the candidate has to be approved by the parliament. i share the view of the ambassador that the heads of government certainly want this issue to be resolved relatively soon. the problem is they are calling it themselves. they have said two things. first, the head of the party will be the natural candidate for the job and, second, we want to keep the flexibility of the president. these are contributory. the situation in which miss merkel was saying on tuesday, don't do exactly and saying on friday, well, i have been committed to support this issue

in every meeting from now on i will support him. so it's not a personal question, it's really an institutional question. a new electoral body like the parliame parliament. a super candidate, i am always happy to see french people in a position to be candidates like that, but i think that the parliament has no reason to accept anyone coming outside from an electoral region. so mrs. legarde, i think they're excellent candidates, both of them naturally, promoted to higher positions, international

positions. >> the debt question and the jobs question. on the debt question, there are two separate issues. sustainability where it really depends on ability of the country to finance its debt and the markets to accept that debt, and that could be different levels. japan has very high debt but it can't finance it. other countries get in trouble. the impact on growth is another issue. it is -- i think if you look at correlation of investments and debt you see that high debt leads to lower growth. if you look at correlation of consumption and debt when debt is high, consumers don't spend so spending is low, growth is lower. so it is i think very clear-cut and we have done a lot of work

on this across country when debt is high, it reduces investment which is a major problem right now in europe. investment levels are below prices and it weighs on the growth. addressing the issue is different from growth. that's a separate issue. >> the old theory, when the debt was high interest rates would be high, right? and that was depressing them. now investment seems to be depressed despite except in crisis countries record low interest rate. >> but when your balance sheet is encumbered, if you have a very high debt, then even at low interest rates you may be concerned that you will not be able to, say, be a profitable enterprise and therefore it will not be investing. as a consumer, particularly when you look at the demographics in europe, you may be concerned

about your pension, your ability to consume later and, therefore, withhold the consumption in the short term. so i think there's a very clear relationship between growth and debt if you break it down in different dye mentions also. on the jobs, i think what the questioner asked is very important. i think the issue is not a standard job that people define. the world is changing. one may work for 15 hours or one may work for 30 hours, one may work for much longer. the issue is the ability to do that and the regulations that govern that. and the problem in europe is that that flexibility, both in terms of cost and regulation when it comes to contract are too rigid and so you need to have that more flexible and, of course, it's difficult to do that when that protection and

the cost of labor has been very high, liberalizing that is very difficult but you need that in order for jobs. what you need at the same time, and europe is good at that, is social protection. so protecting the worker, not the position. >> as director of the imf europe department, i will not ask you about your views on the super candidates. >> thank you. >> peter? >> thank you. a couple of points on those questions. on the labor and the jobs and what is a job as opposed to top jobs, we'll come to that in a moment, obviously what europe needs is to have a properly flexible definition of labor market which allows for a whole lot of changes in the way people live their lives. even in my organization, the british foreign office, we see submissions signed off by two people who are joint heads of departments. they do three days a week or two

and a half days each at this job. i have people take 80% of the pay and do five days of work during the week. we have people trying to adapt to what different individuals want to do and how much of their life they wish to spend earning a job. we're doing this partly because i think it's right to be flexible, but it's also a key to diversity. we're not going to be flexible in terms of our employment practice, we're not going to be able to attract all of the talent that we want when people have other requirements in their lives. it's fundamental. it's about regulations and it's about a culture of being more adaptable for those of us who are employers. second point i would make, you're going to make me answer the scotland question because i'm not sure who else is qualified to answer it, i'm not sure i am either but that's another -- how are we going to advance on the selection of these key positions. yes, we want to do this with maturity, with haste, with dignity. we want to get some answers on a

consensual basis, that's for sure. let's not forget what the treaty says. the treaty says that it is for the council, for the heads of government between themselves. it's necessary voting by qualified majority to nominate a candidate who is voted upon by the european parliament. it's not the european parliament to tell the council what it wants, it is the other way around. people who have come through, whatever they want to be, that's fine. they are out there amongst the candidates who will be presented, but i didn't see the name of mr. schultz or anybody else on any of the ballots that were voted upon by electors in any countries other than their own countries where they were candidates for membership of a european parliament. so i think we need to be clear what the rules are, what the treaty says, and the heads of government need to work out amongst themselves. that's why the sensible decision is to go away, talk to the candidates, see what the options are and come back with some proposals for the heads of

government to look at collectively and hopefully we will then end up with some answers. you're absolutely right. others have said it's not just one job. the president of the commission, the president of the council, we have the high rep, the job health by kathy and all of the other key jobs, members of the commission and hopefully within the coming months we will all be able to find ourselves in a position where everybody's content with the outcomes. i will refrain from commenting on the names that we mentioned other than to say that there are undoubtedly some outstandingly good french candidates whose names could be in the ring but there are many other candidates as well. i will not go further than that. and then what about scotland's independence, what would that mean? well, there will be a referendum in the united kingdom. not in the united kingdom, in scotland only on the 18th of september, which is not very far away, when people who live in scotland, not skotcotts abroad,

english, people above the age of 18 will be invited to vote whether scotland will separate itself from the united kingdom, an arrangement that's been intact for the last 300 years. that's a pretty big deal for my country and a lot of us are concerned about what the implications might be. my government has facilitated that holding of that referendum as a result of an election of the scottish national majority in the local elections last time around in 2011. the british government is not actually neutral. the british government not only the party in government but also the principal opposition parties actually take the view that we would like the united kingdom to stay together and that's why you will hear scottish but also, you know, english, welsh, other members, political figures, business figures in the u.k. expressing an opinion about whether they do or do not want scotland to become independent. if they did become independent, if there is a majority in favor of independence on the 18th of

september, then that is what will happen and we will all have to scurry around to make a whole lot of changes to an awful lot of things in the ways the united kingdom conducts business. one of many questions that arises, and there are lots, about currency, foreign investment, defense, nato commitments, all sorts of different things that are out there, about pension rights, about the shares and sovereign debt of the united kingdom which would arise for an independent scotland, but there is the question of european union membership. i think mr. salmon who is the prime minister of scotland has said he expects there to be a seamless transition. that is not what leaders of the european union have said. other political leaders in the european union have said that if scotland leaves the united kingdom and wants to join the european kingdom, it has to take its space in the cue. it will require the unanimous consent of every single member of the 21 members of the e.u.

i would be surprised if all of that got done seamlessly in 18 months but we will see. it is clear that there are some member states which are quite nervous about the idea of a member state fragmenting and then bits of other member states reapplying for place into the european union. it is a question that will arise in case there is a vote in favor of independence in september. >> thank you very much, peter. let me just add a few words and then we'll close. i think some of what we've debated and started off with really has to do with global quality. the way you corporate in a global economy, in a global world. the cooperation between nation states is still the main way one cooperates. the nation states is not about to go away, even in europe as we see. and i think it also still is a source of a lot of democratic legitimacy because of the -- you know,

struggling with it. in my own experience, let me just share one thing, how a person gets a particular job that is super national, of course the permission is a much -- much more political, as jack said, organization than the imf or the world bank is, for example, okay? but to some degree there is some

comparison -- there are bureaucracies that try to solve economic problems, try to manage global cooperation and so on. there has to be a certain amount of legitimacy in these bureaucracies which they often then have to be kind of personalized because in politics, global media, things get very personalized. with the person, he or she who is heading these organizations, so i think to view the appointments as purely technocratic, whether it's a commission or heading the imf, world bank, wto is no longer appropriate for today's world. there have been figures, such as jack dulau, who was not a politician, but at the same time had a direct message to citizens

and was accepted as such by citizens. there are other examples one can give, you know, from other international institutions. many, many years ago you would not -- i don't want to go into current examples because it's kind of controversial but despite the problems with the vietnam world, mcnamara was head of the world bank, he was addressing global citizenship so to speak ahead of the world bank. there have been leaders of the imf that have done similarly. i think that element is important. and to somehow view global cooperation as purely, purely a matter of national diplomacy cooperating and working together underestimates the degree of need there is for a global or regional demos in a way. of course, we are very far from having achieved this yet. thank you so much for coming, all of you. and thank particularly, of

course, the panel, the wonderful panel we've had. i hope you've enjoyed this. i hope brookings is fulfilling the mission of bringing such discussions together and please give a round of applause to our panelists. [ applause ] live on capitol hill now for a hearing on updating communications networks and potential impact on public safety services like 911. this is just getting underway. >> thank you for coming to the senate subcommittee on communications technology and the internet. the committee on commerce house of transportation, i want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. we'll have a number of colleagues coming and going this morning. we have a number of other hearings and markups, et cetera, going on as well.

so some of our colleagues will be coming and going. let me just say good morning to everyone and welcome to today's hearing. we're here today to discuss the public safety and network security aspects of the ongoing evolution of today's nation networks. today they're in the midst of multiple transmissions that promise to change how we communication. first the transmission infrastructure that carries the voice communications away from reliance on copper to fiber optics. next, the so-called circuit switch protocols that have long underpinned traditional telephone service or transitioning to newer internet protocols or i.p. systems. and, finally, many americans are choosing to substitute wireless service for traditional wired voice communications, however, there may be challenges that consumers, carriers, and public safety officials face as our networks increasingly rely on all i.p. technology and fiber optic infrastructure.

in my state, arkansas recently suffered a severe tornado. tragically we lost 18 arkansans. 1300 homes lost power. i've heard nothing but positive things from the arkansas public safety department and the governor from how our local telephone companies reacted during and after the storm. i would expect those companies to continue their commitment to public safety no matter the technology used to transmit phone calls over our networks. consumers have come to trust the reliability and resiliency of the old copper telephone network. they cannot afford to wait for a disaster to strike to find out that there are gaps in our communications networks in an all i.p. world. so i want to be sure that we are exploring the public safety implications of these transitions and asking the right questions proactively. but i do not want -- but i also

do want to stress that the i.p. transition presents an important opportunity for consumers and communication providers. it brings potential of new services and possibilities to make our networks more efficient and bring down costs. rather than be an impediment. it's my job to explore this in a thorough manner to discuss our implications in depth and work towards solutions in advance to mitigate any negative impacts. i want to recognize the efforts who are working with the commission to carefully and deliberately explore the implications of the i.p. transition through the fcc's transition trials. ultimately it's my hope that through these trials all stakeholders can work together to pro actively address any issues revealed in the trials to

protect consumers but i expect congress to maintain close oversight over this transition. we deserve nothing less. i want to thank you all for being here and i want to hear your perspective on this important discussion. i look forward to your testimony. i want to turn it over to the ranking member, senator wicker. >> thank you, senator pryor. this deals with represerving public safety. this hearing hits home not only for arkansans but through missi sip i ans. in late april tornadoes ravaged us and took lives and caused extensive damage. despite the devastation, we can be thankful for the technology that provided critical information ahead of time, alerting people to take shelter and saving hundreds of our fellow citizens. the swift action of our weather

forecasters, local officials and first responders validated the importance of technology and communication when disaster strikes. the modernization of our nation's communications network from legacy copper line telephone infrastructure to high speed fiber and wireless broadband is expected to maximize the benefits of i.p. broadband networks to all-americans. these networks will provide far more capable and efficient voice services, allow faster and morrow bust data transfers, deliver 21st century education and health services and enhance public safety communications like next generation 911. there will be a host of issues raised when we discuss i.p. transition but nothing is more important than ensuring a seamless transition for our first responders and the citizens they serve and protect. the capacity for this technology to protect citizens not only must be preserved but also improved by this exciting new

transition. the fcc has moved the ball forward in constructive ways authorizing voluntary i.p. transition trials. these trials will test, analyze -- and analyze the impact of moving away from legacy communication networks, particularly in regard to public safety. the commission held a public i.p. transition workshop in april that focused on the transitions effectsen critical public safety, emergency response, the national security functions. i would like to welcome the f.c.c.'s chief technology officer who provided important technical expertise to the workshop and is here today to do the same. i welcome the rest of our witnesses who represent a cross section of key stakeholders including state and safety consumers, broadband providers themselves who have invested important resources for the modern infrastructure.

i'm glad we're all here. the hearing will be brief. ensuring a smooth path for public safety must be an all hands on deck with us all working together to scrutinize the i.p.'s transition's impact on emergency communications in this country. so, mr. chairman, thank you again for holding this important hearing. >> thank you senator wicker. i want to thank you and your staff for being flexible. as you all know we've moved from 10:00 a.m. to 9:30 to 9:15 to try to accommodate senator's schedules so thank you all for doing that. we're going to make a slight change when it comes to y'all's opening statement. mr. schultz has a presentation which will take five minutes. i think we're asking everybody else to limit their remarks to three minutes if we can. let me introduce the whole panel and then i'll recognize mr. schultzrinne. chief technology officer federal

communications commission. he'll be our first witness. then we'll have jonathan or john banks, senior vice president, law and policy u.s. telecom. then we'll have jody griffin, senior staff attorney, public knowledge. then we'll have cola honorable, she's the chair of the board and president of the national association of regulatory utility commissioners. she's also the chairman of the state of arkansas's state public service commission. and introduce -- and miss gigi smith, president of apco international. mr. schultzrinne, let me recognize you for your presentation. thank you. >> thank you. chairman pryor, members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to invite some technical context regarding the technology transitions that you referred to and in particular public safety. my name is henning

schultzrinne. as cpo i'm pleased to discuss the technical foundation for today's topic but will respectfully decline comment on any policy matters. i.p. protocols offers opportunity to improve emergency communications unprecedented from the conversion of an log to digital in the 1970s and 1980s, however, these very same changes also pose new challenges to performance, reliability and sustainability of emergency communication systems. as you hinted at, about 70% of all 911 calls originate on a mobile phone today. and of the 79 million residential land line connections in the united states, 34 million are now interconnected voice over i.p. as opposed to tdm. we can also no longer take for

granted that all households have a tv, a land line phone with a central office battery backup or even a battery powered transistor radio. let's say a college student will be listening when the tone sounds to seek shelter. the transition to i.p. is multi-faceted and encompasses three layers. at the applicational layer, voice, video and tech services are enabled by new internet application protocols instead of the old signaling system number 7. at the transport this replaces the old time division multi-plexing foundation. the physical is integrating fiber, coax and satellite into a unifight whole. however, even as the transition is taking place, we should not

forget large parts of the voice network are still using the same tdm technology hardware developed and deployed in some cases 30 or 40 years ago. in particular, for public safety, common trunks originally developed for operator services. unfortunately they have played a role in two large scale outages of 911 systems in the last few years. spare parts, investment and expertise needed to maintain these legacy networks are becoming scarce. as fcc chairman wheeler has stated, public safety is one of the core values that must be sustained during the nation's transition to all i.p. networks. two technical challenges that will need to be addressed in this transition are backup power and emergency location. no longer will we have access to backup power provided by the central office as has been the

case for many years, but there are also new technical opportunities to leverage end system powers through using exchangeable batteries, for example, batteries that look similar to backup on your cell phone, or energy efficient network device that is will make it possible to sustain uninterrupted conversations for voice and for internet services even if commercial power should be disrupted. the second topic, location technology, such as gps, has been very successful along with network based triangulation to locate callers for outdoor 911 calls. unfortunately, both technologies have limitations that make them less suited when people cut the cord and use wireless calls to call 911. they're either not accurate enough or they do not function

at all, for example, gps generally does not work well indoors. however, fortunately the transition to i.p.-based network-based technologies is also spilling new investments in technologies that while not originally designed for location determination such as in building communication infrastructure allows us to greatly improve the reliability and availability of location information. for example, wi-fi, blue tooth beacons and distributed antenna systems could be used to locate callers inside buildings. to succeed in meeting the challenges and leverage the opportunities all stakeholders must work together to ensure every 911 call receives the appropriate response, that every american is alerted when danger is imminent whether they use old technology or new technology. thank you. >> thank you. mr. banks?

>> good morning. good morning chairman pryor, ranking member wicker, and the members of the subcommittee. my name is john -- banks. thank you for holding this hearing. u.s. telecom represents broadband companies ranging from some of the largest companies in the u.s. to some of the smallest cooperatives and family owned telecom providers in rural america. they serve some of the most rural areas in the country as well as the most urban and use a broad range of technologies, including broadband and internet protocol to do so. to begin i would like to announce the recent tragedy caused by a tornado touching down in arkansas north of little rock in late april. the tornado caused substantial loss of life and damage. communication services were affected with poles blown down, cables severed, facilities damaged and cell towers destroyed. one local carrier, wind stream,

was somehow able to keep a switch up and running in a building that lost its walls to the tornado's winds and suffered substantial rain damage. this says no network is or can be 100% reliable. a well coordinated response got networks up and running relatively quickly. careful preparation for emergencies can make a huge difference in the effect that disasters have on communications networks and the customers they serve. our industry has long participated in emergency readiness planning with government partners and we will continue to do so. the transition to modern broadband networks and i.p. services promise the ee northern mouse benefits to our country. the fcc's national broadband plan says building these networks is the great infrastructure challenge of our time. the communications industry is stepping up to the plate investing about $685 billion over the last decade in infrastructure with about $70

billion of that being invested just last year. we agree that as we and a half have i gate through this transition that there are key things that cannot be left behind. chairman wheeler says this is a network compact between communications providers and the public. network reliability and public safety are essential elements of this compact and they are key values of our industry. our industry has a long history of working with federal and state governments, public utility commissions, the public safety community and industries standards bodies on these issues. we have been working to understand the transition to broadband and i.p. services for well over a decade. i provide a brief summary in my written testimony. in closing, i'd like to reiterate our commitment to working with this committee and our full range of partners to ensure that the promise of broadband connectivity and be the power of i.p. services deliver to consumers safe and

secure networks and robust capabilities that will empower them for the 21st century. thank you. >> thanks. ms. griffin. >> chairman pryor, ranking member when i cicker, and membe the committee, thank you. my name is jody griffin, i'm a senior staff attorney at public knowledge. the phone network transition presents tremendous potential advantages for our nation, but we need to make sure these transitions result in a meaningful step forward for every person who depends on the network. americans trust the protections of the phone network. we conduct our business and personal communications assuming that the phone network will just work because it always has. during emergencies we can call for help from police, firefighters and hospitals. in the rare instance that any part of the system breaks down, local, state and federal authorities intervene as if our lives depend on it because they

do. in january in a unanimous bipartisan vote the federal communications commission recognize that had our phone network policies must serve certain basic enduring values. public safety and national security, universal access, competition and consumer protection. our policies in the network transition must serve all of these values. this hearing focuses on public safety and reliability but a conversation about these values will always entail the rest of the network compact. after all, when you need to make an emergency call, what you really need is a reliable network to make that call. a person can't call 911 if she doesn't have phone service in the first place and if she lives in a rural area, she may waste pressure time trying to get connected. new technologies have great promise but they don't always meet the reliable needs if we need to call. we have seen insufficient data to public safety answering points or in the event of a

power outage fiber based services will require battery backup unlike copper lines and wireless services will be useless if the cell towers also lose power. public safety services and reliability are so firmly engrained in our network now many consumers may assume new technologies will give them the same guarantees that they have in the existing network if, for example, a customer doesn't realize the fiber based service needs battery backup until the power goes out, he can't prepare for a prolonged outage. it's clear that the fcc has the right to watch over this. policy makers must make sure that the fcc can implement rules to require carriers to complete calls and provide basic service even after the network has moved to i.p. or wireless or fiber infrastructure. to be clear, no one is suggesting we should hold back on technology. the question is how to make this technology work for all of the

300 million people who rely on our network every day. the underlying technology may be changing, but the essential services and consumer's expectations for them remain the same and our national policies must reflect that fact. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. ms. honorable. >> good morning, chairman pryor, member wicker. thank you for the opportunity to testify on the i.p. transition and itsism pact on public safety and network resistance si. i have the honor of serving as chairman of the arkansas public service commission and i'm especially honored to appear here before my senior senator whom i think is an outstanding public servant. i'm also testifying in my role as president of the national association of regulatory utility commissioners. i applaud the subcommittee for holding this hearing which is focused on the proper question, which is which public policy value should be preser snfd what

consumers care about is that their telecommunications work and are reliable regardless of the technology used to provide them. as we transition from traditional circuit switch technologies to an i.p. and wireless-based system, federal and state policy makers must work together to ensure that emergency 911 service and network resilience do not suffer. public safety is, indeed, a core value that should not and cannot be compromised. as senator pryor and rachking member wicker know all too well, the recent tornadoes in arkansas and mississippi were a reminder of how important it is of the resilience of our public infrastructure and safety. the april ef-4 tornado took the lives of many but damages hundreds of homes. i'm very pleased with the recovery and restoration efforts which included the immediate response of our governor, the

arkansas department of emergency management, first responders and emergency personnel and the utility and telecommunications sectors. two large cell towers were destroyed interrupting communications throughout the affected area, however, the carriers responded quickly bringing in mobile towers that helped to return some level of service. while the situation is devastating, it could have been worse. superstorm sandy demonstrated the frailities of our infrastructure knocking out power for days and weeks cutting off telecommunications networks. while new i.p. and wireless based systems can be more efficient, they may not have the same backup power capabilities as the older networks. they're supported by robust power shortages. many of the new i.p. systems rely on a backup power in the consumer's home. these backup units are, indeed,

the responsibility of the consumer and, therefore, it is important that consumers are educated and aware about these issues and how they can prolong the life of their infrastructure at home. as more consumers switch to i.p.-based systems, consumers must be aware that they may not. in conclusion, what is important are the values we apply to the communications network, not the technology used to deliver it. fcc chairman wheeler espoused the four values of universal accessibility, reliable interconnection, consumer protection, public safety and security. we agree. while technology may change, the expectations of consumers do not. consumers expect the same quality of service, reliability and access to emergency service to which they've grown accustomed. when hurricanes, tornadoes or other natural disasters unleash their destructive force, they

don't discriminate between a copper fiber or a wireless network. it is precisely for this reason that we as policy makers should not discriminate in applying these values. these values must be applied consistently especially when it relates to public safety. thank you for this opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. ms. smith. >> good morning, chairman pryor, rankings member wicker and members of the subcommittee. my name is gigi smith. i'm the president of the association of public safety communications officials or apco. thank you for inviting me back to testify on yet another important public safety matter. apco is the world's oldest and largest organization of public safety communications professionals. our members field 911 calls, dispatch critical information to first responders and manage the communications networks used by first responders. i have been active in public safety for over 28 years starting as a 911 call taker and

now serving as the police operations manager for the salt lake valley emergency communications center in west valley, utah. i bring the perspective of hue there were shifts and impact public safety. the i.p. transition will bring a number of benefits. we are fully embracing efforts to bring i.p. technologies into public safety communications by supporting the first net network and ensure voemt of public safety among other initiatives. i'd like to now briefly mention a few considerations regarding the impact of the i.p. transition on public safety. first, i.p.-based networks must be reliable supporting access to 911 communications between dispatchers and first responders and communications at emergency operation centers and first responder agencies. second, i.p. networks present new vulnerabilities. service providers should have

spillover plans, and mitigation strategies to best protect public safety communications. third, could haver networks are self-powered where i.p. networks rely on the consumer network grid. i.p. need to consider i.p. power, battery backup and other contingency plans. fourth, you must consider the location for 911 calls and we explore how i.p. can improve. next, i.p. and next generation will be more gradual than for nonpublic safety networks. certainly additional funding at the national level would support more rapid adoption of next generation technology by psaps and, thus, help public safety keep pace with the industry's i.p. transition. finally, some service providers may offer or require wireless communications to land lines. we need to keep existing service

to these places. we believe i.p. holds promise. apco looks forward to working with the subcommittee and all stakeholders to help guide the best path forde. thank you and i look forward to answering in i questions. >> thank you. ms. honorable, let me start with you if i may, and that is kind of pick up where miss smith left off there about 911 service. as we move forward, does it make sense that 911 service is more of a federal function or a state function specifically, you know, i think that we all recognize how important 911 service is, what a great success it's been, but as we've transitioned to i.p.-based, you know, how should we make sure that our 911 service has integrity that it has up to this point? >> thank you, senator, for the question. our community believes that it's

a proper state function. i believe the success we've enjoyed thus far has been precisely because of the ability of the states to work very nimbly and with flexibility within their borders to not only coordinate and have oversight but also to respond in emergent situations. when i think back over the severe weather events that we've had over the past few years and we've, indeed, had many, as many of the members of the subcommittee have, the ability of first responders of our state department of emergency manageme management, of our governor's office, local and county officials, to participate very aggressively with coordination efforts even at heightened levels than ever before, it's imperative that we have the ability to respond quickly, that we have the ability to oversee 911 efforts locally because the ultimate goal is safety. the ultimate goal is public safety and ensuring that we use every tool to respond as

promptly as possible and the best way to do so is to ensure that that is occurring at the state level. >> are there any states though that have state laws that would prohibit the state psc or puc, whatever they call if in your state, to do that on an i.p. system? >> no, i'm not aware. there are other prohibitions. as you know, many states have undergone deregulation, but certainly the 911 core functions are carried out at state and local levels. >> mr. banks, let me ask you. i have a concern about us going to i.p. some of you all have mentioned this. obviously there's great innovation with it and there's other great innovations with it. i don't want to say it's all bad. we all know and our experience has been when a lot of people

are on the internet sometimes it runs slower and we talked about the power, the need for, you know, electricity and if electricity goes out you lose your power. so, how do we resolve that with -- how do we resolve that in the 911 world or when there's emergencies or some crisis that too many people get on the system? how do we make sure as we go forward that we don't have that problem? >> there is always an issue around disasters when networks can be overloaded, and that can be a wireless network, traditional copper network or another network. i think the first thing that puts us in a better position for this than we were a decade or so ago, there are multiple networks throughout the country. so in general people can use their traditional wire line network. their neighbor might be on a

cable network. there are four or more wireless networks and 90 plus percent of americans have at least one mobile phone in the home. there are these multiple networks people can turn to. if one network gets overloaded, that doesn't mean no one can get through to 911. but fundamentally you're asking a very good question about designing robustness into these systems. that is a challenge for our industry, the wireless cable undisstrus and the public service communities to make sure there are the right number of trunks to psaps and backups and overflows. this is one of these technological services we're working through in this system, with dhs, apco, fcc, we're very focused on that. >> senator wicker? >> thank you. let me ask about the transition between the copper line networks and the i.p. fiber.

it obviously doesn't all happen at once so there's a lag there. let me start with mr. banks. substantial geographic areas and, tlfr, substantial numbers of individuals will be living in areas that will continue to be served by copper, which we call tdm, and others will be in the transition to i.p. areas. how will providers and your members ensure that these communities will maintain the ability to communicate with areas served by all i.p. networks? >> well, thank you. i think that customers are talking about the tdm or old-fashioned copper customers are all customers of the members of u.s. telecom.

there are customers, we've been serving them for decades, making sure that people can call them and when people call them that those calls go through. so i think the commitment is there. i think there are occasional unfortunate rural call issues that your question is touching on but our members that serve these people every day are going to make sure that those calls can go through for the next dr for however long it takes to get to the ip transition. >> do you need any help from the federal government? >> there is a call from the fcc and the fcc is gathering data from across the industry. we're very involved in that and the provision of data. i think we need to understand the outcome of that and the fcc investigation. >> let me toss this topic to you, mr. schultz. are there any novel technical challenges to maintaining

connectivity in this incremental area-by-area phaseout? >> yes, i believe there are. the challenge is always when you have an old technology and new technology, the danger is that investment in the old technology lags and that there are complexities that are incurred because you need to interconnect the old technology to a new technology. i briefly mentioned the common trunk problem where even in areas which are now served by i.p., for example, most of the cable customers are on voice over i.p. systems. they still reach psaps through these legacy trunks, which are capacity limited, brittle, poorly maintained in terms of their vendor support, and very few people still understand how they operate. so the transition, i believe, in many cases, if it happens faster across the network can prevent these type of interruptions.

for the call completion issues, i do believe our opportunities that as we transition to voice over i.p. base interconnection as opposed to tdm based interconnection, that the to tdm based interconnection, the number of places where things can go wrong decreases. similarly, the commission has started an effort as part of its investigation of telephone numbering to improve databases which, at least in some cases, are implicated in making it difficult to route calls to the correct destinations and lead to call failures. >> to our friends at the state regulatory level have any insights to offer in this regard? >> yes. yes, we do. thank you. we have been engaged with the fcc even at the highest levels. i've personally met with chairman wheeler at the ip transition issue.

and i want to applaud the fcc for engaging the states. they recognize that we have a significant role to play in aiding and a smooth transition. and we've been particularly interested and concerned about doing our part to ensure a smooth or smoother transition. and we hope to watch with great interest the ip trials. and we've been following and working with the fcc and its staff to ensure that state regulators are involved, offering feedback. again, the ultimate goal that we share is the same. and it's to ensure public safety. but also from a regulatory perspective, ensuring the same tenets we've come to know. the same quality of service. the same ability for consumers to have optional ity. and for them to have consumer protections as well. >> thank you all. >> thank you. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, senator pryor, for holding this important hearing.

senator wicker, if there's one thing every person is concerned about, i know from my former job as a prosecutor, is public safety. and we need to make sure that these new technologies are functional. there are many opportunities, you know, firefighters walking into a building that we'll maybe be able to see immediate blueprints or video of what's in there. and you have minnesotans who get stranded out on snow mobiles when they break down. and they are -- their only hope is to have some kind of a gps system if they're lost. we've seen some really good rescues, actually, because of technology. but we know that there are also challenges. i'm the chair of the next generation 9-1-1 caucus. i continue to be an advocate for deploying this community technology and this modern technology in our efforts. as with many members of the subcommittee, i've been concerned about call completion. it's not going to help if people are making 9-1-1 calls if they

can't complete them. this is, especially, as you know, ms. smith, and ms. honorable, is a problem in the rural areas. what i wanted to know from the neru perspective is if you've been supporting the action by the fcc. as you know, they just issued a new consent decree announced yesterday with matrix telecom. can you expand how this issue is of a concern to public safety if we can't complete the calls? >> senator, thank you for the question. thank you for your concern. also we share in that. both points that you mentioned, one regarding public safety. and after hurricane sandy, neru issued a strong resolution which calls for heightened coordination, particularly among the utility and the telecommunication sectors. for some time we've been operating within our own silos. but the lessons we've learned from sandy and the derecho storm and others is that there's a strong symbiotic relationship

between both the utility sector and telecommunications. they need one another. the telecom sector can't do an effective job without the electric infrastructure and the electric infrastructure can't communicate and get the lights back on without a strong telecommunications effort to restore service once there's been an interruption. so we've been very active there. particularly also on call completion. to the second issue you've raised, we've also issued resolutions on call completion. we commend the fcc's efforts, even on yesterday with regard to that consent decree. this is such an important issue. the calls have to go through. because lives are on the line. and we recognize that. and we're very committed to continuing to raise these issues. and aiding where we can as state regulators to making sure that we see this through because lives depend on it. >> thank you very much. senator fisher has been working with me on that effort. i appreciate your help on this

as well. we're starting to see text to 9-1-1 services as i mentioned being launched. some day we may be able to say video to 9-1-1 services. ms. smith, how do you view the potential for these innovations and how will the ip transition help or hinder these efforts? what is the balancing act that we need to see to ensure that the new networks have what they need to provide the services. >> there's a balancing act. as mr. wicker mentioned earlier, this is an exciting transition. for me personally being a police operations manager of a 9-1-1 center it's exciting to see what the future lies ahead to be able to have these resources for my responders and to be able to offer them the information that is needed. but with the balancing act, there are pros and there are concerns. and those concerns or those challenges, as we've mentioned earlier, come with, we need to have reliability and we have to have security. reliability. we need to ensure that those systems are up and in a time of

need our citizens can call in and reach 9-1-1 and get the help that they need. we also need to be aware of the security issues. there is, you know, cyber security to be aware of. tdos. telephany service. swatting. spamming. so our systems aren't taken down. we know they're reliable, going to be there when they're needed. >> one last question. when we passed the spectrum act i included an amendment that would allow revenue from the incentive auction that wasn't allocated to first net or paying down the deficit to go to next generation 9-1-1 upgrades including the implementation of ip enabled emergency services and applications. we expect the auction to take place next year. i know we hope the auction raises enough revenue to provide these resources to upgrade our 911 systems. but in the meantime, what other federal resources are available to help piece ups as they work to keep pace with this

revolution to i.t.? >> i think funding is a very important question. and i don't have the answer specifically as what other fundings are available. but i can definitely look into that and we can respond back. but i do -- i would like to say that, you know, funding is important in as much as that i know my own center, we just went through where we are now able to connect with ip. i know how much we spent. just under $400,000. and with that, that's just for the equipment only. that doesn't include the training the personnel and the other equipment that's going to come with it. times that by approximately 6,000 piece apps that are across the nation. there's going to be a large cost. it's very important that, you know, we understand we're very appreciative that those funding sources may come and will be coming later. but at the same time, we need to have something immediate in order to ensure that public safety does not lag behind. and that we can keep up with the

industry. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for not being here for all the testimony. mr. banks, i'm a numbers guy. it looks like your testimony had more numbers. i want to try and define the problem here. we're talking about transition from, you know, copper to ip. how much has already been transitioned? how much do we have left to go? >> well, i would say that if you look across america's households, about 25% still have regular, old-fashioned pots, copper type phone service. i would say the vast majority of america's business has switched to ip-based systems. >> of that 25%, though, how much -- how many have easy access to upgrade? to make the transition? or is it all -- is that 25% just a problem? >> no, no. so the most -- much of that 25%

also has a cable system available or, like many households, could switch to wireless. the upgrade path for those homes to go to ip is -- depends very much on where they are. in some of the more rural areas, it's a longer term issue. >> that's what i'm trying to find here. what percentage of people that haven't transition second-degedl problem? where we have to be concerned about companies like yours, you've made significant investment, $671 billion, you know, into the infrastructure. what percent is really the problem? >> that is a difficult number to give you. but having the fcc follow through on the right universal service reform to ensure that people that have these really old, the older networks in rural areas, that there's a business case to upgrade. >> mr. schulzrinne you look like

you want to jump in here. >> i just want to comment. from a technology perspective as mr. banks alluded to, somewhat different circumstances. the one is where only tdm is available. that is, i think, a relatively small number of places. but they exist where no robust ip networks exist. and in particular where not all rural telecom provider offer voice of ip services. >> give me a percent. are we talking about 1%? are we talking 10%? >> it's hard to -- >> i'm looking for a ballpark. >> i would say it's probably in the 5%-ish range. but that changes on a year by year basis. >> again, we're talking about -- we've got a 5% problem here. >> yeah. the problem is, however, also one where a number of consumers have chosen to retain a land line because the value of the features of a land line. indeed, one carrier has recently offered a 9-1-1 only service on a traditional land line for a

relatively modest fee, presumably to address consumers that want to retain those or that do not want to subscribe to, say, a cable service. >> okay. i know there's been some discussion, i think action, of course, as to how we're going to actually regulate broadband. anybody here on the table really want to regulate broadband under the telecom rules? does anybody -- i mean, i assume nobody wants to do that? >> i would say that i think that the values that underline the phone network apply just as much as we move to the next generation of communication services and broadband. i think that how those rules look may be a little different than what we've done in the phone network because it's a different technology and it operates differently. but at the end of the day we still want everybody to have access to what the basic service is. as that moves to broadband, then we need to make sure that we still have rules that are ensuring everybody has access to that, too. >> ms. griffin, in notes on your testimony, it sounds like you're

not necessarily believing the broadband companies have an incentive to make sure that, you know, the majority of the calls go through and that you really think government has to -- is that your position? do you really need government to force broadband providers to make sure that their service is excellent? >> i think that we have seen some reports where there have been failures, like cases in rural call completion. the lesson i take there is that even in situations where there may not be any bad actors, new technologies can create situations where nobody really has an incentive to absolutely guarantee that call goes through. and then maybe -- >> do you think government can absolutely guarantee that every call goes through? do you think government really has got a better capability as opposed to the broadband carriers themselves to provide excellent customer -- let's face it. if you have a company you're providing a service, if it doesn't work very often, don't you think customers are going to

switch to another company? don't you think competition would actually do a far better job than having the heavy handed government try and guarantee that? which i don't think it would do? >> well, i think in too many areas, competition doesn't exist or isn't robust enough to really guarantee that people are going to have a meaningful choice. particularly, say, if they're using a heart monitor and they may be able to switch to a wireless service, but it wouldn't support the heart monitor or something like that. or if the new service isn't affordable. so i think that the essential promise of the phone network is that when you make a call, it goes through. and that should be the goal of the government, is to make sure that that -- that we're fulfilling that promise. >> i'm running out of time. mr. banks, would you just like to respond to ms. griffin there? >> i think that the vast majority of americans have multiple choices for how they communicate. and that interconnection is part of how the whole industry works. so completing calls is essential to any company to be able to

sell service. and you see this on the wireless side. on the wireless side the government does not get involved, telling wireless companies how to connect and not connect. and interconnection happens in the free market there. there's no reason to think it wouldn't happen throughout the rest of the industry. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you for being here. i just want to follow up on some of the points that senator johnson has made. so as i understand it, the purpose of the universal service run is really to build out capacity. it used to be hard lines. now we're looking at broadband because of what we're talking about today in terms of an ip transition, which makes sense in terms of technology. i -- you know, i represent a state that gets really shortchanged under this fund. 37 cents on the dollar. i'd love to have any of you drive around new hampshire with me in the rural areas and you

can see that we really do have very much needs that aren't being addressed. so i've introduced legislation to make it more equitable, reform this fund. so i want the fcc to act further to reform what happens when universal service -- mr. banks, when we're thinking about this percentage that mr. johnson -- senator johnson asked you about, really what we're talking about, perhaps, is areas where -- rural areas where you're not going to have the business incentive to build out capacity. and that, as i understand it, was why we have the universal service fund. so what's your thoughts in terms of ip transition as a way of really, i think, hopefully more effectively using the universal service fund? and what opportunities do you see for rural america with the universal service fund in this ip transition? >> yes. >> and please correct me if i'm

wrong in terms of what i think the purpose of this fund is in terms of what we're trying to accomplish here. >> no. you're absolutely right. the purpose of the usf fund is to connect americans. the fcc is engaged in a major reform of a big part of that fund. the part of the fund for larger companies. and increasing the funding available to larger companies to serve people who wouldn't be served otherwise. the fcc, that was an fcc 2011 reform order. the fcc is still working to implement that, to operationallize it. hopefully that will be in place by 2015. for the larger companies, funds will flow in a much more targeted way. more funds to connecting people in census blocks where they have no options, no other service. >> what about the smaller companies as well? i mean, as we think about this ip transition, how do we think it'll impact competition?

i think that's an important issue for consumers. and also as we look at reform of the usf fund. and, you know, i've heard a lot of concerns, obviously, with this transition from rural carriers as well. >> right. so part two of the usf reform is reforming the smaller company, the rural company fund. the fcc made some reforms that were ill-advised to the fcc's credit and chairman wheeler, he's taken those off the table. and is going to issue a notice of rule making to modernize the fund for rural carriers, just like they modernize the fund for larger carriers. that's a very big deal and very important to get that right. in terms of rural carriers and the ip transition, many rural carriers have invested heavily in broadband and fiber and ip. in many rural areas ip services are available. the right reform of the fund should help a lot with it. >> mr. schulzrinne, would you like to comment on this? i'm sure you have some thoughts on it.

>> yeah. let me comment on the technical aspect. thank you for your question. the ip transition, unlike in the older days where essentially rural -- had to extend copper lines to remote areas, now offers several choices that will make it hopefully possible to cost effectively reach all americans, whether that's through fiber, long-term probably preferred option in terms of capability. extending the capability of copper. fixed wireless. and in really remote areas, satellite. it is important to provide robust broadband to all americans that allows modern applications on voice as well as radio and other applications to function well. and, indeed, to explore these technologies in new ways providing broadband, robust broadband services as part of a reform effort, mr. banks mentioned we're looking at an

experiment to provide funding to both traditional and nontraditional providers to extend broadband into rural areas. we've received over 1,000 indications of interest. from a wide variety of organizations. like the utilities, additional carriers, communities, and organizations to explore providing robust mostly fiber, but also robust wireless services into areas that are not currently being served. so i believe that technology transition gives us additional opportunity to do that cost effectively and on a schedule which may be more aggressive than what we've been able to do in the past where we had to rely on one technology only. >> well, that actually would be good news, you know, for many rural areas. because as you know, having the ability to connect can determine the economic viability of rural areas as well. i see this as a very important

jobs issue. so thank you. >> senator nelson. >> a hurricane approaches, knocks out the power. somebody's in dire straits in their home. and they need to make a 9-1-1 call. and the copper wire, that power source is there. and fiberoptic, there's generally got to be a power source in the house or a battery backup. what do we do? ms. smith? >> yes. that's very important. thank you for the question. there's going to be a paradigm. there's going to be the change. our consumers, they're used to that. they're used to just picking up the phone and it works for them. and i think a lot is going to

have to come back on education. and that's going to have to be from the industry and both from the piece apps ourselves to educate the consumers, how important that backup power is going to be. whether that be, as we in public safety call, our plan "b", meaning that we have those sources available to us. whether that be supplied with the equipment, whether i know -- i know my equipment well. i know if it takes an extra battery and how i'm going to recharge that battery. that is so important, again, to bring to their attention so that they know what the expectation is and they know that there could have those challenges ahead of them so that they can reach help when they need it. >> well, you got a lot of educating to do. if it's anything like smoke detectors, and the batteries in the smoke detectors. >> absolutely i realize that. think about how stressed you are now when you have your smartphone, your cell phone, and you see that the battery is

getting low and you have nowhere to plug it in. imagine in an emergency you need to make that phone call. you need help. you don't have the power that's necessary. to be able to educate and put that information out there, but also to ensure that the industry is creating what's necessary. whether it be, you know, those battery packs that they're putting into the homes or making those available to the customer so that they can have those in their time of need. >> anybody else? >> let me comment on that from a technology perspective briefly. the opportunities that i think industry is learning based on consumer experience, i believe, partially, that i think could help to make that less onerous than it is for smoke detectors, for example. first, unlike for smoke detectors, these devices typically are rechargeable batteries. so in most cases, they should be charged up. however, often the duration that they provide may be sufficient to bridge a short disruption, but not longer disruption.

i believe, and this is reflected in some of the comments that our technological advisory council has been offering, is that there are opportunities, for example, with user exchangeable batteries. so you can go to a drugstore and pick up new "d" cells, for example. some carriers are starting to do that. standardized connecters so that you can use, for example, the backpacks that some people have on their cell phone to power their own connectivity. and, importantly, to reduce the power con sumption of network units. that has two benefits. it reduces the use of energy during normal times, but it also allows households to sustain operation. and i believe it's important to sustain it for both voice and internet connectivity for much longer duration than we're currently able to do. >> well, from -- that's a good suggestion from a technological

standpoint. say, for example, with an elderly population, the easier that you can make it to recharge those batteries, for example, what you just suggested with the kind of thing that we do with cell phones, that's -- that interconnectability so that a senior citizen knows what to do, that's -- that's a good suggestion. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator marquis. i'm actually going to turn the gavel over to you, senator nelson. because they need me for a quorum in another committee. >> it was just 18 years ago when -- when the kopg congress passed the telecommunications act of 1996. i was the house author.

not one home in america had broadband in february of 1996. so today a 12-year-old believes that broadband and a 50-inch hd screen is a constitutional right. huh? that's how quickly it all moves. no two ways about it. and simultaneously, you know, out of my committee, we moved the spectrum for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth cell phone licenses. it was all bottled up. just bottled up so that a couple of companies, you know, controlled everything. and you couldn't have a facebook and ebay and amazon, hulu and youtube. you couldn't have all these other issues because they were all bottled up. companies, competitors that did not want to see that kind of competition. and what we had to do is part of that act was to ensure that reliability, competition, consumer choice, economic growth, were all a part of this. and a trillion dollars worth of private sector investment pt went into the marketplace because of those couple of laws. a trillion dollars of private

sector investment. because there was more opportunity for people to get out there with their new ideas, their new products, their new ways of doing business. but you needed the government to set the rules so that the private sector could act. and the principal definition of the act was that everything was going to be technology neutral. we weren't going to decide. the marketplace was going to decide. so we need to make sure that the system is reliable. we have to make sure that public safety remains at the core. and we have to make sure that the phone network works every single time. we learned that again at the marathon bombing in boston. in each of our communities over and over again. ms. griffin, what implications on public safety does the d.c. circuit's net neutrality decision have for the transition to ip? >> thank you. that court decisionimplications

phone network and ip transition. one lesson that we can take from it is that if the fcc has put a service into the information service box in terms of its regulatory classifications, the one thing it can't do is make it act like the phone network. and that becomes a huge problem when the service we're talking about is the phone network. so if we can't -- if the fcc can't require carriers to complete every call and make sure that we have complete reliability in the phone network without reclassifying these services as title 2 telecommunication services, then that's what it needs to do to avail itself of the authority it has. >> i agree with you. ms. griffin, how should we evaluate the results of at&t's ip trials in florida and alabama. what would a success look like. >> i think successful trials would be trials that have

rigorously and objectively collected data that -- on a variety of parameters that's designed to inform us about these new technologies so we know, for example, what is impact on voice quality? what is the impact on reliability? and trials that do so transparently and continue to correct consumers throughout the trials so that even though this is an experiment and we're learning, we have safeguards to know that people won't be left behind during the trial. >> thank you. and there are concerns that the ip transition will impact vulnerable populations, including seniors, minorities disproportionately who rely upon traditional telephone service. what steps have to be taken to ensure that the -- the prbroadbd services and other services are provided to the public regardless of age and economic circumstances? does anyone want to take that? so that they can give us an answer as to how we should do

that? >> senator markey, i thank you for the question. i believe and certainly neruc, the national association of regulatory utility commissioners has been very engaged with the fcc on this issue. i believe that a very broad sta stakeholder involvement process is critical. it's critical to make sure that we leave no consumers on the side of the road. particularly where so many of our states have substantial rural areas, significant senior populations, significant minority populations. it takes an all hands on deck approach. neruc is certainly part of this process going forward. >> and, ms. griffin, some people say that because we're moving towards mobile, we really don't have to keep a lot of the protections on the books from the '96 act, or the land-based, you know, wire line services. what are the potential unintended consequences of removing protections that were

built into the 1996 act? >> well, i think, first of all, whether it's a mobile call or a land line call, when someone places a phone call, they expect it to work. and a lot of times they're expecting the exact same guarantees they had on the traditional copper network, even if they're making the call via a wireless network. also wireless networks rely on wire line networks for their backbone service. so we can't ignore wire line just because more people have cell phones. additionally, 100 million people still have traditional copper-based service. and 85 million of those people have it in addition to another type of voice service, usually wireless. i don't think that's because they like paying two bills. think that's because they get protections from the land line service they don't get elsewhere. >> do you all agree that we should keep the protections from the '96 act op tn the books eves we move more towards a wireless role? >> i think from our perspective,

the network compact idea the chairman has articulated is something we believe in in defining those and figuring out how best to apply them to everybody is a challenge. >> thank you all so much. thank you, madamle chair. >> thank you very much. i have a few more questions, and then i think we're going to be joined by senator booker. our public alert systems are crucial to making sure that the public is notified of any oncoming danger. in my state, it is very important because of tornadoes. we actually have a lot of tornado touchdowns in minnesota. mr. schulzrinne. how do you say it again? >> schulzrinne. >> schulzrinne. it's almost as good as my name. how will public alert systems operate in an ip enabled world? >> so public alert systems currently we have essentially a hybrid system between a traditional system, namely the emergency alert system, that uses radio and television

largely. the wireless system that is limited to short messages. and a backbone system, if you like, that is behind the scenes, that distributes messages to both. i believe that as we move to a mostly ip environment, that the existing components will continue to be fulfilling a very vital role. but we can supplement those. in particular, the limitations that we have of wireless emergency alert system of short messages may no longer be necessary in an all ip environment. and, importantly, we can now leverage new ideas on how to distribute alerts. for example, since many people no longer watch tv or listen to radio continuously, we have the opportunity, for example, to inject alerts into internet content via video streams ing

ortor advertising networks people might be viewing. we have to see that as an integrated system that is available regardless of technology, maintains the legacy protections and capabilities, as many of those are robust in a large scale disaster, in particular, but also provides a much more precise targeting and much more detailed information. finally, it's important to not just think about the first minute or so of an alert, as important as they are, but also to think about the whole life cycle of a disaster. for example, during sandy, it was important to inform consumers as to where could they get gasoline, where could they find grocery stores that were open, what roads were passable, all of those were much more readily conveyed by maps and other ip based information. so we need to integrate those longer term recovery functions where very important short-term,

seek shelter, immediate response type of capabilities. >> okay. thank you. we've talked here about how we can see failure with ip over fiber, particularly during natural disasters. and that depending on the situation copper technology can be more effective. mr. banks, what can be done to ensure that people are able to communicate effectively via ip technology. do you think this transition to copper is the answer? >> okay. so i think there are a number of things. like mr. schulzrinne said. there is a life cycle to this. disaster preparedness is important. there are sites like ready.gov that our industry contributes to that can help people think through what they need to do first. alerting is very important. reliability and then registration. we've talked a lot about copper and the advantage it has in

powering. which is a significant and meaningful advantage. but we shouldn't overlook that fiber has some advantages. fiber is generally a more reliable technology. less prone to going out. and, in general, fiber is quicker to restore than copper. >> mm-hmm. >> so when a tree fathers and mothers over on a powerline and a phone line, if the phone line is fiber, it's quicker to restore over copper. so it is a balancing act here. and i think we recognize that the copper network and the switches that run it are deteriorating. there aren't people making those switches. there are -- there is not a real market for spare parts. people are retiring. >> are you aware of the copper theft issue? >> there's the copper theft issue, yes. very driven by the market price of copper. so the movement to fiber -- >> do you know that senator graham and i have a bill to try to do something about it? >> well, we've worked with your staff and senator graham's

staff. we're active with a number of state commissioned groups. the copper theft problem is a real problem. because you don't know your copper is gone until you pick up the phone and it doesn't work. >> mm-hmm. >> i think you're illustrating that disasters -- there's a large range of disasters and it's hard to balance all of this. but the movement to fiber is important. and i think it's really consumer education. the fcc has a scissor it group devoted to studying backup power best practices and how best to inform consumers and things. so i do think it's like we need to work together on doing the education and understanding the benefits of the transition. >> of copper to fiber. >> yeah. and reducing copper theft. >> thank you. well, we really want to get that bill passed. because as you know, it's not just about telephone lines. it's also about buildings and infrastructure and they've broken into a lot of electric companies. we have substantial support from every police group and we're working with the veterans

community because we've seen thefts from veterans' graves of medals on the graves. 200 in isanti county in minnesota alone. just this past week because of the value of copper. yet the scrap metal dealers lobby is stopping the bill on the floor and have put a hold on it, basically, through senators. anything you can do to help, we would appreciate. all it does as you know is require a check be written when it's over 100 bucks, the purchase, so that the police can track down when they need to who it is that's bringing the copper in. many states have those rules in place. but a number of states don't. so what people are doing is stealing copper from whatever source, electric companies, telephone lines, veterans' graves, and then bringing it to other states that don't have the rules in place. it's just an outrage and that the bill won't go through given the widespread support we have from the business community and others. so i'm just talking about it every single day until people

start to see that this is the kind of bill that's bipartisan with senator hoeven and senator schumer and others that needs to get done. and that they should stop holding the bill up. so thank you. i see senator booker is here. i'm going to turn it over to him. thank you. >> thank you so much, senator. first of all i want to thank you all for being here. forgive me for running in late. but i just think this is a critically important issue that we're discussing. actually, senator, i think your issue is an incredibly important one. i can tell you stories about copper theft from my days as a mayor. superstorm sandy actually came in to our area. folks in new jersey, new york area are very familiar with it. and the communications networks and problems that i witnessed firsthand were particularly severe during that time. and we experienced power outages and wireless and wire line as much ass were unavailable due to flooding and other storm conditions of which i know you all are very familiar.

as technology transitions move forward, i just think it's paramount that we have reliable, consistent access to these critical safety resources like 9-1-1 and others. which, again, i'm sure you all are very familiar with this. what was made crystal clear in the experiences we saw in my region in places like fire island, new york, and man loeken, new jersey, is how technology transitions can pretty significantly impact consumers in ways that's not always evident at the outset. and there have been a lot of very strong feelings about this. so i guess the first question would be, simply, do you agree that there are many instances in which a copper network must be maintained because ip services do not meet all of the needs of consumers? that's a really open question to the panel. >> thank you.

i would say that we need to maintain the protections of the networks that we have now as we're figuring out what the new technologies are and what opportunities we have to make sure that they're serving the same values as the existing network did. as you mentioned, after hurricane sandy, in fire island and mant loeken, new jersey, verizon decided to replace its copper network with a fixed wireless service. and there was an outcry from everybody because people really cared. and they realized that this service wasn't as good as what they had in the copper service. people had heart monitors, security systems, internet access that they lost because the fixed wireless service didn't offer it. and luckily the fcc and the state commission there in new york, at least, were able to step in and protect consumers. and verizon is now deploying fiber instead. but we still need to make sure that consumers know the differences between these technologies and are prepared

for more outages. >> somebody want to add -- yes, ms. smith? >> yeah. if i may contact -- or comment as well. public safety's view is that it's so important to maintain. i'm echoing ms. griffin, on exactly what they get now. it needs to be seamless when we move towards this transition. the other thing as far as public safety is concerned, we are excited for the future. we look to see the improvements, anything, the capabilities to improve communications is so important. currently, yes, absolutely we need to maintain what the expectations are from our consumers. >> maintaining that means maintaining the copper, correct? or no? >> if that means maintaining -- >> can you push your button, please? >> i'm sorry. if that means maintaining it at this point, yes. but, again, knowing that as the future approaches, that we need to look at those capabilities on what we can do to improve. >> okay. any other thoughts? >> senator, thank you for the question. certainly neruc would concur. our core objective is safety. and ensuring the safety of the

people that we serve. and to respond to some of the -- the tenets that you've mentioned in your remarks, coordination of this effort is important. we've learned so much from hurricane sandy. our national association of utility commissioners, neruc, issued a resolution after hurricane sandy calling for better coordination, heightened coordination. not only with regard to mutual assistance and how the utilities have traditionally worked. what do we do in response to a storm of such a magnitude as hurricane sandy? what are we doing to educate the public? and we are -- we believe that the -- we are technology neutral. so whatever the platform might be, the consumer comes to expect a certain level of service, a certain level of quality of service. certain consumer protections. and we support continuing that. we also support preparedness efforts, coordinating among the electric sector, the telecom sector, the departments of

emergency response throughout the country, county and local officials. we also, too, want to ensure reliability. that's our core mission as economic regulators ensuring safe, reliable and affordable utility service. >> i guess my response is that we all want the same -- we all have the same ambition and the same goals. my concern, especially as we get into hurricane season again, which means the gulf coast and the east coast could see another major weather event, is how are we stress testing, how are we sure that as we go through this time of transition that we don't have more vulnerable communities that can find themselves, again, as a guy who was in the trenches sort of with my first responders trying to deal with this crisis, it really is a difference between life and death. and so my worry is not that we -- that we're not all affirmatively desirous of the same thing. what are we doing during this time of transition to ensure that we get the result that we

all want? >> senator, i believe the work that we're doing is the work we do in advance. the work we do proactively in arkansas, as i'm sure it is in new jersey. we work proactively around table top exercises. i will participate in one this month in which we are very focused on continuity of operations efforts. and ramping up the broad range of potentials. so it is a hurricane in your part of the country. for us, it's ice storms and tornadoes. and any other severe weather event that might occur as well as other attacks on the grid or disruptions to the grid. but we believe that the core effort has to be proactive. >> and i agree. i'm sorry to interrupt. i had the privilege and pleasure of being in your state this weekend. and surveyed the tornado damage in mayflower. i guess to be even more specific with my question, anybody on the panel can pick this up, is that

i don't want us to be doing conversions that are creating problems that we could be anticipating and that we or the fcc, frankly, could be helping us to avoid. so what happened in man loeken and fire island is that we made a technology switch that proved far less reliable, especially in a crisis. consumers not only did get what they want, but i felt that they were much more exposed to a crisis. so i guess what i'm saying is that i understand -- i've gone through my -- my -- my team is going through our table top exercises ad nauseam as you should do when you're in the field and dealing from an executive position at local government. but i guess my concern is on this technology transfer, a transition, how do we make sure that we're avoiding it. if we're seeing that we're creating a situation that's ripe for -- for a crisis to emerge, how are we not deciding not to do that or not to do that

transition from copper, for example? >> let me -- thank you for your interesting question. let me address it from two technical perspectives. in principle, rain and fiber are a much better combination than water and copper. so long term, i believe, particularly in flooding prone areas, the goal should be that we have a fiber dominated network, simply because it will continue to function even when flooded. the other aspect is that as communities plan their utility infrastructure, considering burial of utilities, particularly as we transition to fiber, would probably make infrastructure much more reliable. so coordinating, and this is for long-term perspectives. coordination between communication providers and the

local department of public works. so that conduits are buried, for example, when roads are opened up. also, i believe, will facilitate the deployment of much more robust infrastructure that is not as susceptible to wind damage and is more resilient when water comes flooding in. >> okay. all right. let me push forward if i can with one more question with the permission of the chair. one of the things i'm concerned about is that penetration, then, of those changes, and i agree with the technology shifts. ultimately i think i'm in concurrence with what you're saying. that's the ultimate goal. during the time of transition, i'm worried about holes or gaps. if i can go down that way of this idea of the penetration we're seeing sort of equally applied, you know, access to technology is to me a great

democratizing force. but right now there are really significant discrepancies in the adoption and availability of a lot of these technologies such as broadband in lower income communities. so i'm concerned about -- that these communities are often the vulnerable populations. and that they're often adversely affected by technology transitions. so the question very simply is, is what can we do, what should we be doing to ensure that reliable voice and broadband services are delivered to the public regardless of economic background or geography? >> well, if i can just jump in a little bit. i think it's really two questions. one question is the rural question. how can you get these facilities that are very expensive built in very rural areas? and that the fcc and a number of states have universal funds to help get that infrastructure

built. the other question, the adoption question, is really a question that there's been a lot of study of. whether it's at ntia, the fcc, states, pew, many places. and there seems to be a real consensus that there are a couple of barriers to adoption. one is, you know, having a computer or a smartphone. does a family have those? education is important. there are, for whatever reason, a chunk of americans who believe the internet does not offer value to them. you know, an education effort with them is important. there are a lot of programs for adoption. the fcc is considering helping to fund or create an eray program for broadband adoption. there's a lot going on that recognizes what you're illustrating, that there is an adoption issue in america. >> you're saying research is showing that the issue, some of it has to do with the end users, the lack of appreciation or access to some of the -- to

laptops or to smartphones. but then -- but some of your answer indicates that it is on us as well, that we're not getting it to the end user in the way that we could be. >> certainly in rural areas, it is a challenge to build networks where there are very, very few people. and that's where the availability gap would be. >> and is the shortfall -- again, i'm just looking for action steps to address this. there's a lot of conversations i'm having with folks that are trying to make cheap laptops available for students and really exciting things going on. but on the getting the technology to that end user, give me your sort of unbiased appreciation of the universal service funds. do we have the resources necessary to take on that end of the issue? if not, what would -- what is a more realistic approach? >> well, the fcc is in the middle of reforming the usf fund

to make it more efficient and more focused. so i think if they can get that operationalized and in the field, we'll really be able to see if there's enough money in that fund. there's about $4.5 billion in the high cost fund that's devoted to expanding availability. >> and can you just, for a senator that's sort of new, can you tell me what's some of the issues you're working on to make that fund more efficient? >> how best to target funding. how best to identify areas that really need the funding. versus areas that can get by without it. the current fund is sort of an old fund that allocates money in kind of unusual ways. this is a much more modern, targeted fund with a cost model to focus the money. >> unusual ways. it sounds like a euphemism. >> well, the old fund sort of was built on a series of implicit subsidies that were not well quantified. and then the funds itself,

particularly for the larger carriers, was based on statewide averaging so that you could have a state with dense areas that on average would seem like it didn't need funding, although there were parts of the state that could be very rural that did need funding. so we're trying to target the funding much more accurately now. >> okay. i'm grateful. thank you very much. >> very good. i want to thank our witnesses. thank senator pryor for holding this hearing and senator wicker and we will keep the record open for two weeks for questions. it was really interesting discussion with a lot more work to do. and the hearing is adjourned. thank you to our witnesses.

just a reminder, if you missed any of this hearing yo u can watch it online at c-span.org. we'll have more live coverage later on today on c-span 3. at noon we are back on capitol hill for a briefing on college affordability. majority leader reid will be joined by other senate democratic leaders to talk about legislation that would allow borrowers to refinance their old loans at lower interest rates in place during the 2013-2014 school year. that's expected to be voted on in the senate next week. live coverage of that news conference here on c-span 3. and later, as fire season gets under way out west, a senate subcommittee looks a t the training and resources available to firefighters and first responders in communities threatened by wildfires. witnesses will include the deputy chief of the u.s. forest service who's responsible for fire and aviation management. also a representative with the international association of firefighters. and the mayor of an alaskan community that was recently

evacuated due to a massive wildfire there. that hearing at 2:30 eastern, live on c-span 3. on a lonely wind swept point on the northern shore of france, the air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. at dawn on the morning of the 6th of june, 1944, 225 rangers jumped off the british landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion. to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. the ail lized have been told some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers, the edge of the cliff, shooting down with them at machine guns and

throwing grenades and the american rangers began to climb. >> this weekend, american history tv will mark the 70th anniversary of the d-day invasion of normandy. starting saturday morning at 10:30 eastern. watch this year's commemoration from the world war ii memorial in washington. and that's followed at 11:30 by author and historian craig symonds. he'll discuss his new book "neptune: the allied invasion of europe and the d-day landings." at 12:30 he'll take your questions and comments live. at 1:30 a look back at presidential speeches commemorating the day. all on american history tv, saturday on c-span 3. a discussion now on the congressional investigation into the benghazi consulate attack in september 2012. the house recently voted to give the members of the 12-member special committee the ability to travel as part of its investigation. this follows separate investigations by the state department and the senate from the heritage foundation. this is an hour and ten minutes.

>> welcome to the heritage foundation. to all in-person attendees. as well as online viewers as well as our viewers on c-span. today we're here to discuss a topic that is as unsettling as it is deeply important. ever since the attack on the american diplomatic mission in benghazi, libya, on september 11th, 2012, that left four americans dead including u.s. ambassador to libya, christopher stevens, the american people have been trying to get to the bottom of what happened that terrible night. how and why were certain decisions made? why were u.s. military assets not deployed in a more timely manner to benghazi? how did the administration come up with a false narrative of a youtube video to explain the terrorist attack? and why did they continue to stick to that narrative in the days and weeks following the attack? as the house select committee on benghazi begins its investigation into the events of that night and the

administration's response, many questions remain unanswered. a lack of transparency and accountability mixed with open defiance have so far been the hallmarks of the obama administration's response to congressional investigations into the terror attack. the house select committee hopefully will be able to find answers to those questions and bring closure to the families of the victims. as well as hold administration officials accountable for any failures. to help us identify the questions the select committee should be pursuing, as well as the prospect for success for their investigation, we have with us today a very distinguished panel. in the order they will be speaking, we have first off peter brooks. who st the senior fellow in national security affairs here at heritage. before joining heritage, peter served in the bush administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense for asian and pacific affairs in the office of defense secretary donald rumsfeld. prior to that, he worked a z a

professional staff member on the house international relations committee. peter has also served as an intelligence officer with the cia's director of operations focusing on global political affairs, arms control and weapons proliferation. a decorated navy veteran, peter served on active duty in latin america, asia and the middle east. he is a graduate of the u.s. naval academy, naval war college and the johns hopkins university and is currently pursuing his doctorate at georgetown. he is a regular contributor to fox news and cnn. in fact, peter, i think you may already have your ph.d. >> yes, i do. >> congratulations. next we have hans vons. a senior legal fellow. adegsally, he is manager of the election law reform initiative. his work at heritage includes analysis of such issues as civil rights, civil justice, the first amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform. before joining heritage in 2008,

hans served two years as a member of the federal action commit and prior to that as counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights a t the department of justice. he is a he writes regularly for "wall street journal," national view and politico. last but not least, heather dale is the senior fellow for public diplomacy. she previously served as editor for the washington pines where she oversaw the papers on local politics, as well as foreign affairs. heather joined heritage in 2002 as deputy director. of the davis institute for international studies, eventually becoming director for foreign heritage studies. her work has been featured in outlets including "the wall street journal," the weekly standard. she is a graduate of the school in copenhagen and denmark and

fellow at the hoover institution. helen has written numerous articles on the benghazi issue, and will continue doing so for the new heritage blog "the signal" which launches tomorrow. i look forward to heather's remarks. with that, over to you, peter. >> thank you, nile. good morning, everybody. i won't talk for long, which should believe a relief to many of you in the audience here. but i am going to add a little bit to the list of questions that nile mentioned in his introduction. something new. something that i've been concerned about. my concern is we haven't brought anybody to justice for benghazi, to my knowledge. there's been no apprehensions, from what i can tell. there have been no arrests. there have been no military raids, no drone strikes. nothing as far as i can see or that i'm aware of. perhaps there are some things that have gone on. i check the news and have been following this issue for a bit and i've not seen anything so far.

and it's troubling to me, because we're moving on 21 or so months since the terrible attacks on benghazi, on our diplomatic facilities there in benghazi. it will be two years this september. i hope the special committee will spend some of its time on this, in addition to the questions hans and helen will talk about and nile discussed in his introduction. i'm bothered by the fact that no one has been held to account. first, justice needs to be served for the terrorist acts against u.s. diplomats, citizens and diplomatic facilities. the other thing i'm very worried about as well is, what sort of signal does this appearance of u.s. passivity, whether it's actual or perceived, send to others who would do us harm? i understand investigations can take time. there have been some -- i believe some indictments laid down.

i'm not a lawyer so i leave that up to the legal people. the state department came out in january and identified al sharia as responsible for the attacks on the u.s. diplomatic facilities in benghazi. some individuals have been named designated terrorists because of it. maybe we don't have the intelligence to be able to get the right people. the fbi has put some pictures up on its website. hasn't said these individuals are responsible in its careful wording, but it says these people are of interest and the fbi would like to speak to them. that website has been up and i believe it's still active and shows nine or 12 photos of individuals who were taken, pictures were taken by surveillance cameras on the compound, the diplomatic compound. so i'm not quite sure why it's taken so long. i realize libya is a tough place right now. it's a place that's, especially

benghazi. we did undertake a raid recently against one of the terrorists responsible for the african bombings. that took place in tripoli. there have been a special forces raid on a tanker off the coast of libya. i'm a little confused as to why we have not seen anybody brought to justice in any fashion, in my mind, since this terrible event took place two years ago. and i'm troubled by what i perceive as a lack of response. little is being said about this publically. maybe i understand why that could be. and from outward appearances, as i said, we are outside the government. we don't have access to classified information that little is being done. i could be wrong and i hope i'm wrong. i'm hoping this is something the special committee will look into. perceptions really do matter. pain the special committee can explain to us why leaders like

ahmed fatala and zahawie seem to be hiding in plain sight. this week there is news about how zahawie was shaking his finger at the united states and threatening us. i am worried that they are telling terrorists in libya, and there are a lot of militia groups and a lot who don't like the united states, and elsewhere, that they can strike u.s. interests with impunity. i know it took us as much as ten years to bring osama bin laden to justice, but it didn't take us that long to start rounding up his cohorts, his 9/11 associates. that started immediately. indeed, according to press reports, like i said, some of these individuals who may have been responsible for the attacks

in benghazi almost two years ago are continue to threaten us. what the bigger picture is, i think we are struggling a bit with the war on terror. the state department will tell you that terror attacks were up 43% last year. syria, according to the director of national intelligence has attracted some 7,000 foreign fighters from over 50 countries. some of them have expressed a desire to attack the united states. there's also been testimony saying there are training camps in syria that are set up with the purpose of training terrorists to go back to their native lands and conduct terrorist attacks. there also may be americans among them. there have been lots of press reports numbers as high as 70 americans participating in the fighting in syria. al qaeda and other islamist groups are proliferating.

boko haram. we have al shabaab? somalia responsible for a brazen attack that killed more than 60 people in nairobi. al qaeda arabian peninsula has al qaeda's best bomb maker. they operate throughout north and west africa. egypt sanai is a hotbed for terrorists. and what happens in afghanistan after u.s. forces withdraw.

some are worried about the old al qaeda, al qaeda's core reforming in places like afghanistan or along the afghanistan/pakistan border. the point i'm trying to make is that the terror threat persists. we are in the cross hairs. i'm worried that a lack of justice against the perpetrators of benghazi is telling al qaeda and others they can attack us with impunity. we should not only be in the business of bringing terrorists to justice but deterring and dissuading and denying them the interest. i hope the white house includes that notion in their new strategy which the president alluded to in his speech at west point recently. it would be a good start bringing the benghazi terrorists to account. i hope that the special committee on benghazi will look into this matter and in a fashion that doesn't undermine our national security. >> thanks very much, peter.

>> i'm sure you're wondering what is a lawyer doing here on this panel. my task is to explain a little about select committees and how they operate. if you look at rule 10 of the 48 pages of rules of the house of representatives, that sets up the permanent committee that exists in the house. select committee is a congressional committee set up to perform a special task, usually such as the investigation of a particular issue. its powers, its duties, the number of its members are defined by the resolution that establishes its existence. the speaker of the house is given the power to appoint such committees under clause 11 of rule 1 of the same house rules. in this case, house resolution hr-567 was passed may 8th. it set up the select committee to, quote, to investigate, quote, the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in

benghazi. this is a copy of the resolution. it's about seven pages. it basically defines all the powers and duties of the select committee. usually, select committees end when they have completed their assigned task, but there are several select committees actually in the house and senate that are permanent. one example is in the house they have a select committee on intelligence, which is a permanent committee. the senate has the same type of committee. this select committee, according to its own resolution will, quote, cease to exist 30 days after filing the final report. now, one of the most well-known select committees probably in the last 50 years was one with a very innocuous title called the select committee on presidential campaign activities, which was a committee that investigated president nixon after the watergate burglary. another more infamous select committee, frankly, was the church committee which was set up in ea