OPENING STATEMENT

MICHAEL K. POWELL
Commissioner
Federal Communications Commission

Before The

Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem

(As Prepared For Delivery)

192 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.
April 29, 1999

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF
FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL K. POWELL
BEFORE THE
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM

Emergency services are crucial to the life and safety of Americans, and the Year 2000
(Y2K) Problem poses a real and palpable threat to the continued operation of these services. The
FCC takes responsibility, for its part, to ensure that the Year 2000 challenge vis-�-vis emergency
communications is properly addressed. For over a year now we have had an aggressive campaign
aimed at identifying the risks posed to these systems by Y2K and raising awareness of the
potential problems with those entities that provide emergency services. However, inasmuch as
the FCC plays an important role, providers of these services must take appropriate steps to
identify and remediate Y2K related problems within every facet of the emergency response
process or Americans are likely to experience delays and perhaps even the failure to respond to
an emergency.

There are four main components to emergency communications: 1) 911 call delivery; 2)
call processing at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); 3) wireless call dispatch; and 4)
the Emergency Alert System (EAS). These four components are not part of a unified national
system. There is extensive variation among the nation's counties, cities and towns in terms of the
number, function and sophistication of the communications system employed. And any one
system typically involves any number of additional components, each with a different set of
vendors and suppliers, and each with potentially different regulatory or jurisdictional oversight.

911 CALL DELIVERY

The first step in an emergency communication involves delivering the call from the
person reporting the emergency to the appropriate dispatch center. 911 call delivery is a
traditional telecommunications service provided by the local telephone company. It is important
to note that unlike other segments of the emergency communications process, the FCC has direct
authority over the companies that route this initial call.

Remediation and testing of the switching and transmission equipment used in 911 service
is part of the overall remedation efforts currently underway by the telephone companies. As
indicated in the FCC's Y2K Communications Sector Report, large local telephone carriers�
accounting for 92 percent of the total local telephone lines in the United States�had achieved 85
percent readiness of their central office switches as of January 1999. These major U.S. carriers
are expected to be 100 percent ready by the second quarter of 1999. For their part, small to
medium-size carriers lag behind the readiness of their large counterparts and, on average, expect
to achieve Y2K-readiness in the fourth quarter of 1999.

CALL PROCESSING AT THE PSAP

The second step typically involves processing of the emergency call at the PSAP. This
step involves primarily computer processing and often employs sophisticated systems and
software. The PSAP, either primary or secondary, is especially vulnerable to Year 2000
problems because it generally relies on sophisticated computer technology and then
interconnects many private networks with different types of equipment. Unlike the routing of
911 calls to the PSAP, which is under the control of the local telephone company, the processing
of the call at the PSAP is controlled by a myriad of different entities, none of which have a
regulatory tie to the FCC.

The Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) currently estimates that
there are a total of 6,739 PSAPs in the territory of the 8 largest telephone companies, and that the
companies have service contracts with 81 percent of those, or 5,456 PSAPs. Of that 5,456, 35
percent of the PSAPs have now been remediated for 911 call processing. The telephone
companies also report that they have contacted the remaining PSAPs in their areas with which
they have existing contracts and they have either begun work or are waiting for the work to be
initiated by the PSAP owner.

We recognize that the numbers released by NRIC are not consistent with other data
released on the overall number of PSAPs. The NRIC numbers are only the companies' best
estimate of the number of PSAPs in their footprint. The differences, however, only serve to
point out the difficulties encountered in trying to get a handle on this issue.

WIRELESS CALL DISPATCH

Upon processing the call, the PSAP operator or dispatch center will typically alert the
appropriate emergency response team through a wireless land mobile radio system. The FCC
regulates the frequencies that these radio systems use, but the systems themselves are customer
premises equipment sold directly to the local entity by a vendor or vendors. Thus, it is the
responsibility of the state and local entities using these wireless services to inventory these
systems for Y2K related problems and to remediate these systems.

Manufacturers report that analog and digital radio systems operating in unencrypted,
conventional mode (non-trunked mode not involving computer switching) are not date-sensitive
and therefore are not typically at direct risk for Y2K failure. These systems are the kind operated
by the vast majority of state and local public safety agencies, including nearly all smaller and
rural agencies. For radios systems using computerized trunking, encryption, gateway and other
advanced computerized features that are at higher risk for Y2K failure, manufacturers report that
they are engaged in active user notification and remediation assistance programs.

THE EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is also an important element of emergency
communications. EAS is a national emergency communications system designed to give
governments the ability to rapidly communicate with the entire population in times of national
emergency. All broadcast stations and cable systems must participate in EAS; other
communications providers may participate voluntarily.

The EAS system only recently replaced the Emergency Broadcast System, thus virtually
all EAS equipment is new and, according to statements by EAS hardware and software
manufacturers, both the equipment and software is either compliant or if not compliant, is being
updated and provided to customers.

CONCLUSION

Successful emergency service operations require the coordination and function of many
different technical systems and organizations. None can afford not to be Y2K-remediated. As
such, with so relatively few days left until January 1, 2000, it is tremendously important that we
collectively bring to bear the unique strengths and powers of Congress, the Administration, State
and local governments, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Fire
Administration, the Department of Justice, the FCC and all other interested stakeholders to
address this critical issue.

OPENING STATEMENT OF
FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL K. POWELL
BEFORE THE
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. As you are well aware, emergency
services are crucial to the life and safety of Americans, and the Year 2000 (Y2K) Problem poses
a real and palpable threat to the continued operation of these services. Unless providers of these
services take appropriate steps to identify and remediate Y2K related problems within every
facet of the emergency response process, Americans are likely to experience delays and perhaps
even a failure of emergency response.

At the FCC we recognize that emergency communications are crucial to the emergency
response process. For over a year now we have had an aggressive campaign aimed at identifying
the risks posed to these systems by Y2K and raising awareness of the potential problems with
those entities that provide emergency services. Forums, speeches, and articles are just a few of
the ways in which we have reached out, and continue to reach out, to this community.

THE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

Before elaborating on our efforts and the assessment of this sector, I would like to take a
moment to describe for you the emergency communications system. There are four main
components to emergency communications: 1) 911 call delivery; 2) call processing at the Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP); 3) wireless call dispatch; and 4) the Emergency Alert System
(EAS).

These four components are not part of a unified national system. Rather, there is
extensive variation among the nation's counties, cities and towns in terms of the number,
function and sophistication of the communications system employed. And any one system
typically involves any number of components, each with a different set of vendors and suppliers,
and each with potentially different regulatory or jurisdictional oversight. Yet, inasmuch as the
system is comprised of a variety of systems, these systems must interoperate in order to achieve
a successful response to an emergency.

The figure on the following page demonstrates this graphically.

There are approximately 300,000 emergency calls per day in the United States. The 911
Emergency Reporting System is the portion of the emergency communications system that
enables a caller to dial a common three-digit number for all emergency services. Today, some
form of 911 covers over 90 percent of the population.

Enhanced 911 (E911) is an advanced form of the basic 911 service. With both wireless
and wireline E911, the telephone number of the caller as well as other stored information about
the location of the caller is transmitted to the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) where it is
cross-referenced with an address database to automatically determine the caller's location. The
emergency dispatcher can then use this information to direct public safety personnel responding
to the emergency.

1. 911 Call Delivery

The first step in an emergency communication involves delivering the call from the
person reporting the emergency to the appropriate dispatch center as indicated by the Number 1
on the figure. 911 call delivery is a traditional telecommunications service provided by the local
telephone company. Remediation and testing of the switching and transmission equipment used
in 911 service is part of the overall remedation efforts currently underway by the telephone
companies. It is important to note that unlike other segments of the emergency communications
process, the FCC has direct authority over the companies that route this initial call.

2. Call Processing at the PSAP

The second step typically involves processing of the emergency call at the PSAP as
indicated on the figure by the Number 2. This step primarily involves computer processing and
often employs sophisticated systems and software. At the PSAP, the operator verifies or obtains
the caller's location, determines the nature of the emergency, and decides which emergency
response teams should be notified. In most cases, the caller is then conferenced or transferred to
a secondary PSAP from which help will be dispatched. Secondary PSAPs might be located at
fire dispatch offices, municipal police headquarters, or ambulance dispatch centers. Often, a
single primary PSAP will answer for an entire region. Communities without PSAPs rely on
public safety emergency operators and communications centers to process these calls.

The PSAP, either primary or secondary, is especially vulnerable to Year 2000 problems
because it generally relies on sophisticated computer technology and then interconnects many
private networks with different types of equipment. As mentioned previously, there is no single
configuration for emergency communications, nor is there a uniform entity responsible for
maintaining the system across the nation, or even within a particular state. Thus, unlike the
routing of 911 calls to the PSAP, which is under the control of the local telephone company, the
processing of the call at the PSAP is controlled by a myriad of different entities, none of which
have a regulatory tie to the FCC.

3. Wireless Call Dispatch

Upon processing the call, the PSAP operator or dispatch center will typically alert the
appropriate emergency response team through a wireless land mobile radio system as is indicated
by the Number 3 on the figure. During the emergency, these radio systems can be used by
emergency units and officers at the scene to coordinate activities amongst themselves, with those
units still on their way and with dispatchers and command bases. The FCC regulates the
frequencies that these radio systems use, but the systems themselves are customer premises
equipment sold directly to the local community by a vendor or vendors. Thus, it is the
responsibility of the state and local entities using these wireless systems to inventory them for
Y2K related problems and to remediate those problems that are found.

4. The Emergency Alert System

The Emergency Alert System (EAS), designated by the Number 4 on the figure, is also
an important element of emergency communications. EAS is a national emergency
communications system designed to give governments the ability to rapidly communicate with
the entire population in times of national emergency.

THE FCC's EMERGENCY SERVICE EFFORTS

The FCC takes responsibility, for its part, to ensure that the Year 2000 challenge vis-�-vis
emergency communications is properly addressed. However, inasmuch as the FCC plays an
important role by providing information and guidance to companies and critical users (including
state and local authorities), encouraging companies to share information, and facilitating the
development of readiness and contingency plans, the Commission's ability to address the Year
2000 Problem is not without limits. Only private communications firms and consumers
themselves have the ability to address properly the Year 2000 Problem.

For our part, for example, I convened the FCC's very first public forum on Y2K, on the
issue of emergency services, in June 1998. Following on the heels of that forum, I felt
compelled to promote further this and other important issues, by authoring Y2K awareness
articles in as many periodicals as possible. So since the summer 1998, I have authored pieces for
the trade magazines of the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the Association of Public
Safety Communications Officials-International Inc., as well as a healthy number of
telecommunications-related and general media periodicals. I have raised the Y2K issue, in this
country and abroad, in numerous speeches. In fact, last week, I addressed the membership of the
National Association of Broadcasters at a Y2K Super Session. In addition, FCC Staff members
have reached out to numerous members of the public safety community to raise awareness and
advocate action on Y2K. A compilation of our efforts to date is appended hereto as Attachment
1.

The FCC has also dedicated much of its Year 2000 efforts to monitoring and assessment
of the communications industry's readiness activities including emergency communications.
Through surveys, forums, meetings with the industry, information sharing with industry
associations and public sources, such as congressional testimony by industry members, the FCC
has been monitoring the industries' efforts to the Y2K challenge. In June and July 1998, the FCC
organized several roundtables with representatives of different sectors of the communications
industry to facilitate information sharing.

A tremendously important contributor to this effort has been the Network Reliability and
Interoperability Council (NRIC) which has advised the FCC on the status of the various
communications industries' readiness. As you know, much of the information and data that is
available to the public, even for areas of concern that are well beyond the FCC's regulatory
purview such as foreign telecommunications providers and public safety communications, has
been compiled by NRIC. To cite a specific example of this valuable partnership, on March 30,
1999, the FCC in conjunction with NRIC issued its comprehensive Report on the Y2K-readiness.
These data and other are continually refreshed as the FCC and NRIC develop a much fuller and
well-developed understanding of the efforts of industry sub-sectors.

With fewer than 246 days to January 1, 2000, we continue to develop strategies and
approaches to raise industry awareness, to assess and monitor the industries' efforts, and to
facilitate the development of effective contingency plans in the event that a disruption to any
segment of the communications industry should occur. We will never lose sight of that mission.
ASSESSMENT OF 911 CALL DELIVERY

As previously noted, the FCC issued its comprehensive Y2K Communications Sector
Report in March 1999. In our analysis, it was indicated that large local telephone carriers�
accounting for 92 percent of the total local telephone lines in the United States�had achieved 85
percent readiness of their central office switches as of January 1999. These major U.S. carriers
are expected to be 100 percent ready by the second quarter of 1999. For their part, small to
medium-size carriers lag behind the readiness of their large counterparts and, on average, expect
to achieve Y2K-readiness in the fourth quarter of 1999.

These are particularly important statistics because 911 service is provisioned over the
public switched telephone network. In brief, 911 calls are routed from the caller to the PSAP by
the telecommunication network's 911 tandem switch. The 911 tandem switch is a part of the
telephone company's network and is remediated, as required, as part of the telephone company's
total Y2K-readiness effort. As a consequence, the readiness of 911 service is, according to the
companies, on the same track as the rest of their remediation efforts.

The Telco Year 2000 Forum, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions
(ATIS), and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) have engaged in
testing of remediated telecommunications equipment, including 911 testing. In March 1999, the
Telco Year 2000 Forum released the results of 1,914 tests and identified only 6 anomolies, none
of which affected call processing. The Telco Year 2000 Forum tested 911 emergency call
origination as part of four "clusters" of tests of remediated equipment and found no anomalies.
On April 14, 1999, ATIS released the results of its efforts on inter-carrier interoperability testing,
during which no Year 2000 problems were reported. Finally, also in April 1999, CTIA released
the results of its testing efforts, which focused on wireless-to-wireless and wireless-to-wireline,
including 911 PSAP calls. In over 825 tests of equipment that that been assessed and
remediated, if appropriate, no anomalies relating to the date change were reported.

ASSESSMENT OF CALL PROCESSING AT THE PSAP

PSAP equipment is not telecommunications equipment either under the direct jurisdiction
of the FCC or within our area of expertise. We recognize, however, that emergency
communications are essential elements at the front and back end of the process. Therefore, we
have made every effort to raise awareness in this community of the potential dangers posed by
Y2K.

The assessment of the readiness of PSAPs is difficult in general due to the disaggragated
nature of the control and ownership of this equipment. We recognize, however, that many
telephone companies do have a contractual relationship within their area of service with PSAP
owners, most commonly in the form of service and maintenance agreements. As a result, NRIC
has made the study of PSAPs through these relationships one of its key study areas within Focus
Group 2, the group that concentrates on customer premises equipment.

The NRIC assessment was limited to the 8 largest telephone companies who were asked
to estimate the number of PSAPs in their service area, the number of those for which there were
service or maintenance agreements with the telephone company, and the number of those for
which remediation was complete. On April 14, 1999, NRIC estimated that there were over
7,000 PSAPs total and that the 8 largest telephone carriers had some type of a service contract
with 80 percent of the PSAPs in their territory. Of those, NRIC reported, only 10 percent had
been remediated. NRIC went on to recommend advising the public to have available the local
emergency telephone numbers for police, fire, hospitals, and other emergency services in the
event that the PSAPs experience difficulties and the public needs to contact emergency services
directly.

Since the time of the release of the NRIC Report, which was based on data gathered in
February 1999, there has been an improvement in the number of PSAPs remediated within the
service areas of the 8 largest telephone carriers. According to recent reports from the telephone
companies, NRIC now estimates that there are a total of 6,739 PSAPs in the territory of the 8
largest telephone companies, and that the companies have service contracts with 81 percent of
those, or 5,456 PSAPs. Of that 5,456, 35 percent of the PSAPs have now been remediated for
911 call processing. The telephone companies also report that they have contacted the remaining
PSAPs in their areas with whom they have existing contracts and the they have either begun
work or are waiting for the work to be initiated by the PSAP owner.

While these numbers are encouraging, they do not take into account several important
factors. First, the new numbers represent only 81% percent of the PSAPs within the territory of
the 8 largest local telephone companies. Further, they do not account for the numerous PSAPs
served by the over 1,200 small telephone companies around the country. Second, this
assessment is only of PSAPs that have had 911 call processing remediation. It does not
necessarily reflect efforts to remediate the wireless call dispatch side of the PSAP process, or
other processes the computer may provide for a particular jurisdiction. And while the telephone
companies bring expertise and experience to the problem, they too do not have any direct control
over the PSAP and therefore cannot necessarily foresee all the ways in which Y2K may have an
impact on the equipment.

We also recognize that the numbers released by NRIC are not consistent with other data
released on the overall number of PSAPs. I would stress that the NRIC numbers are only the
companies' best estimate of the number of PSAPs in their footprint. The differences, however,
only serve to point out the difficulties encountered in trying to get a handle on this issue.

ASSESSMENT OF WIRELESS CALL DISPATCH

Although the FCC has no direct control over the wireless telecommunications equipment
used by various emergency response teams, we have made a concerted effort to identify where
problems with this equipment may exist and to raise awareness of the need of each service
provider to check their own equipment.

Manufacturers report that analog and digital radio systems operating in unencrypted,
conventional mode (non-trunked mode not involving computer switching) are not date-sensitive
and therefore are not typically at direct risk for Y2K failure. According to data obtained by the
Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), these systems are the kind operated by the vast
majority of state and local public safety agencies, including nearly all smaller and rural agencies.
For radios systems using computerized trunking, encryption, gateway and other advanced
computerized features that are at higher risk for Y2K failure, manufacturers report that they are
engaged in active user notification and remediation assistance programs. The major
manufacturers controlling 90 to 95 percent of the public safety equipment market have reported
that all new equipment now being sold is Y2K ready, and upgrades or remediation packages for
all legacy equipment is now or will shortly be available.

Certain advanced dispatch services such as computer assisted dispatch (CAD) may be at
greater risk for Y2K failure, and we understand that replacing these complicated and expensive
systems may take more than one year. This means that CAD systems identified now as non-
compliant might not be able to be replaced before the year 2000. We understand from the
industry, however, that failure of one of these systems, however, should not prevent manual,
non-computer assisted emergency dispatch activities until the problem can be solved or a
replacement CAD system obtained.

THE EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

While the EAS system has never been used on a national basis, it is used frequently on a
state and local level in times of severe weather or other localized emergency. EAS is structured
so that messages can be injected into the system to alert the public. Industry volunteers work to
develop EAS plans that use industry facilities in a coordinated, efficient and timely manner. For
example, the National Weather Service digital signaling technique used on NOAA Weather
Radio and the EAS digital signaling technique are identical.

The EAS system only recently replaced the Emergency Broadcast System, and new
equipment capable of receiving and decoding the EAS header codes and emergency messages
was required to be installed at broadcast stations by January 1, 1997. Accordingly, virtually all
EAS equipment is new and, according to statements by EAS hardware and software
manufacturers, both the equipment and software is either compliant or if not compliant, is being
updated and provided to customers. Participants at the Commission's Emergency Preparedness
Forum confirmed these statements and the overall readiness of the EAS System. Nevertheless,
participants did recommend that stations and systems take steps to ensure that they are staffed
the night and the morning of December 31, 1999/January 1, 2000.
CONCLUSION

For the FCC's part, while the direct measures to address Y2K vis-�-vis emergency
communications frequently reach well beyond the agency's communications jurisdiction, we do
not treat it as though "it's someone else's problem." Indeed, Henry Kissinger once remarked,
"competing pressures tempt one to believe that an issue deferred is a problem avoided: more
often it is a crisis invited." We at the FCC look forward to contributing in whatever meaningful
form to move public safety organizations towards meeting the Y2K challenge and averting any
potential crisis.

Attachment 1: Compilation of FCC Efforts Related to Emergency Communications

Documents
Aug 1998
Article by Commissioner Powell, The Year 2000 Bug and Public Safety Communications, On Scene (trade
publication for the International Association of Fire Chiefs).
Apr 1998
Letter from Cable Services Bureau regarding Y2K and EAS
May 29, 1998
Letter from Chairman Kennard and Commissioner Powell to Regional Planning Chairs concerning Y2K, covering
emergency communications.
Mar 31, 1999
Y2K Communications Sector Report (with information on emergency communications)
May 1999
Planned release of consumer tips that includes recommendations related to emergency communications.
Ongoing
Maintain FCC Y2K website dedicated to emergency communications information.

Rulemakings
Sep 29, 1998
The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local
Public Safety Agency Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, Dkt No.: WT-96-86, FCC No. 98-
191, 1st R&O & 3rd NPRM, Para 202-07 (September 29, 1998) (seeking comments, in part, on how the public
safety community is addressing the Year 2000 problem).

Forums & Meetings
Jun 1, 1998
Forum: Public Safety and the Y2K Problem
Jun 12, 1998
Forum: Year 2000 Computer Date Change Issues Affecting the Private Wireless Community
Jun 29, 1998
Forum: Wireline Telecommunications Networks and the Year 2000 Problem
Jun 1998
Meeting: National Association of Broadcasters representatives and the Mass Media Bureau concerning the
readiness of EAS equipment.
Jul 16, 1998
Forum: Cable Industry and the Year 2000 Problem
Jul 23, 1998
Forum: Mass Media Bureau's Forum for Broadcasters
Oct 14, 1998
Meeting: Initial meeting of NRIC planning assessment and testing related to 911 and PSAPs.
Nov 10, 1998
Forum: Maintaining Customer Premise Equipment and Private Networks.
Nov 16, 1998
Forum: Y2K Emergency Response Forum
Jan 14, 1999
Meeting: NRIC presentation of preliminary information on assessment and testing related to 911 and PSAPs
Apr 14, 1999
Meeting: NRIC presentation of assessment and testing related to 911 and PSAPs
May 7, 1999
Meeting: Local and State Government Advisory Committee Meeting with Y2K as agenda item � Y2K and
emergency services will be primary area of discussion.

Speeches & Presentations
(by John Clark, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, except where noted)
Apr 30, 1998
Congressional Fire Services Institute, Washington, D.C.
May 7, 1998
Denver Interoperability Forum, Denver, Colorado.
May 18, 1998
APCO East Coast Regional Conference, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
May 19, 1998
Federal Wireless Users Forum, Bethesda, Maryland.
Jun 9, 1998
Public Safety Wireless Network Shared Systems Symposium, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jun 13, 1998
Major City (Police) Chiefs Annual Meeting, Sun Valley, Idaho.
Jul 13, 1998
Forestry Conservation Communications Association Annual Meeting, Annapolis, Maryland.
Aug 10, 1998
Regulatory Panel, APCO Annual Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Aug 11, 1998
Y2K Panel, APCO Annual Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Aug 12, 1998
Radio Club of America, Annual Breakfast, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Aug 13, 1998
Meet the FCC Presentation, APCO Annual Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sep 24, 1998
Public Safety Wireless Network, Chicago Illinois.
Dec 1998
Cable Services Bureau, Western Cable Show.
Mar 15, 1999
APCO Western Regional Conference, San Diego, California.
May 20, 1999
APCO Y2K Symposium.

1i
10

iii