address those grievances. those are people in many different part of the country. how are the grievance s addressed? another part is rather than looking at good guys and bad guys understanding that, you know, over the last 30 plus years of conflict there have been many actions taken that, you know, some people would say war crimes and the question of how the country deals with reck sell yags in a broader sense. how does the country come to terms with the past and agree to move forward, i think, is something that still to be worked out. understanding it's about different groups within the country and how do they agree to govern together in the same entity. i think, and i think it looks like from each of the president's candidates platforms each would look toward a reframing of the road to peace. >> all right.

>> good morning. i'm the president of the coalition for dialogue of afghanistan. i'll be dealing directly with the tribes all over afghanistan. i've been listening to the honorable panel here. i'm disappointed. i don't hear the actual problem that is facing afghanistan. as the west is celebrating d-day, the afghan people are dreading t-day. which i call taliban day. with all due respect, ambassador, abdullah omar naseef was nothing. as a leader of the taliban and turned him into a religious symbol by putting the cape of mohamed upon his shoulder and giving him the aura of an

islamic leader to unite around him. the problem in afghanistan is not afghanistan. and the sooner the west admits this. i know, you know it, but you will not admit it. the world has got armies. pakistan's army has a country. it is the opposite. pakistan's military is running the country. the isi is the one that is supporting these people that are coming into afghanistan and killing our people. the biggest symbol of celebrating the release of the five was yesterday they almost ablated -- eye nighlated the frontrunner. why don't we address the fact they're sending rockets in and killing our people. i don't hear a word from the 47 nations that aren't there to protect us against the enemies

of afghanistan. afghanistan is not at war with iran or pakistan. the west is at war with the al qaeda and taliban. the battle is being fought on the soil of afghanistan. we're paying a price for it. my heart bleeds for the foreign soldiers that have lost their lives in afghanistan. but speaking for every foreign soldier that has fallen in afghanistan, tens of thousands have fallen into the hands of the taliban that are hell-bent. i keep hearing. somebody has to an this to me. let make a peace with the taliban. which taliban are we talking about? afghanistan taliban are afghans. they belong to tribes. if they belong to farrah -- we don't need to go to kwau tar if

the afghan college from hellman they belong to the -- tribes. we don't need to go to can tar. gentleman, lady, with all due respect, my question is how is the united states and the 47 nations of of the world to save afghanistan or themselves or the world from the taliban. how are they going to shorten the hands of it in interfering inside afghanistan. >> thank you. as you know, this is a reflection of the wider sentiments that exist in the afghan society regardless of -- [ inaudible ] thank you for reflecting that. if anyone wants to take question is welcome to. please. >> i was waiting for chris to spring in there. >> chris is thinking about it.

[ laughter ] >> first of all, there's no question that the sanction wares in pakistan allow the taliban movement to survive and don't fight. if there were no sanctuaries in pakistan there would be no important insurgency. it would have been crushed a long time ago. there's clear. there's a degree of a official responsibility in pakistan for that. i agree with that as well. the united states has complex interests. there is an afghan narrative which says if we would beat on the pakistanys they would close this down. i think we could have more pressure. i think we could have more understanding. i think that narrative is exaggerated. pakistanys have allowed something to grow, which now threatens the pakistani state as well. which i'm not sure they have the capacity to control. that is a big question for the pakistanis as well.

america has multiple interests. it has an interest in the taliban not succeeding in afghanistan. it has an interest in not having the collapse of pakistan, which is not only a larger nation but one that has nuclear weapons. it has an interest in not having another war. it has a problem that it would be very difficult to sustain both our forces and the afghan forces in afghanistan without transit through pakistan. the fact is, we have contradictory interests. i'm sorry the world is a contradictory place sometimes. i think we would be better off if we would speak more honestly about the fact those interests are in conflict and that we need both pressure on pakistan, but we also need sustainment of pakistan because we have huge interests in their not collapsing. i do not think we are in a position, you know, in terms of our interests in which we can have a one-dimensional policy.

i think we could have a good deal more clarity about the fact we're dealing with the tension between sides of the policy. i think we would be much better off if we would recognize that we do not have the basis for a strategic relationship with pakistan. we have some issues on which we have great commonality, and some issues on which we are practically enemies. and we have to maintain a relationship that recognizes and deals with both halves of that rather than speaking as though we were friends or enemies in alternate months, which is where we seem to end up. there are various ways in which one could do that we don't do. i'm not government. there's not much point in my delineating those. >> chris? >> well, i think your excellent question observations, you know, sort of build on, you know, the

notion of how emotional, you know, these, you know, this conflict is, and -- or the past 35 years of conflict and, you know, how heart wrenching it has been for the afghan people to have live, you know, live in -- through, you know, we have generations of afghans who have known nothing but violence. i think it also builds on clare's point that the idea of some people talking about a peace deal where you get 20 people around a table and, yeah. you hash out a peace deal. the afghans tried it and the islam -- in 1992 and 1993 and what that kind of effort lead was to was the afghan civil war. so a peace process that deals with the internal dimensions of

the conflict, that deals with the external dimensions of the conflict is going to be absolutely critical if there's going to be progress in that respect. >> do you think that the u.s. administration, people at the pentagon, cia, state department -- given the two-year window that is open will have some options? do you think the thinking is along those lines or, well, we're trying our best to disengage gradually and finally fully? i mean, how -- >> i think we're relevant to a peace process now. we have said we're leaving. what is it we have to offer or to negotiate with except perhaps the betrayal of the afghan government? so what we have to do is support the government. the government has to prove it can survive. the afghan army has to prove it can't be defeated.

you may then have the conditions under which people can talk or will be willing to talk to each oth other. i don't think we, any longer, have anything with which to make a peace deal. what is it we're going to offer? our leverage is pretty much gone. it's not 100% -- you've deal with this. do you want to take that? >> ultimately, peace is for afghans is going have to it decide the future of afghanistan. we in the international community can play a role in helping and getting people to the table and keeping them at the table, but, you know, and i use the term table loosely. this is going to be, as clare mentioned, to be successful it would have to be a process that will go on for a very, very, very long time. you know, just to get to a point

where the shooting stops, and then transitional justice efforts, you know, of coming to grips with 35 years of conflict is going take -- by the way, there's something we can do. i think we need to be clear about this. what we can do could do is be clear that we will continue to support the afghan government and the military and they will not our lose. that begins to create the condition under which insurgent leaders can see they will not win on the battle field. our mixed message of departure and lack of clarity is a negative for creating the conditions for peace negotiations. the other thing we can do is shut up. our continued talk about how necessary a peace deal is suggests desperation.

and desperation suggests that you're going to pay a very high price for what you want. so if you create the notion of desperate bargaining, you end up in a situation where you either have to pay a very high price or you have to do a lot more killing to prove that you won't pay it. it's a luittle like walking in o the carpet bazaar and it's the finest carpet. what is your price? i have 15 minutes to bargain. your going it pay a lot for carpets and second of all, you shouldn't be allowed to go shopping. >> correct. >> right here. gentleman -- yes. >> thank you. >> craig, i'm a consultant to agencies. none having anything to do with afghanistan. i recently returned from two-week visit to afghanistan, a private visit, during the elections, and this was the first time i had been in afghanistan since 2002.

i have to say that from my eyes, and i was only in -- partly due to the security conditions. from my eyes, what happened in afghanistan is nothing short of miraculous, and the united states and the international community deserve a lot of credit. they deserve to be proud for the remarkable changes that have been brought which was largely rubble when i was there. the election went extremely smoothly with very little disruption, and i suggest that it's possible that the taliban may have exercised a degree of restraint during the elections. the afghan security forces did acquit themselves, no doubt. the level of disruption was much less than it could have been. it's also not clear whether the pakistanis may have suggested some restraint at that time.

i think the prospects in afghanistan are extraordinary. half a generation has been educated. they need another ten years to educate the second half, and that is going to have a remarkable impact. also, the other remarkable thing that you see is a proliferation of private education. people are going out there and paying to learn skills that could get them jobs. there's a remarkable degree ofs a per ration. there's a remarkable degree of hard work. people are out there working and building a future. they see that as the future. as far as the election is concerned, the two -- each of the two candidates is supremely qualified. exceptionally qualified to be president of afghanistan. both candidates have developed fairly extensive platforms.

so they've been thinking about policies. when they come into office, they face a completely different environment with a completely different and much stronger preparation than president karzai in addition to having the security forces. so in a month or two, we'll be seeing very new and different environment. so this is my question. if a newly elected president of afghanistan, again, both of them with extensive foreign relations experience and experience with the united states and with the american government. if the new president comes to washington and says, would you willing to consider the zero option in two years? what do you think would be the reaction of the administration? >>let go to chris and then

clare. >>well, it's hard to answer on a hypothetical. what i -- what i would -- the way i will answer is this is i think there are a lot of lessons learned. potential lessons learned in our relationship with president karzai over the last several years. i think we have to be honest whoever the new afghan president will be is going to be under a lot of same domestic pressures in afghanistan that president karzai was under, and i think i would encourage the administration to, you know, to look inward about the relationship that we've had with president karzai over the last several years. determine what we can do differently to have a more productive relationship with the new afghan president. >> okay. i would like to ask you what you

think. >> i'll let you know in a second. i have to think about it. >> but, now, i think it's just generally good practice whether it's in the security area or the economic and other set of relationships that when a new government comes into power has a new set of policies that in general is going to be a good time to revise the policies from this side and the sense of relationships. i think it will be a matter of good practice to do so. >> the narrative of the white house is that we are leaving. so there isn't a force which will be contrary to changing that policy. i don't know what they would do in this hypothetical. i doubt they would change rapidly, if at all. i do think that the one thing which is in afghan hands is now unique before us. we should control our

expectations of how much -- how fast any president of afghanistan can change things. because he's going ruling with a coalition. he's going deal with a lot of complex political forces. we don't want him to push things so hard it causes explosions. if that question were to be asked and in the way that is most likely to get an affirmative answer, it will have to be based on performance rather than promise. so i hope that question will be addressed in a year, plus or minus. i think it would be premature to address it now and unlikely to get a different answer. by the way, on the election violence, it's important to note there was a great deal of violence. the afghan press deliberately did not report much of the violence and the number of incidents. that was in part a reaction to the killing of journalist's

family in the hotel a little before the election. it produced a reaction of the afghan press of we're not going help those people. i don't see a -- i don't see a restraint on the part of the taliban because, in fact, you were getting calls from taliban to journalists and editors saying we blew something up. how come you're not reporting it. it doesn't suggest restraint. they were frustrated by the fact journalists said, you know, okay we know we have an obligation to report. but we're partisan and you're attacking us. >> you're right there was some violence, but not to the point where it disrupted elections or dissuaded people from voting in large numbers. and the hope is that within next week when afghans go to vote

again in the runoff that they, once again, will be able to do so and turn out in large numbers. to answer craig question, my personal view is that it will take awhile, as ron said, for the new government to really establish itself and restore some level of credibility and credits. that -- and knowing that the u.s. already has taken a decision and announced its decision for the next 2 1/2 years or so. there are elections coming up in the united states in 2016. i think that at some point 2016 a new -- the new afghan government would have to probably raise the issue. and see if depending what is

happening at the time. we tend to forget, i think this is what bothers afghan. we tend to forget that we are also somewhat beholden to the situation on the ground. we don't know exactly what situation we may be facing down the road at 2016. if things look somewhat reasonably, fairly acceptable and normal in 2016, then there won't be a need to ask for anything. but if there is real danger and real threat emanating from afghanistan or afghanistan is about to face some kind of a calamity, obviously the calculations are going to change for that point. and the governments would have to, again, review this case and reevaluate the situation.

depending on what is happening, we would have to shape our discussions in accordance to that. let me go to the young lady in the back. thank you. my name is heather robinson. i'm a ph.d. candidate at the university of saint andrews in scotland. i was interested in the discussion we had about pakistan's role will affect afghanistan as we move forward in the post-u.s. withdrawal environment. what is going to be significant role iran will play. the u.s. is pretty fraught and relations with pakistan. and in the past those two countries competing for influence in afghanistan particularly in the '90s and lead to the taliban has lead to growing chaos in that country. additionally, iran was instrument tal, conversely but

additionally in helping the u.s. during the initial invasion in 2001. what can we -- what can and should america be doing with iron to ensure that regional players are complimenting the u.s. mission in afghanistan versus unralphing it. >> let's take one more question. right in front. first row. i'm sorry. my name is ann rutherford. my question is, we're going to be leaving the afghans at some point to defend themselves. when we leave we're taking awe of our great toys with it. all the helicopters and the heavy equipment. how do we expect the job we've been doing without all that equipmen equipment. >> ron, would you like to take the first one? >> i think we should be having a

dialogue with iran on afghanistan. i had a -- with irani representative in afghanistan about the country when i was there. then i was instructed to suspend that because all pressure was to be concentrated on the nuclear issue. i think it's important when looking at iran to look at the difference between iran's interest in afghanistan and iran's interest in iraq. because the two situations are quite different. iran has always been a strategic threat to iran. and iran has actually an interest in having a degree of instability in iraq to mitigate threat and allow it to position in play power games. it does not have that interest in afghanistan. it does have a genuine interest in stability. it will play games for influence. it will send money to buy

positions. but afghanistan has never, in the last 100 years, been a strategic threat to iran. iranians know that. they worry about our presence, the american presence that scares them. they various other things they worry about. it's not afghanistan is a threat. what i'm saying is, you have the basis on which to have a shared interest in stablizing afghanistan between the united states and iran. it is not clear that we actually have the same shared interest with pakistan at this point. it would make sense, in my view, to talk to the iranians about afghanistan if you can keep that conversation contained within the afghan framework. when you don't talk to them, i saw it very clearly, and everything you do in the country that might be a threat to them, regard with suspicious and you don't have a channel of

communication in which to take away the suspicious. they're a very particular interest. iran has a big problem with drugs coming in with poppy, opium, heroin coming in from afghanistan. they have a big drug population problem. they have a smuggling problem. so there's a lot of things we can talk about with iran where we share interests without getting into complexities or nuclear issues or other things. i think we would be better if we did. >> on the issue of toys? >> i think it's a great question. a and, you know, first, to build on ron's answer to heather. there are some compliment i are

interests with iran, you know, that we have. afghanistan lives an extraordinarily difficult neighborhood. it -- which i think reinforces the point clare first made there's no real viable peace deal that anybody can envision. there's a peace process that regional actors as well as, you know, that are going to have to play a constructive role. with respect to your question, ann. as a matter of fact, the afghan national forces, since june of last summer, have been in the lead for security and have been the ones, you know, taking on the operations. we've been playing an advisory role. the afghan national security forces have been defending their country. on, you know, in the lead since june of 2014. i've served alongside them, i've fought alongside them. there are a lot of highly capable afghan units and very good leaders that, you know, i

think we can have a lot of -- i think we can take pride in what we've done in helping the afghans build the afghan national security forces. with the afghan army, i don't want to oversell them, there are a lot of challenges. you have a lot of capable individuals and organizations. the other thing i would like to say. i think it was mentioned, you know, his appreciation for what americans and the international community have done in afghanistan. i would like to thank the afghan people for the sacrifices they've made to allow us to be in afghanistan, you know, to whether it's for the counter terrorism or help the afghan people. you know, come to a peaceful, stable, prosperous future. the administration doesn't thank the afghan people enough. i'm just a private citizens now, but, you know, a number of afghans who put their lives on the line for me and so many others i think deserves

significant appreciation on our part. >> right there. we have two hands. doug brooks with the afghan chamber of commerce. coming back to the point about basic security. we used to say that security is 90% of the problem but only 10% of the solution. on the basic level, if there's any economic development at all it requires some better security on the ground and the mast government, the karzai government, basically outlied any sort of private security. the police are incapable of providing the secure they would allow international companies to move into the country. is there any sort of fix or future for some sort of basic security so we can address this problem? >> clare? >> i think a lot of what we've been talking about today is about the conditions under which the security infrastructure

forces can meet the threat and what can be done to reduce the threat or increase the capability of security. i think, however, from an economic development perspective we sometimes look in the wrong places if we are reliant on international contractors and ngos coming in they need security companies to defend themselves. a lot of where the discussion has been going and where the country needs to go is understand it's the afghans themselves and afghan institutions and organizations that will be carrying out the development and the programs, type of programs i mentioned. in fact, all the wins coming up in a study. most of them are successful were actually afghan-lead of a afghan-driven programs. if those are the sort of platforms or programs for development, then they have very difficult and much, you know, they have a way of operating with the environment to address the risk. for international companies coming in to making investment, and i think either candidate is very much looking toward

international partnerships with the private sector, universities, a number of organizations then the question of the security requirements, you know, will be, you know, have to be worked out. but i think, and knowing from some of the international investors, they actually -- risk assessment of afghan they say it's a much easier environment to work in than many of the other environments across africa they do business in. for many of them, from what i've heard they're saying it's not a problem for us. >> thank you. let's take one last question. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm a student at johns hopkins. my question is, someone said that the taliban had a small rash tell me to negotiate prior to 2014. there was a calculated shift in power dynamics to be expected, and my question is given the announcement about 2016. how much has it hurt the prospects for reconciliation or negotiations in the two years

going forward, and to what extent does that undermine the progress the country will see in those two years because of the uncertainty. again, the announced draw downs? there's going to be another decrease in true presence which can create the impression wait another two years and have a better position to secure more concessions, potentially, from the afghan government. or to increase their own power from the perspective of what the regional neighbors and the militant groups offered in the country. >> chris? >> i think it's a wonderful question, and really, really important. you know, ambassador neumann mentioned there was some earlier opportunities to get a peace process initiated, that of course, did not come to frugs. the closer you got 2014 less incentive for the taliban and

afghan government to engage in a peace process. i want to emphasize a process, you know, not 20 people around a deal trying to hatch a deal. but a real peace process. both sides thought, you know, think they're going to be in a stronger position in 2015 than, you know, they are in 2013 or 2014. that calculus may happen in 2016 as well. i think it will be interesting to see how well the ansf performed on the battle field. this year are the gains preserved. how well is the afghan government, you know, enacting or beginning to enact a process of reform. does the afghan government recognize -- i think right now and for the next couple of years will be in a position of considerable strength vis-a-vis the taliban. and will both sides recognize the best way to prevent a civil war or, you know, even greater violence, you know, beyond 2016 or 2017 is for, you know,

responsible people on all sides to get together. begin this -- begin exploring some sort of dignified peace process along the lines that clare mentioned. >> on that note, thank you very much. we've run out of time. you may have time to talk to our guests outside, if you don't mind. but i would like to thank all three ron neumann, clare, and -- for your participation and sharing your views with us. thank you. [ applause ]

next a senate commerce subcommittee hearing on looking what is being done to update the nation's communication network. witnesses included the fcc chief technology office and industry experts. in is an hour and a half. which suddenly disappears. but it didn't go anywhere, you know, because at our core it was still there. and the biggest national idea for russia during all those years was the victory day. that is our main nation holiday, and that's what units the whole nation is the fight. and how it was presented to the nation by president putin is in ukraine, those are western sponsor fascists that came to

power, and illustrated that with flags of former ukrainian liberation army who were -- during world war ii. he used it to prove these are fascists who are fighting against both russia and ukrainian nation. we are looking just to protect russia or russian-speaking minority. no. for the overwhelming majority of russians, we are continuing world war ii and are liberating, really liberating ukraine from the fascist threat. this weekend on c-span, a look into the politics of putin's russia. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. on booktv live two-day coverage of the chicago tribune's print

error l er's lit fest. c-span's new book "sunday's at eight." including gretchen morgueson. >> what role should the government's role in play housing finance. if you want to subsidize housing and the populous agrees it's something we should subsidize, then put it on the balance sheet. and make it clear and make it evident. make everybody aware of how much it's costing. when you deliver it through the third-party enterprises fannie and freddie a private company with shareholders and executives that can extract a lot of subsidize for themselves. it's not a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. >> read more of our conversation with gretchen morganson and other featured interviews from our book notes and q & a

programs from public affairs books. now available for a father's day gift at your favorite book seller. next a senate commerce subcommittee hearing looking at what is being done to update the nation's communication networks. witnesses included the chief technology officer and internet industry experts. this is an hour and a half. we'll call the hearing to order. >> 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 preserving public safety. this hearing hits home not only this hearing is certainly hits home not only before arkansas but through missippians. 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 effects on 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. the 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 watching tv when the emergency 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 and 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 unified 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 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. i'm the senior vice president for u.s. telecom. 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. in arkansas. 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 enormous 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 navigate 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 wicker, and members of the committee, thank you. for inviting me to testify today. my name is jody griffin, i'm a senior staff attorney at public knowledge. an organization that add voi cats for the public's access to knowledge and open communications platforms. the phone network transition presents tremendous potential advantages for our nation, but we need to make sure these transitions result in a meaningful step forward for every person who depends on the network. americans trust the protections of the phone network. we conduct our business and personal communications assuming that the phone network will just work because it always has. during emergencies we can call for help from police, firefighters and hospitals. in the rare instance that any part of the system breaks down, local, state and federal authorities intervene as if our

lives depend on it because they do. in january in a unanimous bipartisan vote the federal communications commission 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 precious 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. and the members for the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify on the i.p. transition and its impact on public safety and network resistancy. my name is colette honorable. 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 preserved in 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 ranking 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. of our citizenry. the april ef-4 tornado took the lives of many but damages hundreds of homes. in one county alone. 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 utility 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. circuit switch technologies are supported by row bust independent power shortages and continue to function during prolonged outages.

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 in a technology neutral manner, 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 drive next generation 911 employment, and ensure involvement 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 security procedures, spillover plans, and mitigation strategies to best protect public safety communications. third, cover networks are -- copper 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 encourage exploration of how ip can improve capabilities. 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 forward. 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 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.

it's not at all. 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 industries and the public safety community to work together to make sure there are the right number of trunks to psaps and backups and overflows. this is one of these technological challenges we're working through this transition 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, therefore, substantial numbers of individuals will be living in areas that will continue to be served by copper, which we call tdm, and others will be in the transition to 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 day 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 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. >> do our friends at the state regulatory level have any insights to offer in this regard? >> yes. senator wicker. 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 optionality. 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 neruc 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, neruc 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. those types of things. so our systems aren't taken down. but instead 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 transitioned is the real 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. because it would run over copper. >> give me a percent. are we talking about 1%? are we talking 10%? >> it's hard to -- >> i'm looking for a ballpark. >> on the order of magnitude, i would say it's probably in the 5%-issue 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 operationalize 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 ruralment 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 consumption of network units. that has two benefits. it reduces the use of energy during normal times, but it also allows households to sustain operation. and i believe it'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 markey. i'm actually going to turn the gavel over to you, senator nelson. because they need me for a quorum in another committee. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it was just 18 years ago when -- when the 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 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 decision has tremendous implications for the

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 protect 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 broadband 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 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 on the books even as 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, madam 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. so here we go. 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 streaming or

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. -- restoration. 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 falls over on a power line 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 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 services 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 mantoloking, 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 mantoloking, new jersey, verizon decided to replace its copper network with a fixed wireless service. and there was an outcry from everybody because people really cared. and they realized that this service wasn't as good as what they had 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 mantoloking 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