regulatory obligations of
traditional telephone service. Many of these requirements may not be
necessary. The FCC has the tools under the forbearance authority
contained in the statute to ensure the new, innovative services such as
VoIP are not smothered in unnecessary regulations. But, there are some
necessary regulations and in my judgment, access to emergency
communications services such as E-911 is one of these necessities. New
services such as VoIP will fare much better in the marketplace if the
regulatory requirements are clear from the start. The current
circumstance is an environment of uncertainty. This is far more
constraining on innovation than a clear regulatory environment where
providers can have a clear sense of their obligations and requirements.
Conclusion
Thank you again, Senator Burns, for inviting me to testify. More
importantly, thank you for your leadership. You have truly been the
leading voice in the U.S. Senate in advancing E-911. A great deal of
progress has been made, in part directly from your efforts, and the
public safety community and the industry have shared praise of your
efforts.
I would be happy to respond to any questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. Now we go to Mr. George
Heinrichs, who is CEO and Chairman of Intrado. Thank you for
coming.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE HEINRICHS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTRADO
Mr. Heinrichs. Thank you, Senator Burns. I'm George
Heinrichs, the CEO of Intrado. We are a provider of the core
infrastructure of our Nation's emergency network. I've been
privileged to work with you on 9-1-1 issues for many years, and
in fact, I first testified before you in the Senate
Communications Subcommittee in May of 1989 when you convened a
hearing on the original E-911 bill, which required that 9-1-1
be the universal number for emergency calls over cell phones.
Fortunately, the Wireless Communications and Public Safety
Act of 1999, which you authored, passed into law. I have no
doubt that many lives have been saved by this commonsense piece
of legislation.
Thank you for inviting to me to testify today on the
critical topic of bringing lifesaving enhanced 9-1-1
capabilities to the increasingly important area of Voice Over
Internet Protocol services. I would also like to take the
opportunity to acknowledge the tireless efforts of my
colleagues, who are also here to testify regarding national
concerns, namely David Jones of NENA, Wanda McCarley of APCO,
Greg Rohde of the E-911 Institute, and Jeffrey Citron of
Vonage. Their leadership and countless hours of work have
significantly contributed to furthering emergency services in
our country.
It's truly a team effort, and I'm proud during my career to
have served as a call taker, an EMS responder, and a law
enforcement officer, and today my role is in service to a much
larger constituency, as the primary provider of the Nation's
underlying 9-1-1 technology.
Senator Burns, you've long been a champion of 9-1-1 issues,
and have shown both a tremendous passion and an effective
advocacy for creating strong coalitions that have resulted in
lifesaving legislation.
I should add that the location of today's hearing in your
beautiful state of Montana is particularly appropriate, for
rural states have the challenge of dealing with vast distances
that make efficient and universal emergency communications all
the more important, and absolutely vital for citizens.
Unfortunately, many rural states suffer in this regard
without the leadership and resources of your home state.
Furthermore, as Montana is currently in the grip of the fire
season, threats to the public safety highlight the constant
need to attend to the state's emergency communications
infrastructure.
In your capacity as a champion of 9-1-1 issues in the
Senate, your efforts have been relentless in seizing any
opportunity to upgrade our Nation's critical emergency
networks.
Most recently, the public safety community was particularly
impressed at the act of political leadership displayed on the
final day of the 108th Congress, by simply refusing to allow
the Senate to go out of session until the ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act of
2004, which you authored, was passed. While it was the very
last bill of the 108th Congress, it is also among the most
important, as the bill authorized $1.25 billion for upgrades of
public safety answering points across the country so that 9-1-1
callers could be accurately located.
Unlike so many issues before Congress, 9-1-1 is truly
bipartisan in nature, which you showed by reaching across the
aisle to team with Senator Clinton in creating the 9-1-1
caucus. In the little more than two years since its creation,
the E-911 caucus has rapidly transformed into a key national
policy forum where the public safety community musters support
for lifesaving initiatives.
Just as you showed great vision in moving forward on
bringing critical 9-1-1 services to cell phones, you recognized
early on that as VoIP services began to grow in popularity,
lifesaving 9-1-1 capabilities remain an essential aspect of
telecommunications service to all Americans.
Last summer, you authored the Burns amendment to VoIP
legislation being considered in the Senate Commerce Committee,
which required 9-1-1 services to be offered by VoIP providers.
You have continued this leadership by championing Senate Bill
1063, the IP-enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act
of 2005.
Before discussing the merits of the legislation, I would
first like to provide you with a brief description of Intrado.
For over a quarter of a century, telecommunications providers,
public safety organizations, and government agencies have
turned to Intrado for communications needs. Founded in 1979,
Intrado has built a strong reputation as an innovator in
emergency communications. Today Intrado provides the core of
America's 9-1-1 infrastructure and a wide range of offerings
for safety and mobility markets that include 9-1-1 data
management, call routing and subscription services, wireless
data services, and notification services.
Throughout its history, we have enthusiastically
participated in bringing our experience and resources to bear
in the evolution of America's emergency communications policy.
The rapid growth of wireless and Voice Over Internet Protocol
and alternative technologies present new challenges to the
current infrastructure. Intrado products, services, and systems
support an estimated 200 million 9-1-1 calls a year, with a
growing percentage of these calls coming from wireless and VoIP
phones. The Intelligent Emergency Network, which is our next
generation product, is designed to address and support those
changing requirements.
Turning our attention to Senate Bill 1063, we would like to
extend our full support for this critical public safety
legislation. Senator Burns, your leadership and commitment to
ensuring that our Nation's citizens continue to receive the
emergency services they need when dialing 9-1-1, regardless of
the technology employed by the users, have been met with much
deserved and widespread approval of the public safety
community.
In addition, there are vital issues that still need to be
addressed that only Congress has the authority on which to act.
The technology that is required to provide both fixed and
nomadic VoIP subscribers with emergency service exists today.
However, the necessary policy changes are not yet in place, and
both Congress and the Federal Communications Commission must
continue to work together to ensure such changes are made.
As such, we recommend the following policy enhancements
that will provide appropriate statutory framework for the
delivery of emergency services to all subscribers of IP-enabled
services.
The critical matter that still needs to be clarified is
exactly what types of entities are afforded access to the 9-1-1
network in order to reliably deliver the caller's location and
call back number to the appropriate answering point when a call
is placed from an IP-enabled device. Without minimum standards
for access to our Nation's critical 9-1-1 infrastructure, VoIP
service providers operating outside this country, or those who
are technically naive would be granted access to our 9-1-1
network, posing a significant threat to homeland security.
This is not a theoretical concern, as America has already
been the target of increasingly sophisticated attacks from
organizations of foreign origin on our core emergency
information infrastructure, and these mirror previous denial of
service attacks on the Internet at large.
This is a clear and present danger to the security of our
Nation, and must be acknowledged and prevented. If the 9-1-1
network of the United States were rendered inoperable, the
results could be tragic.
Let me skip quickly to two other points. One is official
standards. We recommend strongly that the Federal policy should
recognize the important role of accredited standards
organizations, and should insist on adherence to 9-1-1
standards developed within those organizations. Having this
policy measure will ensure that appropriate rules are in place,
and do not hinder the deployment of VoIP 9-1-1 services.
Finally, to give our support for liability protection,
which we believe is important to provide the parity for all of
the carriers that are providing service in the U.S. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heinrichs follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Heinrichs, President and CEO, Intrado Inc.
Senator Burns, I am George Heinrichs, CEO of Intrado Inc., the
provider of the core infrastructure of our Nation's emergency
communications network. I have been privileged to work with you on 9-1-
1 issues for many years. In fact, I first testified before you in the
Senate Communications Subcommittee in May of 1999 when you convened a
hearing on the original E-911 bill, which required that 9-1-1 be the
universal number for emergency calls over cell phones. Fortunately, the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, which you
authored, passed into law. I have no doubt that many lives have been
saved by this commonsense piece of legislation. Thank you for inviting
me to testify today on the critical topic of bringing lifesaving
enhanced 9-1-1 capabilities to the increasingly important area of Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services.
I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the
tireless efforts of my colleagues who are also here to testify
regarding national concerns, namely David Jones of NENA, Wanda McCarley
of APCO, Greg Rohde of the E-911 Institute and Jeffrey Citron of
Vonage. Their leadership and countless hours of work have significantly
contributed to furthering emergency services in our country. It is
truly a team effort and I am proud during my career to have served as a
call taker, EMS responder and law enforcement officer. Today, my role
is in service to a much larger constituency as the primary provider of
our Nation's 9-1-1 technology.
Senator Burns, you have long been a champion of 9-1-1 issues and
have shown both a tremendous passion and effective advocacy for
creating strong coalitions that have resulted in lifesaving
legislation. I should add that the location of today's hearing in your
beautiful state of Montana is particularly appropriate, for rural
states have the challenge of dealing with vast distances that make
efficient and universal emergency communications all the more important
and absolutely vital for their citizens. Unfortunately, many rural
states suffer in this regard without the leadership and resources of
your home state. Furthermore, as Montana is currently in the grip of
the fire season, threats to the public safety highlight the constant
need to attend to the State's emergency communications infrastructure.
In your capacity as a champion of 9-1-1 issues in the Senate, your
efforts have been relentless in seizing any opportunity to upgrade our
Nation's critical emergency communications networks. Most recently, the
public safety community was particularly impressed at the act of
political leadership you displayed on the final day of the 108th
Congress by simply refusing to allow the Senate to go out of session
until the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004, which you authored, was passed.
While it was the very last bill passed in the 108th Congress, it was
also among the most important, as the bill authorized $1.25 billion for
upgrades to public safety answering points across the country to allow
for 9-1-1 callers to be accurately located.
Unlike so many issues before Congress, 9-1-1 is truly bipartisan in
nature, which you showed by reaching across the aisle to team with
Senator Clinton in creating the E-911 Caucus. In the little more than
two years since its creation, the E-911 Caucus has rapidly transformed
into a key national policy forum where the public safety community
musters support for lifesaving initiatives.
Just as you showed great vision in moving forward on bringing
critical 9-1-1 services to cell phones, you recognized early on that as
VoIP services began to grow in popularity, lifesaving 9-1-1
capabilities remain an essential aspect of telecommunications service
to all Americans. Last summer, you offered the Burns amendment to VoIP
legislation being considered in the Senate Commerce Committee, which
required 9-1-1 services to be offered by VoIP providers. You have
continued this leadership by championing Senate Bill 1063, the IP-
Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005.
Before discussing the merits of this legislation, I would first
like to provide you with a brief description of Intrado. For over a
quarter of a century, telecommunications providers, public safety
organizations and government agencies have turned to Intrado for their
communications needs. Founded in 1979, Intrado has built a strong
reputation as an innovator in emergency communications. Today, Intrado
provides the core of North America's 9-1-1 infrastructure and a wide
range of offerings for the safety and mobility markets that includes 9-
1-1 data management, call routing and subscription services, wireless
data services and notification services.
Throughout its history, Intrado has enthusiastically participated
in bringing its experience and resources to bear in the evolution of
America's emergency communications policy and infrastructure. As 9-1-1
has grown to become an essential element of telecommunications service,
Intrado has played a key role in defining, building and maintaining our
complex emergency communications infrastructure.
The rapid growth of wireless and Voice over Internet Protocol
communications and other alternative technologies presents new
challenges to the current infrastructure. Intrado products, services
and systems support an estimated 200 million 9-1-1 calls each year,
with a growing percentage of these calls coming from wireless and VoIP
phones. The Intrado Intelligent Emergency Network<SUP>TM</SUP>,
Intrado's next generation, IP-based emergency communications services
network, is designed to address and support these changing
communications requirements.
Turning our attention to Senate Bill 1063, Intrado would like to
extend its full support for this critical public safety legislation.
Senator Burns, your leadership and commitment to ensuring that our
Nation's citizens continue to receive the emergency services they need
when dialing the digits ``9-1-1,'' regardless of the technology
employed by users, have been met with much-deserved, widespread
approval in the public safety community.
In addition, there are vital issues that still need to be addressed
that only Congress has the authority on which to act. The technology
that is required to provide both fixed and nomadic VoIP subscribers
with emergency services exists today; however, the necessary policy
changes are not yet in place, and both Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission must continue to work together to ensure such
changes are made.
As such, Intrado proposes the following policy enhancements that
will provide the appropriate statutory framework for the delivery of
emergency services to all subscribers of IP-Enabled services:
Qualified Access to the 9-1-1 Network
A critical matter that still needs to be clarified is exactly what
types of entities are afforded access into the 9-1-1 network in order
to reliably deliver the caller's location and call back number to the
appropriate Answering Point when a 9-1-1 call is placed from an IP-
enabled device. Without minimum standards for access into our Nation's
critical 9-1-1 infrastructure, VoIP service providers operating outside
of this country or those who are technically naive would be granted
access to the E-911 network, posing a significant threat to homeland
security. This is not a theoretical concern, as America has already
been the target of increasingly sophisticated attacks from
organizations of foreign origin on our core emergency information
infrastructure, which mirror previous denial of service attacks on the
Internet at large.
This clear and present danger to the security of our Nation must be
acknowledged and prevented. If the 9-1-1 network of the United States
were rendered inoperable, the results could be tragic. Clearly,
safeguarding our 9-1-1 infrastructure from these threats through a
minimally intrusive qualification process is paramount. E-911 service
providers, who currently provide access into the 9-1-1 network, must
have the technical acumen to ensure those providers gaining access are
qualified and meet an appropriate level of technical sophistication and
security, for the purposes of providing E-911 services. The combination
of qualified E-911 service provider operation of the secure network
connectivity point and some minimal criterion for companies that
interconnect with them would ensure our Nation's future E-911 network
is at least as safe and reliable as today's 9-1-1 infrastructure.
Appropriate policy measures should be considered that provide a
framework for the evolution of the 9-1-1 network to accommodate future
advancements in telecommunications. This should include accommodation
or modification of the current 9-1-1 network and the setting of clear
objectives to move the U.S. forward in more advanced and intelligent
communications infrastructures.
Official Standards
Federal policy should recognize the important role of accredited
standards organizations and should insist on adherence to 9-1-1
standards developed within those organizations. Having this policy
measure will ensure that appropriate rules are in place that do not
hinder the deployment of VoIP 9-1-1 services across the country and are
in line with this current technology. Legacy deployment practices will
not work in this new IP environment and reliance on such will only slow
down a nationwide rollout of emergency services.
Liability Protection
Given that only Congress can assign liability protection to IP-
Enabled service providers, it is imperative that Federal legislation is
enacted to ensure this provision becomes a Federal mandate. Congress
must grant VoIP providers the same liability protection and immunity as
dictated by the States--much like you did for wireless carriers under
the original Burns E-911 bill, the Wireless Communications and Privacy
Act of 1999. In order for the IP-Enabled Service Providers to obtain
liability protection, they will need to meet certain criteria so that
the integrity of the 9-1-1 network is not placed in jeopardy. In
addition, it is important that liability protection be extended to
third-party providers, vendors and agents of these IP-Enabled Service
Providers.
As VoIP services become ever more popular among Americans, our
Nation's telecommunications policy must keep pace with this
development. One key aim of policymakers when creating the proper
regulatory structure of VoIP technology should be the preservation of
our Nation's critical E-911 information infrastructure. You have shown
your leadership in the national policy arena by sponsoring vital public
safety legislation which is balanced, far-reaching and has been met
with enthusiastic support. By enacting policy that addresses the
aforementioned issues, Congress will not only preserve the integrity
and reliability of the 9-1-1 network, but will also achieve its goal of
providing the policy framework required to ensure all users of IP-
Enabled services have access to full E-911 emergency services. Again,
Intrado thanks you for your well-considered, commonsense legislation
and supports its passage by the Congress in rapid fashion.
Finally, I am pleased to see Michael Brown, the Under Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security in attendance and would like to
extend my appreciation to him for all of his work in bridging the gap
between emergency services and homeland security. The Under Secretary's
understanding of the real threats facing America's communities is a
credit to him and to this administration. Creating and maintaining the
best emergency communications network in the world is a constant
challenge and is truly a collaborative effort.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I would
be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Burns. Thank you, and thank all of you for your
testimony today. I've seen it written up in the communications
papers and communications that being as the FCC has passed this
order, further legislation needed? I'll start with you, Mr.
Rohde.
Mr. Rohde. Yes, Senator, I believe it is, for a number of
reasons which I just outlined. One is I do think it's important
to make the requirement a statutory requirement, not simply a
regulatory requirement. For that reason alone, you should pass
legislation.
I also think--and the other panelists have said the same
thing--that the liability parity provision is necessary. The
liability immunity you provide for wireless E-911 services and
landline 9-1-1 services should apply to VoIP services.
Third is the provision of--the FCC chose not to assert
authority to require that VoIP providers have access to the
emerging infrastructure that local exchange carriers control,
such as selected routers. So since the FCC did not make that a
requirement, Congress really has to step in and make that
requirement.
So for those three reasons alone, that legislation is
necessary.
Senator Burns. Mr. Citron.
Mr. Citron. We would agree wholeheartedly that those items
just recognized be included in Congressional mandates. I want
to make one additional comment that was made during the
previous testimony, and that that is our Nation's network of E-
911 is really a patchwork quilt of 6,000 different sets of
standards, and a national standard should be created, and 9-1-1
should be treated as a national asset, not as something that is
incredibly local, and can deviate freely, depending on the
service areas being currently covered by 9-1-1.
Senator Burns. Do you want to comment on that, George?
Mr. Heinrichs. We're not in Washington. I'll just keep the
word short.
Senator Burns. Wanda.
Ms. McCarley. I think most assuredly there's more work to
be done, and Congress has a role in that. To just reiterate,
I'll just ditto Greg's comments. The items that he's outlined
are excellent examples of the role that Congress could take in
forwarding these goals.
Senator Burns. How realistic is November 28th? Is that a
realistic date?
Mr. Citron. I guess as the one here who was responsible for
releasing the service throughout the entire United States by
that deadline, we suspect that we will get the majority of our
customers online well within that time period. I think it's
going to be challenging to get every single customer on in that
period. Getting access to underlying facilities, just the
timeline of testing is quite difficult. I'm sure that APCO and
NENA represent their constituents, but we need to test and
implement the solution with hundreds of selective routers, and
literally implement 6,000 PSAPs.
We think that to go out and rush to get it online when it's
not been properly tested and give the fail safe protections and
standards necessary is difficult. With that said, we'll, of
course, move as fast as possible, get as many people as quickly
as possible, irrespective of any deadline set by the FCC.
Senator Burns. Should the FCC be pretty flexible on this?
Mr. Citron. We think the FCC should look at what the
service providers are doing on an individual case-by-case
basis. Providers are working diligently and hard getting this
rolled out. They should provide the flexibility and comment on
necessary time lines, too.
Senator Burns. You know we have challenges of getting this
done. Is it the technology? What kind of challenges, what are
you running into out there that would slow the progress of
instrumenting E-911 and Voice Over IP?
Mr. Citron. I think there are a lot of challenges. The
first for starters is identifying every selected router in the
country we need to hook into, because there is no such mandated
list maintained by any Federal or state authority. So we don't
even know all the things we need to do. We're still finding
every single--APCO, and NENA, and Intrado are great partners--
in trying to identify those access points.
Even beyond that, accessing those elements, having to
negotiate commercial agreements, interconnect with those
relationships, without any standards made available, requires
us to literally sit down with every single operator and owner,
and explain to them how this solution is going to work, and to
customize that solution, because there are no standards for
local communications. Beyond that, the testing with PSAPs takes
a quite a bit of time. And everybody has got a little bit of a
different view.
So I think there are a lot of challenges out there, and
only time and the dedication of all the people at this table
are going to be required to make this work.
Senator Burns. Would you like to comment on that question?
Nobody?
Mr. Heinrichs. Senator, I would suggest that I think the
timeline is unreasonable in the sense that it's unprecedented
in the history of 9-1-1. If you look at the history of rolling
out wireless in the United States, it was measured in a matter
of years or decades actually. If you look at wireless, we've
worked together on this for a long time, and we're still
working on that.
One Hundred and Twenty-days certainly provided a lot of
motivation for a lot of people working very hard. I think when
we get to the end of that, they'll see the fruits of their
labor, and it will be good, but it's not going to be 100
percent. I think it's clear to me right now from where I sit
that this will not be nationwide and complete by that deadline.
Senator Burns. I've looked at the wireless thing, and also
on Voice Over IP, and that's the reason I asked the flexibility
question. I'd hate to see the FCC go and fine people or
anything like this before they get it done. There are
challenges out there, some challenges that we didn't have in 9-
1-1, to be honest with you. But I still think it's important.
We had testimony of many--of instances where 9-1-1 wasn't
answered and something very bad happened. So we're very much--I
would like to stay in the circle on all of you--especially you,
Mr. Citron, because of your experience with trying to put 9-1-1
into Voice Over IP--challenges that might arise that we don't
think of. And just to stay in it, as we put this technology out
there, and try to force it out.
As you know, sometimes the marketplace does it faster than
Congress or deadlines can do it, but sometimes I always have
the feeling that the market should really force a lot of this,
and would do a better job.
Mr. Citron. In addition to the challenges that I've already
outlined, there are others that do concern us. We think that
the FCC has done a great job in really moving the ball forward.
We tried to deploy E-911 for a very long time, and Intrado
worked very hard with us on issues; and without getting the
underlying access, it was nearly impossible, and only with the
help of the FCC intervention have Bell Operating Companies and
owners of the 9-1-1 infrastructure started to let us get
access.
But the FCC has other policies that do concern us, and may
come up to hurt us in a bad way, and that is clearly the FCC
has mandated that if 9-1-1 service can't be provided, that
service be discontinued to a user. And as users of nomadic
Voice Over IP services move around, it's quite possible that a
user will move around to a location, will type in his new
location, and then the service will of course stop working, and
then that will force the user to potentially select a different
market where 9-1-1 is currently available, thus causing
misrouting of calls, and we find that to be a very large
concern.
Senator Burns. Do you find that the responsibility is going
to be just as much on the user as it is on you folks who
provide the service?
Mr. Citron. Yes.
Senator Burns. That's the conclusion I drew, too. We thank
you for your testimony today. And as we move this legislation
forward, let's keep the communication lines open, and let us
know the challenges you run into, and to make it work, and make
it fair. Thank you for your testimony.
We go to the second panel today, which is made up of Jeremy
Ferkin, General Manager of CenturyTel; Jeff Brandt, Director,
Montana Department of Administration; Bill Squires, Blackfoot
Telecommunications Group; and Chairman Greg Jergeson, Montana
Public Service Commission. So we welcome all of you. Have we
got a change here?
Ms. Kelly. I'm Jeff Brandt today. Janet Kelly, Director of
the Department.
Senator Burns. Yes. Okay. And again, we would like to have
you kind of keep your testimony down to five minutes, and your
full statement and anything that you want to put in the record
will be received at this time.
And Ms. Kelly, since you're the stand-in, you get to lead
off today.
STATEMENT OF JANET KELLY, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF MONTANA
Ms. Kelly. Senator Burns, thank you so much for providing
me with the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is
Janet Kelly. I'm the Director of the Department of
Administration. And I'm appearing today on behalf of the State
of Montana because the Department of Administration has
responsibility for managing the statewide 9-1-1 program.
The State of Montana supports Senate Bill 1063 because it
addresses a number of our concerns, and supports our efforts to
provide the highest quality public safety services to the
citizens of Montana. I would like to thank Senator Nelson for
sponsoring the bill, and Senators Clinton, Kerry, Snowe, and
Burns, co-sponsors.
Senator Burns, you have been a leader on this issue, not
only here in Montana, but throughout the Nation. 9-1-1
services, let alone public safety technology, are not plug-and-
play operations. There have been exciting advances in
communications technology that provide our citizens with
greater choice and capabilities.
However, we must be sure that the deployment of these new
technologies does not interfere with our ability to provide
important public safety services. The technology landscape is
ever-changing, and Senate Bill 1063 will help ensure that
public safety services will be available to all citizens,
regardless of their choice of technology.
Technological advances will continue to create new issues
and challenges as businesses offer new services to our
citizens. Therefore, additional legislation, regulation, and
standards may be needed to be sure that our citizens are
adequately served, and that the public safety community needs
to have a place and a voice at that table.
Montana is among the handful of states that has attained
statewide basic 9-1-1. However, our citizens, even those living
in remote areas, expect enhanced 9-1-1, and we met the
challenge of deploying E-911 solutions across our state by the
9-1-1 program office collaborating with the Montana Sheriffs
and Peace Officers Association; and with the assistance of a
Federal appropriation in fiscal year 2003, we have a statewide
E-911 network project underway.
Montana's 9-1-1 program is successful because of the
cooperation among legislators, regulators, state and local
government administrators, and the telephone industry; and our
future success will require continued cooperation to solve the
problems created by the new technologies and conditions that
will impact the public safety community.
Voice Over IP creates new opportunities and new challenges,
and I will address these from the State of Montana's
perspective. First, we need to safeguard the ability of
Montanans to pay for the delivery of public safety services
across our vast state.
Montana is concerned with the potential for unfunded
mandates that would impact our ability to update and maintain
our infrastructure. We want to be sure that we're able to
continue to work in enhancing existing technology, rather than
having to deal with planned obsolescence or incompatible
technologies. As the technology evolves, it must not interfere
with the public's access to critical public safety services.
Today's hearing reinforces the importance of the industry,
Congress, and the public safety community working together, and
I applaud the Committee's commitment and continued support of
public safety in this country. The State of Montana is working
on solutions, and embracing the new technology for public
safety, and we stand ready to assist you in any way we can to
make our Nation safer. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Kelly, Director, Department of
Administration, State of Montana
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Senator Burns, thank you
very much for providing me with this opportunity to appear before you
today. My name is Janet Kelly, and I am the Director of the Department
of Administration for the State of Montana. I am appearing today on
behalf of the State of Montana because the Department of Administration
has responsibility for managing Montana's Statewide 9-1-1 Program.
The State of Montana offers its support for the IP-Enabled Voice
Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005 (S. 1063). This bill
addresses a number of concerns I will identify and supports our efforts
in providing the highest quality public safety services to the citizens
of Montana.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank
Senator Nelson for sponsoring this bill and to Senators Clinton, Kerry,
Snowe and Burns, its cosponsors. Senator Burns has been a leader on
this issue, not only here in Montana but throughout the Nation. For
example, in 1999 he sponsored the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act, an important roadmap for deploying wireless 9-1-1.
9-1-1 services, let alone public safety technology, are not a
``plug and play'' operation. There have been exciting advances in
communications technology that provide our citizens with greater choice
and capabilities. But we must ensure that the deployment of these new
technologies doesn't interfere with the ability to provide important
public safety services. Furthermore, the technology landscape is ever-
changing. We must maintain vigilance so that critical public safety
services continue to be provided as technology evolves. The legislation
that Senator Burns and others have sponsored will be a valuable tool in
ensuring that public safety services will be available to all citizens,
regardless of their choice of technology.
Undoubtedly, technological advances will create new issues and
challenges as businesses offer new services to citizens. Legislation,
regulations and standards may be needed to ensure the citizen is
adequately served. The public safety community, in particular, needs to
have a place and a voice at that table.
The challenge of keeping pace with technology, let alone responding
to the challenges that have been dropped on the doorstep of our 9-1-1
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), is a daunting task. In
addition, we have limitations in our respective jurisdictions as to our
authority and ability to enforce the rules. With limited funds and a
small population spread across a vast state, we knew we had to work
together. So in Montana we collaborated with local, state and Federal
partners.
In 2002, the Governor's office created the Public Safety Services
Bureau in the Department of Administration. The Public Safety Services
Bureau manages the State's 9-1-1 Program and statewide planning of
public safety radio communications.
Montana is among the handful of states that have attained statewide
basic 9-1-1 service, but the public, even in remote areas, expects
enhanced 9-1-1 service. When faced with the challenge of deploying E-
911 solutions across the State, the 9-1-1 Program office collaborated
with the Montana Sheriff's and Peace Officers' Association, and, with
the assistance of a FY03 Federal appropriation, a statewide E-911
network project is underway. Montana's 9-1-1 program is successful
because of the cooperation among legislators, regulators, state and
local government administrators and the telephone industry. Our future
success will require continued cooperation to solve the problems caused
by new technology and conditions that will impact the public safety
community.
Now we turn our attention to VoIP. Like most technologies, it
creates new opportunities but also new challenges. I applaud the bill
sponsors for tackling these new challenges. I will address these
challenges from the State of Montana's perspective.
First, we need to safeguard the ability for Montanans to pay for
the delivery of public safety services across Montana's vast territory.
We are concerned with the potential for unfunded mandates that would
impact our ability to update and maintain our infrastructure.
We want to be sure that we will be able to continue to work to
enhance existing technology rather than having to deal with planned
obsolescence or incompatible technologies.
We want to be sure that our citizens continue to have access to
public safety services. As technology evolves, it must not interfere
with the public's access to critical public safety services.
This hearing today reinforces the importance of the industry,
Congress and the public safety community working together, and I
applaud the Committee's commitment, efforts and continued support of
public safety in this country.
The State of Montana is working on solutions and embracing the new
technology for public safety; and we stand ready to assist you in any
way we can to make our Nation safer.
Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you for your testimony. We'll hear
from Mr. Jeremy Ferkin, General Manager of CenturyTel.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY FERKIN, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTURYTEL, INC.
Mr. Ferkin. Thank you, Senator. We are pleased to be the--
as the State so-called it--the one throat to choke providing
the E-911 services for the state of Montana. As our testimony
has been submitted, and questions you've asked, I'll get right
to the issues that really speak to the heart of S. 1063, and
also the issues that we're focused on.
Liability is the number one paramount issue we've had to
deal with negotiating with the State of Montana, and is also
the issue that we face in the 26 states we serve across the
United States. There's a patchwork of liability issues
throughout the country, and we believe, like NENA, like the
other testimony that you received, it's the first issue that we
really think needs to be addressed.
Limitation of liability isn't a balloon management issue.
You don't squeeze it in one area, and it pops out, and someone
else has the liability over here. It is a matter of who is
going to put money forward, and who is going to be willing to
step out and be a different company, and just say that this is
bigger than any one person's event. 9-1-1 is that event we all
have to be concerned about.
So the other side of it is we know that Voice Over Internet
is not a technology issue. We heard Mr. Citron and everybody
else speak too. The technology is not the problem with
implementing. The relationships, and negotiation, and
navigation is where the issues typically happen.
That's not dissimilar to what we experience in the state of
Montana, with all the different PSAPs, all the different vested
entities in this. So I don't know that it's legislation, but we
do know that relationships are the key to making this happen.
As Montanans, we all know that if you know people, you know how
to get stuff done.
The other part of S. 1063 that we believe is critically
important is the transition period that the FCC put out there.
I'm glad to hear that Mr. Citron believes that the time line is
semi-satisfactory. We believe that there are implications to E-
911 implementation on IP that possibly are not thought of long
term.
For instance, what if IP isn't the underlying protocol
that's going to be used five years, ten years from now? So
whatever legislation goes on needs to address further
technologies and further applications that may be out there,
whether it's SIP (phonetic) based, which is the newest, latest,
greatest thing that we talked about, or whether it's neural
implants, we don't know. But technology will change.
The additional focus S. 1063 addresses, but does not fully
address, is the compensation side of what's going to happen. So
if we are required to open up access, that access is going to
put more costs on whoever is providing those 9-1-1 services.
That funding, as was spoken about earlier, where does that come
from? That additional expense, is that borne by us? If so, does
it negate or does it require us to actually not want to be a 9-
1-1 service provider? That would be a catastrophic event, to
have people who are stepping out to provide the service, being
encumbered, to have to pay for service that they don't benefit
in any way from.
We also believe that, as we talked about, the liability
issues. But some general issues that are out there, is if
you're on the network, if you're utilizing the network,
compensation is the biggest issue. So they boil down to two
issues. Liability is the biggest issue; and then compensation
for how do we fund it, and how do we navigate it for those who
own that infrastructure.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferkin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeremy Ferkin, General Manager, CenturyTel, Inc.
Senator Burns and Members of the Committee, thank you very much for
providing me with this opportunity to appear before you today. My name
is Jeremy Ferkin, and I am General Manager for CenturyTel operations in
Kalispell, Montana. I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss
Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP), its implications for Emergency 9-
1-1 (E-911) and, more specifically, the Senate E-911 bill entitled
``IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005'' (S.
1063).
CenturyTel serves more than 63,000 customers in the Flathead Valley
of Montana and was recently selected to be the 9-1-1 provider for the
state. In addition to our Montana operations, CenturyTel is also a
national telecommunications company and a leading provider of broadband
services in rural America. We are a leading provider of
telecommunications services in 26 states that include many of the
states represented by Members of this Committee including Montana,
Texas, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Louisiana, Washington, Arizona and
Arkansas. We specialize in providing high quality telephone, long
distance, Internet, broadband, satellite and advanced services in rural
and small urban markets. Today, CenturyTel is the eighth largest
telephone company in the United States with 2.3 million access lines.
Much of CenturyTel's recent growth has come from the acquisition of
telephone lines from the larger Bell Operating Companies in multiple
states. The majority of our 3 million customers and 7,000 employees
live and work in the very areas that have the most critical stake in
the issue we will discuss today.
Voice Over Internet Protocol
CenturyTel is excited about the introduction of IP-enabled services
in the marketplace and about deploying new technologies and creating
new services for our customers and communities. CenturyTel already
offers IP-based services to many of our business customers across the
country. That said, CenturyTel believes an appropriate transition
period will be required for full-scale delivery of IP-enabled services
to all Americans. Related, but critical, features such as law
enforcement capabilities and access to emergency services must be
readily available and tested because of the technical aspects and
dynamics of IP technology.
VoIP is an example of even better things to come, as our industry
increasingly integrates with the computer hardware, software, and
entertainment sectors. Internet Protocol is blowing the voice market
wide open, allowing a variety of providers to serve ``some'' business
and residential customers. I say ``some customers'' because, that VoIP
service will not work unless a facilities-based provider like
CenturyTel or the local cable company has made the network investment
required to enable a broadband connection that VoIP needs to work
properly.
CenturyTel and companies like it are building rural America's
broadband network. Building robust rural networks requires expertise,
commitment, access to capital and substantial investment--all without
the assurance of a high density customer base to make a business case.
While CenturyTel only averages 14 access lines per square mile and
seventy-five percent of our customers are residential, more than
seventy percent of our customers nationwide have access to CenturyTel
DSL. In the State of Montana alone, almost ninety-six percent of
CenturyTel's sixty-three thousand access lines are DSL-enabled, and a
significant portion of our one hundred fifty-six million dollar total
investment went towards deployment of broadband to enable advanced
services. Advanced communications networks like ours are the foundation
for realizing the promise of IP-enabled services like switched digital
video and other new services yet to emerge. Quite simply, you can't
deliver the promise of IP without a high capacity network.
Without question, the further integration of IP-enabled services as
a telecommunications alternative offers both challenges and
opportunities for local telecommunications companies. We have adapted
to a new world of rapid-paced innovation and intense competition from a
wide variety of players. Equally true, this new reality is forcing
fundamental shifts in our industry--from proposed mega-mergers to the
new services and choices our companies are rolling out. Now, the
Nation's communications policy must adapt as well. Since we have barely
scratched the surface of broadband's potential to produce a whole new
generation of innovative applications, I appreciate knowing that this
Committee has proposed to write policies that broadly encourage network
investment and product innovation far beyond first-generation VoIP.
Importance of E-911 Capabilities for IP-Enabled Services
AT&T first made ``9-1-1'' available nationally for wireline access
to emergency services in 1965, and since that time, the American
public's dependence on 9-1-1 service has continued to increase. The
National Emergency Number Association (NENA) estimates that some form
of 9-1-1 service is available to 99 percent of the population in 96
percent of the counties in the United States, and roughly 200 million
calls are made to 9-1-1 in the United States each year. CenturyTel
supports the concept advanced by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) that a service or device should be subject to 9-1-1/E-911
regulation if the customers using such service or device have a
``reasonable expectation of access to 9-1-1 and E-911 services.''
Indeed, providing reliable and secure 9-1-1 and E-911 services has
become a necessary cost of doing business for all voice providers,
regardless of platform used.
The American public's expectations for access to emergency services
have not diminished, but admittedly have become more challenging to
meet, as new technologies for delivering voice communications have
arisen and as consumers have become more mobile. The wireless industry
can attest to the challenges in implementing emergency services in an
increasingly mobile environment. No doubt, IP-enabled voice
communications is another technology that will present challenges in
implementing emergency services because it can be delivered using so
many different platforms. However, the time is NOW to address the
unique challenges VoIP presents for having access to emergency
services. Intrado, a national provider of 9-1-1 database management
services, projects a nearly tenfold increase in expected VoIP 9-1-1
calls from 2004 to 2006, to a total of 3.5 million residential VoIP 9-
1-1 calls in 2006, as this new communication technology becomes more
widespread.
Unfortunately, recent incidents in Texas, Florida and Connecticut
have brought to the forefront the need to address public safety issues
related to IP-enabled voice communications. By now everyone has
probably heard about the family in Houston, Texas who was in need of
emergency assistance when an intruder entered their home and attempted
to burglarize the family at gunpoint. During the incident, a 9-1-1 call
using an interconnected VoIP service was unable to be completed, thus
delaying dispatch of an ambulance for the wounded homeowners. The
incidents in Florida and Connecticut were just as traumatic and
harrowing.
We applaud Congress for introducing S. 1063 (and likewise H.R. 2418
in the House) and holding this field hearing in light of the reasons
listed above. While the FCC has issued an Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on E-911 requirements for IP-enabled service providers, we
are glad Congress has stepped in to address those issues where the FCC
believes it lacks jurisdiction--namely, requiring incumbent local
exchange carriers (ILECs) to give VoIP providers access to emergency
services infrastructure and immunity from liability for providing 9-1-1
services. We also believe S. 1063 provides more clarity than the FCC's
Order on some issues crucial to owners of emergency services
infrastructure and can hopefully move more swiftly towards resolution
of these critical issues. I will discuss S. 1063 and those other
crucial issues more fully in the remarks that follow.
Appropriate Compensation for Access to Emergency Infrastructure
S. 1063 contains a provision that requires entities with ownership
or control of emergency services infrastructure to ``provide any
requesting IP-enabled voice service provider with nondiscriminatory
access to their equipment, network, databases, interfaces and any other
related capabilities necessary for the delivery and completion of 9-1-1
and E-911 calls and information related to such 9-1-1 or E-911 calls.''
The owner ``shall provide access to the infrastructure at just and
reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates, terms and conditions.'' CenturyTel
is pleased S. 1063 addresses this issue and believes the FCC's June 3,
2005 Order does not fully address the issue of requiring VoIP providers
to compensate owners of emergency services infrastructure. CenturyTel,
like other local telephone companies, has invested in networks capable
of connecting our customers to life-saving services such as 9-1-1, and
we believe that providing 9-1-1 access is a legitimate cost of doing
business for all voice providers.
CenturyTel believes that creating a seamless public safety and
reliability standard for all voice service providers is the best public
policy and VoIP providers should be held to the same public safety and
reliability standards as other voice providers. To require less of a
provider merely because a different technology is used to facilitate
the voice call is not in the public's best interest. In addition, VoIP
providers should properly compensate incumbent carriers for access to
their 9-1-1 infrastructure. ILECs should not have mandates to provide
9-1-1 and related services to VoIP providers for free.
Today, CenturyTel either owns the emergency services infrastructure
in a particular area or properly compensates other owners of emergency
services infrastructure in areas where CenturyTel is not itself the
owner. Generally, a telecommunications carrier can either access
emergency services infrastructure under a tariff arrangement or through
an interconnection agreement, depending on the requirements in each
specific state. Under the current sections 251 and 271 requirements in
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the VoIP provider either has to
declare itself a ``certificated'' telecommunications carrier or
negotiate access to emergency services infrastructure through a third
party competitive LEC. Facilities-based providers must have assurances
that VoIP providers have a requirement to adequately compensate those
who make the necessary investment for access to emergency services
infrastructure. Such compensation should be made at a level that
adequately covers the actual costs of ownership of emergency services
infrastructure. The tariff process provides sufficient protection for
all providers involved in such an arrangement.
Liability Concerns
This past June, CenturyTel and the State of Montana entered into a
contract under which CenturyTel will provide 9-1-1 services throughout
the entire State of Montana. During the negotiations for this contract,
it became apparent that a major concern for all stakeholders throughout
the emergency services industry is liability in the event something
goes wrong in the process. While S. 1063 does contain a provision that
gives providers of IP-enabled voice service immunity or other
protection from liability of a scope and extent that is not less than
that given to any local exchange company under applicable Federal and
State law (whether through statute, judicial decision, tariffs filed by
such local exchange company, or otherwise), CenturyTel feels more
inquiry and work needs to be done to develop this issue further.
Statutes providing immunity and limitations of liability for 9-1-1
service providers vary widely from state to state and in many cases do
not really provide the liability protections that may be appropriate
for telecommunications companies, Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs), emergency services personnel, and local governments.
CenturyTel believes Congress should develop a Federal statute that
provides meaningful limitation of liability provisions for all parties
to add some consistency to the process and supplant the patchwork of
state statutes currently addressing liability issues. To be clear,
CenturyTel proposes a Federal statute that provides immunity from
liability for all parties who act without willful or wanton conduct in
the execution and provision of a 9-1-1 call, similar to that codified
in Oregon Revised Statutes Sec. 401.715 (2003), as follows:
``No provider . . . or any other person that supplies 9-1-1
emergency reporting system equipment . . . or the 9-1-1
jurisdiction . . . shall be held civilly liable for the
installation, performance, provision or maintenance of a 9-1-1
emergency reporting system or enhanced 9-1-1 telephone service
if the provider . . . supplier . . . or the 9-1-1 jurisdiction
. . . act without willful or wanton conduct.''
Key Policy Decisions Facing Congress and the FCC
Congress should affirm that those using the network must pay for
their use. ``Phantom traffic'' and other payment avoidance schemes
really are just theft, plain and simple. Advanced communications
networks are the foundation for realizing the promise of IP-enabled
services and without investments by companies like CenturyTel, there
would be no broadband connection, no VoIP and ultimately no services
like switched digital video or telemedicine.
Congress should support the 21st century network through
maintaining the Nation's commitment to Universal Service. Congress
should support stability in universal service by broadening the base of
support to include all providers of voice service, including VoIP, and
setting high standards in order to receive universal service. Also,
because of broadband's importance to the future of advanced services
deployment, consideration should be given to providing explicit support
for broadband deployment.
Congress should continue to address social and public safety
concerns in an ever changing technological and mobile environment. The
tragic events of 9/11 and in Texas, Connecticut and Florida have
highlighted the sense of urgency in this area. Congress can simply make
clear that public safety responsibilities apply to all, and must be
fulfilled as a necessary requirement for all providers.
Congress should make clear that VoIP providers who are given
nondiscriminatory access to emergency services infrastructure must pay
adequate compensation to local telephone companies and other owners of
such infrastructure in an amount that adequately covers the actual
costs of ownership of the infrastructure. 9-1-1 is a legitimate cost of
doing business for all voice providers and need not be borne entirely
by customers. Without such assurances, no one will voluntarily want to
be an owner of this emergency services infrastructure. Therefore, those
companies that ``step up to the plate'' should be protected for their
commitment to public safety.
Congress should develop a Federal standard that addresses
limitation of liability issues in the provision of E-911 services.
Today's patchwork of state statutes presents significant difficulties
for stakeholders who seek to understand their rights, responsibilities
and potential liabilities with regard to implementation and provision
of 9-1-1 services. A national program like 9-1-1 that requires so much
cooperation between all stakeholders across the country should not be
subject to the politics and whims and desires of each state if it is to
work as seamlessly as the American public desires.
Conclusion
Senator Burns, we thank you for holding this hearing. I think
everyone understands the importance of VoIP and E-911 to the Nation's
economy and consumers and can appreciate that your decisions in this
area will help shape the future of telecommunications and consumer
safety. CenturyTel is eager to work with you in the future and hopes
that you will seriously consider the points we make here today. I thank
you for the opportunity to join you today and look forward to your
questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. A question arising from
that also. Now we'll hear from Bill Squires, Blackfoot
Telecommunications Group, and he follows the compliance issues
very closely. Bill, thank you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SQUIRES, SR. VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
COUNSEL, BLACKFOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP
Mr. Squires. Thank you very much, Senator. My testimony has
been submitted, so I'll depart actually greatly from that,
because I think the testimony I've submitted, I would encourage
the Committee to consider.
But it addresses--much like the rest of the testimony--VoIP
issues, and how that hits our rural company. I talked to Monica
this morning, and she also asked me to address some of the
wireless compliance issues, so I'll do my best to hit those.
For the record, my name is Bill Squires. I'm Senior Vice
President and General Counsel for Blackfoot Telecommunications
Group, which is headquartered in Missoula. On behalf of our
company, I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear at
this hearing today.
Our company started in 1954, Senator, and its mission at
that time, and now, continues to be bringing the best in
communications to rural Montana. Part of that mission involves
the safety and security of our members and our neighbors, and
we do that largely through E-911.
The critical issues that you've already heard about from
other witnesses here today, I'll just reiterate briefly some of
the things that concern us as a rural provider in Montana.
Jeremy Ferkin just hit on compensation issues. Certainly
that's an issue for us. We don't have objections with access to
our network for VoIP providers in order to enable E-911
services; but as you're keenly aware, the cost of providing
services in rural Montana is extreme. Certainly we're greatly
dependent on Universal Service Funds for that; and as Jeremy
Ferkin stated, the people that use the network do have to
adequately compensate our members and our company for that kind
of access.
As somewhat of a side note to that same issue, Senator, I
urge you and Members of the Committee to reconcile that access
requirement in Senate Bill 1063 with the rural exemptions in
the 1996 Telecom Act. As you're aware, there are some
provisions in that act that give protection to rural companies
to opening their network and their network elements to other
companies in order to protect the viability of rural
telecommunications. We need to ensure that the access
provisions of Senate Bill 1063 do not negate those protections
that were built into the 1996 Act.
Certainly the liability parity issues, I think that we
certainly would and do support. Montana has a pretty good
statute on liability protection for telephone providers,
traditional telephone companies, when it comes to providing E-
911, and I think it makes perfect sense to extend that same
protection to providers of VoIP services.
Certainly the biggest problem we're facing, Senator, in the
trenches is rural addressing, an issue I know you're familiar
with, but it's one that continues to haunt our implementation
of E-911, particularly certainly on the wireline side.
In my own county, in Missoula County, where Qwest is the
RBOC provider to Missoula, and we're the independent provider
to the communities surrounding Missoula, such as Seeley Lake,
Clinton, etc., that are also in Missoula County, the data was
validated to a sufficient level from a population percentage
standpoint to roll out E-911 simply by validating the MSAG for
the Missoula urban area, if we can call it that, without having
to validate rural addressing for the rural areas.
And so E-911 has been implemented in Missoula County,
really to the exclusion of the rural areas, and that's
something that has to be addressed, I think, with the standards
that you have heard from other witnesses about. The counties
that we work with are very good about cooperating with us, but
the fact of the matter is they're all doing their own thing,
and we do need some standards to allow us to interact with
counties on the same basis.
Briefly, Senator, I'll just touch on wireless issues in the
interests of full disclosure. We continue to operate a wireless
business in western Montana, but we've sold it. We're no longer
the owners of the wireless business, although we're the
operators currently. I'm pleased and proud to report to you
today that that system is fully compliant with the provisions
of wireless E-911. We've met all of the standards to date, and
we have no doubt that we'll hit full compliance under the
current statute.
And I would be happy to address any questions you may have
with wireless compliance as well. Again, thank you for the
opportunity, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Squires follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Squires, Sr. Vice President and General
Counsel, Blackfoot Telecommunications Group
Introduction
Senator Burns, my name is Bill Squires. I am the Sr. Vice President
and General Counsel for the Blackfoot Telecommunications Group
headquartered in Missoula, Montana. Blackfoot is both an incumbent
rural telephone company, providing service to approximately 18,000
customer access lines in rural western Montana, and a competitive local
exchange carrier, providing competitive telecommunications services to
the Missoula market.
Support for Senate Bill 1063
Since 1954 when Blackfoot began service as a small rural telephone
cooperative, it has done so in large part to provide our rural members
with much needed contact with others, including vital access to
emergency services. The continuing development of our global economy,
and the absolute need for Montana to be a player in that economy,
dictates that our telecommunications networks and services be on par
with those in much larger urban areas--and they are. However, we must
always have as our first goal the safety and security of our families
and our neighbors. To that end, we applaud the introduction of Senate
Bill 1063, and very much appreciate your co-sponsorship of this
important legislation.
There is a great deal of ``buzz'' surrounding the virtues of IP-
Enabled Voice Services, or ``VoIP'' as it has been dubbed. To be sure,
this technology represents significant advances in not only network
utilization and efficiency, but in customer choice flexibility. With
that flexibility comes the heightened obligation to ensure, to the
greatest extent possible, that all our customers, including those in
our rural areas, will have the benefits of Enhanced-911 services should
they ever be needed. Senate Bill 1063 takes many important steps in
ensuring that E-911 services will be available to VoIP customers.
Implementation Realities
Senate Bill 1063 delegates to the Federal Communications Commission
the authority to prescribe regulations in order to establish a set of
requirements on providers of IP-Enabled Voice Services. Section 2(b) of
the bill would require companies such as Blackfoot to provide non-
discriminatory access to emergency services infrastructure. While
Blackfoot certainly does not object to this requirement, I implore you
to be as specific as possible in the Congressional Record regarding
just what is meant by such ``nondiscriminatory'' access, as well as the
cost recovery mechanisms for such infrastructure. With a limited
customer base, Blackfoot and similar companies simply cannot absorb a
great deal of additional expense relating to updates to master
databases of location information. This process can be complicated by
the dynamic nature of IP devices, meaning that location databases may
need to essentially have immediate updates whenever a user of this
service changes location. I would suggest that, similar to wireless E-
911, a simpler and more cost effective implementation regime may be to
require, over time, that all VoIP devices be GPS-equipped.
Any non-discriminatory system will undoubtedly involve updating of
customer support software. Again, the Commission's rules should provide
for the fair recovery of these costs.
As an aside, and somewhat out of the scope of this hearing, I also
encourage the Committee, and the Commission, to reconcile the bill's
``non-discriminatory access'' provisions with the overriding provisions
of Section 251(f) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which exempts
rural telephone companies such as Blackfoot Telephone Cooperative from
certain ``unbundling'' requirements otherwise imposed by that Act.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the biggest
obstacle to date in implementing E-911 in rural service areas, and that
is the issue of rural addressing and county-state collaboration.
Regarding addressing, some counties in Montana have contracted with
third-parties to do rural addressing, and it is working very well.
However, some counties have chosen to undertake the addressing
themselves. This has led to delays in completing rural addressing in a
timely manner. In Missoula County, for instance, E-911 has been
implemented without completion of addressing in many of the rural areas
served by Blackfoot.
Compounding this issue is the lack of mandated standards for
addressing. While the state has set forth recommended standards, each
county is free to implement addressing in their own way. It may sound
tedious, but designations such as ``Lane'', ``In'', or ``Ine'' have
significant database implications. Similarly, inconsistencies in
databases maintained by some E-911 providers cause a great deal of
delay, and expense, in scrubbing data. Future funding and
implementation regulations can be used by the Commission to entice more
counties to move toward standards, and for providers to pay greater
attention to clean data.
Conclusion
Again, on behalf of Blackfoot Telecommunications and similar rural
telephone companies, I would like to thank you for bringing forward
this important legislation. As with any legislation, the devil
certainly is in the implementation details, and I commit to work with
you, your staff, the Commission, and other interested parties to see
that this legislation brings to rural Montana the benefits of E-911
services, while allowing us all to realize the opportunities brought by
VoIP services.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Squires. I appreciate that
very much. Mr. Greg Jergeson, Public Service Commission of
Montana. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GREG JERGESON, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF MONTANA
Mr. Jergeson. Thank you, Senator Burns, for having invited
me to appear before your Committee today.
I want to express my appreciation that you're holding this
important hearing in Montana, the state that you and I both
represent as public servants, and it's a special honor,
frankly, for me that you choose to have this hearing in Cascade
County, which turns out to be a cornerstone community of my own
Public Service Commission District No. 1, which runs from here
north to the Canadian border, and east to North Dakota; and if
there's a definition of rural, that probably is PSC District 1.
So I appreciate you bringing this hearing here today.
One of the first things I learned back in 1975 when I
entered the Montana Senate as a fresh faced, really gung-ho
kind of guy, was some of the older hands said, ``The first bit
of advice is don't filibuster your own bills to death;'' and
though this is not my bill, I do support it, and I don't wish
to filibuster your bill to death, Senator. So I'm going to keep
my remarks fairly short.
We've submitted written testimony. I'll just kind of
paraphrase some of the items in the written testimony, and then
be happy, like the others, to answer any questions you may
have.
Clearly Montana citizens expect that when they dial 9-1-1,
that that will get them the service that they need in whatever
emergency situation they're experiencing, irrespective of who
their telecom or communications provider is, be it wireline,
wireless, or VoIP; and the Montana PSC believes that this bill
is important, in that it is designed to make sure that that
accepted universal service by almost everybody in the public is
observed.
The other thing important about it, we find that sometimes
on the Montana PSC, we think that we have authority to do
certain things, but we get a certain comfort level by going to
our Legislature and saying, ``We would like to have that
authority expressly put into the statutes,'' and I think much
of your bill does that very same thing with respect to the FCC
ruling that came out on this particular subject, is that it
will clearly clarify that in fact the FCC had that authority.
From my perspective as Chairman of the State Public Service
Commission, we appreciate the provisions in your bill,
particularly Section 2(h), which permits the FCC to delegate to
the state commissions implementation and enforcement of the
national rules. We appreciate Section 2(c) that clarifies that
nothing in these Federal laws or rules will prevent the
collection of fees on a non-discriminatory basis from the
providers, provided that that revenue is dedicated to the 9-1-1
purposes.
I've attached to my testimony a resolution passed by the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners at
their summer meeting in Austin, Texas this summer in support of
the provisions of this bill, and believe that that gives
clearly a nationwide feel to the support for this fine bill.
As a final observation, I would note that this bill and its
requirements that all service providers share in the delivery
of this essential universal service demonstrates that the
distinction some would make between information services and
telecommunications services is in fact a distinction without a
difference. And I support this bill, and I can think of no
reason why it shouldn't pass without delay. I commend you for
your sponsoring this bill, and your co-sponsors as well, and I
thank you for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jergeson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Jergeson, Chairman, Public Service
Commission of Montana
Montana citizens who dial 9-1-1 expect to be connected to emergency
services personnel. This expectation exists no matter what kind of
telephone service they are using--wireline, wireless or the newest
telecom technology, broadband/VoIP. This bill goes hand in hand with,
and strengthens, the recent FCC action to require VoIP companies to
provide their customers with the same E-911 calling capability that
other telephone companies provide.
It is essential to public safety that VoIP providers be required to
make this vital emergency service available to all of their customers
without delay. This bill does that, and more. It also recognizes that
traditional phone companies own the existing E-911 infrastructure and
mandates that those companies give VoIP providers access to their 9-1-1
networks on a nondiscriminatory basis and at reasonable rates. And,
just in case there is any ambiguity in current law about the FCC's
authority to act on VoIP E-911, this bill explicitly provides the FCC
with that authority.
From my perspective as chairman of a state public service
commission, it is important to retain the provisions in the bill that
recognize the role of states in the provision of E-911 emergency
services. In particular, Section 2(h) of the bill, which permits the
FCC to delegate implementation and enforcement of the national 9-1-1
rules to state commissions, should be retained. State commissions are
the agencies best situated to implement and enforce national 9-1-1
standards concerning the telecommunications providers operating in
their states.
In addition, Section 2(c) clarifies that nothing in the bill or in
Federal law or rules prevents states from collecting 9-1-1 fees from
VoIP phone companies, in the same way fees are collected from other
phone companies, if none of the collected revenue is diverted for non-
9-1-1 purposes. This, too, is an important feature of this bill.
Certainly the state of Montana should be able to require VoIP companies
to share the same responsibility for supporting Montana's 9-1-1 program
as other types of phone companies currently do.
I note for the record that the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners, which includes the Montana PSC, adopted a
resolution at its summer meeting that commended you for introducing
this legislation and stated the organization's commitment to working
with Congress, the FCC and the industry on this issue. I've attached a
copy of the NARUC resolution to my testimony. NARUC is particularly
interested in preserving the productive state commission role in
arbitrating and enforcing interconnection to 9-1-1 and E-911 trunk
lines and hopes to clarify that role as this bill moves forward.
As final observation, I would note that this bill and its
requirements that all service providers share in the delivery of this
essential universal service demonstrates that the distinction some
would make between information services and telecommunications services
is, in fact, a distinction without a difference.
I support this bill and can think of no reason why it shouldn't be
enacted without delay by Congress. I commend Senator Burns for
sponsoring it as well as for his continuing support of Montana's E-911
program. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Commissioner Jergeson, can you
answer a question? Nine times out of ten, we start going down
the road of legislation, and we wrestle with definitions. Are
we going to have to change some of the definitions between,
say, communications and information services?
Mr. Jergeson. Well, I think maybe we need to review what
kind of definitions the various parties are trying to put to
those kinds of services, and beware that they may be making
distinctions that serve their purposes, and that we may need to
make sure that we have a definition that meets the old adage
about the nature of the duck, how it walks and quacks.
Senator Burns. That's a good answer. Mr. Squires, would you
like to comment on that? Because we don't always define the
same things the same way, and whenever we start down this, I
just think if we define them right off the bat, then it makes
our job a lot easier.
Mr. Squires. It would, Senator. I agree with that. As I was
listening to the question and Chairman Jergeson's response, I
was thinking of the duck adage. You beat me to it.
You heard testimony from someone--and I apologize. I can't
remember which one it was--on the panel right before us that
essentially if it's a voice call, then it's a
telecommunications service. And I would absolutely agree with
that.
If it's a two-way voice call, where I'm picking up my
phone, and calling your office, even though that is carried
over IP protocol, that's a telecommunications service; and if
there are advantages to be gained in the market--be they
regulatory advantages, or other competitive advantages--by
trying to shoehorn something into an information services
definition, I think companies will do that, and I don't think
there's necessarily anything wrong with that. That gives them a
competitive advantage.
That's why I do think it's important that legislation and
regulatory rules clarify just what is a telecommunications
service, and in my mind, it's just pretty simple. It's a two-
way conversation.
Senator Burns. Same, Jeremy?
Mr. Ferkin. The only thing I would add to it is, since
we're on adages, follow the money. Why are people creating a
differentiation between an information service and a
telecommunications service? And in most cases, it's to get
around paying for whomever's network you're using. There is no
IP without CenturyTel and companies like Blackfoot building the
broadband infrastructure out to your home, your ranch, or
wherever it may be.
So Vonage could not exist without our infrastructure. And
if they're utilizing our infrastructure, and the voice
communications over it that are being used in such a manner
that it takes revenue away from us, so we then are more
dependent on things like USF for other things. Then if it
quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it's a duck. The
reality is. Voice is voice.
Senator Burns. Let's talk about mapping and addressing.
That seems to be a concern. Why is it so difficult that we
can't get correct mapping for locations for our different
emergency centers? What's the problem that we run into in
mapping?
Mr. Squires. Senator, the problem that quite simply we run
into in our area is resources. It's expensive. Typically
counties will hire consultants, or can hire consultants--there
are several companies out there that do this--to essentially go
around and GPS every farmhouse, every home, every business out
in our service area. It's expensive.
So resources, I think, are the number one issue. I think
counties are doing the best they can, but they don't have the
human resources or the financial resources to complete the job.
And to the extent that Congress can help them with those
resources, I think that would go a great, great way towards
getting rural addressing and rural mapping done.
The other issue, of course, is that people hate to change
their address. We have to change our address in Granite County,
at Georgetown Lake, because we're on the opposite side of the
road. We have to be an odd number, not an even number. And
that's fine for a cabin, but a business hates to change their
address. And so from that standpoint, there's certainly some
customer reluctance to do it, but the main problem is
resources. The counties need the money to get it done.
Senator Burns. When you go Voice Over IP, addressing
becomes even more important, because when you move your
computer, that is not noted whenever they call it in that he's
moved to another city, even though it may be in the same area
that the telephone company or whoever serves. Is that a
problem, and should some responsibility be incumbent on the
computer user or the person using the Voice Over IP services?
Mr. Squires. Certainly I think it should be, Senator. I
think there are some personal responsibilities that people have
to take. And mobility in our society causes an increase, I
think, of some of that responsibility.
Some of our technical folks think that we should get to the
point where we track VoIP devices just like we do cell phones,
use GPS. That's several years down the road, and right now
there's the expense, and there's privacy issues certainly that
go with that. But that can go a long ways towards taking care
of that mobility problem.
Senator Burns. Mr. Jergeson.
Mr. Jergeson. Well, I think that it's extremely important
that somehow that person is located, and the technology
probably exists to accomplish that. But the other thing that is
important, I think, in this whole realm or whether or not we
have effective 9-1-1 is whether or not the various technologies
have coverage. I think the cell phones in so many areas of the
state being dead spots in Montana. Your cell phone might be
able to tell somebody where you're at, but if you're not in a
place where you can get a signal, you can't complete the call
to begin with.
Therefore, I think that's a major consideration as we work
on improving and fixing our 9-1-1 systems, is that part of that
needs to be able to make the coverage of these various
technologies available almost everywhere.
Senator Burns. Jeremy.
Mr. Ferkin. Most of the--as you mentioned earlier--the dark
suited people are carrying devices similar to this,
Blackberries or whatever they may be. So I think our laptops
and our concerns about the mobile computer are going to be a
temporal issue. We have On Star in most of our vehicles.
Commission Jergeson speaks perfectly about the fact that we
still have issues where there aren't cell coverage areas in
Montana. So regardless of whether you won't be able to get
VoIP, you won't be able to get cell coverage issue, but more
and more people are going to a highly mobile device.
By the way, this has a GPS chip in it, so you don't have to
think about that. So I think we have a time period here where
laptops are going to continue to be of use, but Federal
statutes could step in and say GPS devices need to be in them
if you're going to provide VoIP. But the other side is
technology protocols--not that it will mean anything to a lot
of people in the room--but things like MPLS, we're doing Multi
Protocol Label Switching, it's amazing how when you're sitting
somewhere remote, your email still gets to you, right? We can
put in the addressing packet of that data where you are.
So yes, it would be a requirement of that person, when they
register their computer, like if it was a brand new Dell, to
who they are, where they're at; then when they go to a new
location, to have a pop-up that says, ``We see that you're not
coming from same IP address,'' or ``You're not coming from the
same location. You're hitting new routers,'' and it gives you a
pop-up requirement.
Service providers can require that. Service providers can
demand that. So the technology isn't the issue--we heard that
from Mr. Citron and other people--the issue is how do we make
it happen? You've got to force it, and you've got to demand it.
So those tragedies that have happened in multiple states
aren't a result of technology, they're a result of people being
unwilling to work together, and Federal statute demanding that
they work together.
Senator Burns. Mr. Jergeson, are you pretty happy with the
build-out and the progress that's being made in the wireless
communications in this state?
Mr. Jergeson. No, I wouldn't say that I'm particularly
happy so far. There's been a lot of build-out. But when you
think of my PSC district, you can drive a lot of miles between
Grassrange and Circle, and not have cell phone service; and
just because it's a sparsely populated area doesn't mean that
people there who are concerned about the ability to
communicate, particularly in emergencies or family matters, not
having coverage, they ought to be able to have coverage.
We're working very hard, and some of the providers are
working very hard, and the approval of ETC status for Midrivers
Telephone is--their wireless company is probably going to help
a great deal in the build-out of that service, and as we work
through those with other providers around the state. But the
process is slower than I like it at this point.
Senator Burns. We've kind of identified some of the
problems, and there are some of the problems that we can work
on in the legislation and some of them that we can't, the
application, and on how we force this new service out into
rural areas, and do a really good job in emergencies such as
these. I'm a very strong believer in 9-1-1. I've seen it save
lives, but we also hear some horror stories whenever we start
talking about locating people.
Here in Montana, there was one instance in Petroleum
County, of all counties. We get a 9-1-1 call. It did go to the
closest responder, which was Lewistown, and they couldn't find
him, and we lost a life just because of that.
So that's what we're trying to prevent in this piece of
legislation. We've identified some of the areas, and I look
forward to working with all of you to get this legislation
passed, but also implemented. I think it takes all of us
working together to implementation.
The mapping concerns me, the addressing concerns me,
because that's very important, especially where you have
communities--Let's go to the Flathead over here in your part of
the country, Mr. Squires, where you have growth, Missoula
experiencing great growth, new areas coming up. How do we stay
ahead of that? And the old folks that have always had the same
old address, they're not going to change.
Also our Blackberries. I changed the name of my Blackberry
to Dr. Pepper. In order to manage my life, I only turn it on at
ten, two, and four, and then I turn it off. But nonetheless, we
are living in the age of instant communications. And so I'm
under the assumption that human nature being as it is, if you
don't really respond to a problem right away, well, in two
hours they've already solved it, and they didn't need you
anyway. But sometimes that is not always the case. But I know
that people don't like to change addresses, and they're just
reluctant to change, but they're going to have to. And most of
them will. But we still have human nature as it is.
Thank you for your testimony today. I'm going to leave the
record open for other Senators. If they have questions, you may
get written questions from this hearing. If you would respond
both to the Committee and the individual member of the
Committee, I would appreciate that. And of course, all your
statements will be made a part of the record. I thank you for
coming today. It's been very informative to me. We've still got
a little work to do. I think working together we can get it
done. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:53 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
<all>