Prepared Remarks of Reed E. Hundt, Chairman Federal Communications Commission before the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers Annual Conference Detroit, Michigan August 17, 1995 Thank you, Steve for those kind words of introduction. It is a privilege to speak tonight at APCO's 61st Annual Conference. Through your able Executive Director Ronnie Rand, and Washington counsel Bob Gurss and John Lane, I know well the important work of APCO and its members. Moreover, it is a particular honor to join in the tribute to Frank Casey. His life reflects the dedication and responsibility that your profession represents. The effectiveness of public safety communications impacts directly your agencies' ability to save lives. A recent example are the actions of one of your members, Peggy Vass. In the early morning hours last December 17, Peggy Vass of the Keokuk Police Department responded to the 9-1-1 call for help from a young woman who was home alone with her children. Her house was being broken into. Keeping the woman on the phone, Peggy Vass called officers to the scene. She calmed the young woman and advised the officers en route where she and her children were in the house. Hearing the shattering of glass and the breaking down of the back door, Peggy Vass advised the arriving officers that the suspects were in the house with the victims. Knowing what was happening inside, who was present and where, allowed the arresting officers to capture both suspects without incident. Peggy Vass's quick and decisive action, employing the combined capability of the 9-1-1 network and the mobile radio system, resulted in the rescue of the young woman and her children, the arrest of two suspects, as well as resolving a burglary that the captured suspects had committed earlier in the day. At the same time, our public safety communications systems have constraints that limit your ability to save lives. At the World Trade Center bombing, the New York public safety agencies converged to rescue those in the building. The New York City Police communications are on UHF, the New York City Fire Department are on VHF, the New York City Emergency Medical Services are on UHF and 800 MHz, and the Office of Emergency Management are on trunked 800 MHz. None of these agencies could speak directly between or among each other. During one perilous moment of the rescue operation, a police officer on the 98th floor was not able to talk to the firefighter on the 99th floor in order to assist in the treatment and evacuation of the injured. The police officer had to call the Police Command Center, who by wireline called the Fire Command Center, who only then was able to relay the information to the firefighter. The efforts of APCO, the public safety agencies you work for, and the commitment of each of you in fulfilling your daily duties, combine the great opportunities of both communications and public service. Each of you represent the high value of serving and meeting the public's trust. It is no exaggeration that when the public thinks of their government, it is your work that is first in their mind. It is to you and your colleagues that 2. our citizens turn when they are most in need. My main point tonight is that the limitations you face, whether it be the poor quality of transmission, the lack of interoperability, or the unavailability of emerging technologies, are not circumstances we should have to tolerate. If we look at the history of the public safety spectrum, we start by commending the Detroit Police Department, who in 1921, initiated land mobile radio communications under the call sign "KOP" and commenced transmitting to patrol cars. It used a portion of what is now the standard AM broadcast band. Public safety spectrum allocation has attempted to keep pace with your needs, but within the confines of the technology available. These diligent efforts have not created an environment that allows an expansion parallel with your ever increasing responsibilities. From a time where almost all two-way communications were confined to the 30-50 MHz band, changing technology, afforded an ability to operate at higher frequencies at the 150- 174 MHz band, and ultimately at the 400 MHz and 800 MHz bands. This additional spectrum could not equal the long distance capability of the lower band. Public safety agencies in rural areas requiring long distance capability understandably did not shift, while those in urban areas requiring building penetration and low environmental noise level capability, did migrate, particularly since they were facing unacceptable levels of interference. Those who moved to the higher frequencies to avoid severe congestion or to expand their communications systems, continue to be challenged. In many cases the availability of new channels or equipment at higher frequencies has led to the fragmentation of its radio system. Many agencies must use two or more bands for a single system, requiring multiple equipment in a single vehicle. APCO's advocacy in of public safety's interests is vital. Recently, APCO was the petitioning party in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's decision to place a freeze on non-public safety applications in the 800 MHz Public Safety Category channels. The continued viability of these frequencies as a resource to public safety agencies was the premise of the Bureau's decision. Similarly, APCO supported the petition of New York City to use UHF-TV Channel 16 for at least five years while its public safety agencies convert to more efficient technologies, and which the Commission approved earlier this year. All of these efforts, by both you and the Commission, continue to take place in a difficult and struggling environment. We have become accustomed to the heralding of the communications revolution. The changes taking place are indeed dramatic and demonstrate the great strength of the Nation. It is characterized by an urgency to pursue change and as well as risk failure. It rightfully abhors government meddling in the selection of technology or industry. These traits are fundamental to our economy. 3. Throughout my tenure as Chairman I have advocated that this so-called revolution falls far short if it is confined to the high and mighty, to those with massive resources. It is the opposite of what we think of as a revolution if the people with the most money to spend determine what communications technologies are developed and where they are delivered. If this era of tremendous technological progress and innovation is to make a difference, it must present opportunities that are far more important than getting more cable channels or movies on demand. Instead, we must look to whether the lives of each American at their work place and their home is enriched. There is no better demonstration than ensuring that public safety be the recipient of the innovations and progress we hear trumpeted, that it be on the forefront of such changes. In spending this afternoon and evening with you, I can affirm what even we in Washington D.C. can see - the revolution has a ways to go. No one conveyed their elation over the quality of voice transmissions. No one reassured me that metropolitan areas do not continue to face unacceptable levels of congestion. No one reported implementing multi-jurisdiction interoperability. Meeting these challenges is not enough. The range of wireless advanced technologies, from video capability, to transmission of fingerprints, photographs, blueprints, medical images and other information, are not routine components of public safety communications, but should be. These are well within the grasp of today's technology, much less that of any revolution. I am committed to implementing a vision where public safety communications has sufficient spectrum to meet its standards of reliability and universal service, that includes improved transmission quality, and has interoperabilty, emerging technology and efficiency as fundamental precepts. In this era of large resources contending for the spectrum, I know well your anxiety regarding the auctioning of the spectrum. Let me suggest that we embrace this circumstance as a means to finance the equipment and the transition process to move to this new environment. The spectrum remains a limited resource. Despite claims to the contrary, it will remain so for a period long enough that we should be concerned that its use reflect the public interest, and that the process to determine what this interest is be accountable to the citizens. An open process, with those most impacted having a prominent role, will ensure public safety's part in the communications revolution. While difficult and arduous, it is within our reach. It is not novel to think that a police department should be able to communicate with its counterpart in the next community, or with the fire department and emergency services in the same community. It is not strange to think that we can gain greater capacity with less spectrum or that the quality of all transmissions should be improved. Advanced technologies should be available to the degree and at a price where they are no longer considered advanced. It is also a reasonable aim that when you purchase 4. equipment or services, there be a number of vendors competing for that business, instead of just one. This effort requires a fluid and persevering commitment. It entails understanding the strictures you live within, as well as the expectations of the public we serve. Tolerance for errors in reliability or gaps in coverage is not one of these expectations. One must comprehend that there are not unlimited resources, nor budget processes that allow the comfort of extensive long term planning, and that the Nation has urban, suburban and rural jurisdictions. It is also a process where the market's ability to provide the best means to deliver equipment or service must be pursued. We have joined with the Administration, and with you, to ensure that public safety is part of modern communications and that the process to bring this about be a fair and open one. We are unwilling to let matters simply evolve. With the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce, who has the spectrum management responsibilities for federal agencies, we have established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee. This week Assistant Secretary Irving of NTIA and I announced a group of distinguished individuals to chair and oversee the work of the Advisory Committee. Its chairman, Philip Verveer has a well earned reputation of fairness and commitment to public service in communications. The steering committee includes senior public safety officials from across the Nation, including your President Steve Proctor, Commissioner Bratten in New York City, FBI Director Freeh, Under Treasury Secretary Noble, Los Angeles County Fire Chief Michael Freeman, and United States Attorney Alan Bersin from San Diego. The steering committee also includes a representative from Motorola, Fred Kuznik and from Ericsson, Dennis Connors. I do not intend the Committee's work to culminate simply in a report. My intention is for the Commission to act on the Committee's recommendations expeditiously. The Commission will shortly undertake a proceeding to parallel the work of the Advisory Committee. There are five goals I view as imperative: First, to obtain sufficient spectrum for public safety to meet all its communications needs, at the quality and service standards it demands. Second, to create an environment that promotes interoperability, emerging technologies, and efficiency, where technology can meet your requirements instead limiting them. Third, that competition be turned to public safety's advantage by providing you the opportunity to purchase equipment and services from several vendors. Fourth, that the structure evolves to one managed by the users, and not Washington. And, Fifth, environment where many seek to pay large sums of money for the spectrum provide the means to finance new equipment and the transition costs of public safety. We are committing substantial resources to this endeavor. It is a major priority of the Commission and the Administration. Let me reiterate how important your participation is. There will be difficult questions as we must examine present circumstances, and accept the risk that comes with change. But, with competition for the spectrum increasing, we cannot afford to lose the opportunity we have. 5. Let me close by sharing in the tribute to Frank Casey. If we are to be judged by what we contribute to each other and by the spirit by which we live, Frank Casey has no equal. He is my symbol of the communications revolution. The communications technology he employs to serve the public, is that which has assisted him in demonstrating that his blindness not something he considers a handicap. He has my deepest admiration. Thank you for inviting me to your 1995 Conference.