Please stand by.
>> Can we -- yeah.
He's late.
Can we take our seats, please?
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, everyone and welcome.
The chairman is scheduled to join us.
He's a little late.
I guess we should be forgiving.
But we only have three hours and we got a lot to do, so I'm going to make some comments and hopefully, the chairman will be here after I've made my comments and/or Jeff has made his comments and then we'll proceed with the meeting.
I guess the first thing I'd like to do is just take a moment and -- to talk about and address everything that our industry did in the wake of both Katrina and Rita.
And sort of the recovery efforts that went on across our industry.
And as a person that's been in the industry for a long time, I can't tell you how proud I am of all of us around the table and everyone associated with this industry in terms of the incredible amount of work that was done during these hurricanes.
Most especially Katrina.
And I think it was obvious to all of us that we worked around the clock to restore networks and to repair damage.
I was gratified to see all the cooperation amongst the carriers, the wired side, the wireless side, the software folks and in the wake of such a devastating storm I don't see how anybody could look at the storm and say what a way this industry responded to this situation.
And for those of us that think mandating us -- less standards I'd ask them to take a look at what we did.
And it didn't matter what it cost.
Didn't matter how much time it took.
It didn't matter who had to get involved.
What mattered was we wanted to get people communications restored and I think that we did a hell of a job on that.
And I think it should be a model to people that look at things like this and I think we should feel very good about it.
I certainly do and I know a lot of my colleagues on the wireless side, anyway, that I'm familiar with feel the same way.
So for all of you around the table that had anything to do with it -- I'm sure most of you did -- thanks.
Because it was a great -- it was a great time for our industry and it showed that we cared.
We know how to rally support.
We know how to get networks back and operating and we feel for people.
And that's what's important.
So god love you all for what you did.
We got another one coming.
I can't believe this.
They say it's going to hit the west coast.
It's a bad hurricane right now, although they think it's going to calm down.
But I'm sure all of us are ready and if we need to do whatever we have to do, we'll do it.
So I suppose it's stand by.
So with that, I will -- is the chairman here?
No.
So with that I will turn it over to Jeff.
And then we'll go from there.
>> OK.
Let me also welcome you.
I -- I'm not going to speak for the chairman but I'll speak for myself.
And I will say that when things like this happen we're reminded of the importance and the value of this group and the importance of the work that's been done over the years here.
We're reminded of the work that was done to prepare for Y2K and we're reminded of the work that was done in the wake of 9/11 and how those things and with that -- and the -- so again and again over the years, this council has come through with best practices, with recommendations that have been valuable, things that you've applied yourselves and we appreciate that.
So I do now officially convene the meeting.
Turn it over to chairman Martin for his opening remarks.
>> Thanks.
Excuse me.
Thanks, Jeff, and thanks, Tim, as always for convening everyone today.
Good afternoon.
I appreciate the chance to spend time with you talking about the work that you've been pursuing.
It's always important to get a chance to come spend some time and talk about the key role that you all have played certainly in the wake of the recent hurricanes, we've only been reminded how important communications are and how essential they are to saving lives and property and how necessary they are in the restoration efforts, whether you're talking about people's homes, their jobs and in the end how important they can be to the whole check recovery of an area when they've been devastated by disaster.
And I think that NRIC has provided some key telecommunications insights for local, state and federal officials to rely upon in times of needs.
Without adequate communications neither food, clothing or medicine would likely be available in sufficient quantities or at the right locations and services you all provide are essential to the nation, its economy and the operation of local, states and federal government.
as everyone knows, NRIC and its predecessor have been in the forefront of developing ways to address the things that accompany these types of disasters.
And the NRIC model has been an important one to develop the best practices that you all have been debating.
And we must all continue our important work to ensure that all the communication providers adhere to he's practices to ensure reliability in the event of a disaster and the quick repair of services should service be interrupted.
In looking ahead we need to take full advantage of I.P.-based technologies, to enhance the resiliency of traditional network.
It provides the ability to reroute traffic within a network in the event of a system failure in the traditional network.
To restore service, to provide the flexibility to initiate new service at the locations that are chosen by the consumers.
In addition to the work being performed by NRIC, the commission has established another independent counsel -- panel.
Supposed of public communications and safety individuals that we charged with reviewing the impact of hurricane Katrina specifically on the infrastructure.
The panel will make recommendations in ways to improve network reliability.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you all today.
Look forward to working with you in the future councils to address how we can best improve network reliability.
For myself and all the commission members I appreciate your efforts and thank you for spending so much time on this important issue.
We look forward to working with you all in the future and getting your recommendations.
Thank you
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Appreciate your time.
>> Of course.
>> Yeah.
At this point I want to share with you the results of the last NRIC meeting, the votes on the recommendations from the four focus groups, all items are passed by majority vote of the council.
Also want to remind you that we'll have the same voting procedures or process in place as we had the previous meetings.
You should have received a ballot via email -- sorry.
You should have received a copy of the six reports that we'll be briefed on today and on the table there's a ballot.
Forgive me.
If not, you can get one after the meeting when we distribute a duplicate copy.
Following today's briefing the council members will have two weeks to vote and you can return your ballot either via mail or email and please remember as always, all unreturned ballots and those returned later than two weeks will be counted as votes in favor of all recommendations.
So that's the process.
Now it's my pleasure to introduce to you John howl to my right.
He's the new chair of the NRIC steering cheat.
John's been working with NRIC since I began working as chairman almost two years ago and has been instrumental in keeping the focus groups on track to produce the deliverables of the council.
So with that, I will turn it over to John.
>> Thank you, Tim.
For everybody used to seeing Nancy Carlson up here, she's well.
She's pursuing other opportunities and I'm here finishing up the job she capably started.
Want to welcome all of you.
On behalf of Nancy and myself thank you for your ongoing support of NRIC, thank you for providing the leadership to the focus groups and the steering committee through folks on your teams and particularly the focus group participants who have given so much of their time over the last several months.
We have a busy agenda today so I'll get right to the introductions.
We're going to hear from six focus groups today.
The co-chairs will be up before you shortly, three of whom will be presenting their final reports under the charter.
The first final report we're going to hear is from focus group four chaired by Mary Retka of Qwest communications.
Mary will be speaking to us about broadband architectures, best practice and service features.
Following Mary, John Quigley and David Frigeri will be covering best practices for wireless networks and best practices for the public data networks.
Then we will have Nancy Pollock who is from the Minneapolis-St.
Paul area and metropolitan emergency services board and bob Oenning from the state of Washington.
They are the co chairs of focus group 1 c and they'll be presenting on the effectiveness of best practices for e 911 communications.
Our fifth report will be Jim Nixon representing focus group 1 b.
He'll be presenting on generic E911 architectures for video and advanced services, and transition issues.
Lastly we'll have Mary body from entrado.
She'll be presenting on consistent threshold for E911 database queries and metrics for unacceptably high E911 concentration points.
With that I'll turn it over to Mary Retka.
Mary?
>> Much lower microphone works for me best.
thank you, John.
Oh here's where I say, oh, shoot, I should have gotten up here earlier to see how this thing works.
Give me a second while I pull up the right one.
There we go.
OK.
We'll go ahead and get started.
As John said I'm Mary Retka from Qwest and to -- do I need to stop?
Do you want me to stop?
>> Hold on.
We're trying to get the presentation up on the screen.
>> We'll put it up.
>> OK.
Thank you.
>> \[Inaudible].
>> All right.
I've got it up here.
OK.
>> \[Inaudible].
>> Yeah.
Showing up.
OK.
Thank you.
All right.
Then we'll go ahead and continue.
As I said I'm Mary Retka from Qwest and I chair the focus group four on broadband and it's been my privilege for the past 18-plus months to lead this team and work through what has been a very challenging and fun, actually, experiment here.
Let's start out with reviewing the charter.
Focus group four was asked to present recommendations to council for the increased deployment of high-speed residential internet access service and to include in that best practices and service features that are and will be technology neutral.
Our recommendations are to be prepared in such a way as to ensure service compatability, improve security reliability and interoperability of service provider systems.
It's been my privilege to work with the talented professionals that are shown here on slide two, if you're following on the slides that were handed out.
Folks who worked very cooperatively across industry segments and across the industry as a whole, several of who are sitting here and I appreciate you being here.
These are technical subject matter experts and they've done just an excellent job in representing their companies as well as setting aside their own companies position looking at the industry segment and the industry as a whole.
Something that we really had to do enough.
You'll see that as we move into the challenges of our part of the charter.
If -- it's always helpful when you're taking on an effort such as this to have what I like to call upper level support for the work and clearly you couldn't get any better support than just after we started on our efforts President Bush made a speech in farmington, New Mexico, in Qwest territory and made the statement that this country needs a national goal for broadband technology for the spread of broadband technology.
We ought to have universal affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.
And then we ought to make sure as soon as possible there after that consumers have got plenty of choices when it comes to purchasing their broadband carrier.
I know that's something that this commission and particularly this chairman takes very seriously.
Additionally, in the spring the FCC released this statement reflecting the results of the \[Inaudible] 77 reports that the providers provides the FCC and they said high-speed connections to the internet increased 34% during 2004 for a total of 38 million lines in service.
Now, I've got to tell you, this came out in some -- and some people on our -- on the focus group said, you know, I work --
our work here is done, we've already increased the deployment of residential and internet access service.
However, we knew we had a challenge ahead of us, and we wanted to make sure that the work that we did on this charter aligns with the industries desire to increase these numbers.
You've probably seen a lot of different reports.
You could look at some of the I.T.U. reports that show us lagging globally.
You could look at the Keegan research report or the Pugh internet report that say that the numbers are going or flattening over time or slowing.
Or you could look at the Neilson report, the telegeography report that says our numbers will continue to grow and edge up as we continue to get more opportunities to use high-speed residential access.
As was noted, this is the final report for this focus group, but I know that everybody who's been involved in this effort continues to take this challenge very seriously.
I'll ask you to please recall from our initial report to you that we started out with -- in phase one to build what we called our reference models, and you'll see that on pages 17 through 39 of your report.
And this is the reference model architectures polar drawings that you've got in your packages.
And for this report, today's report is going to cover our second and third phases of our deliverable.
You'll see our best practices and our service features, so let's look at how we did the work.
First we started our effort on the best practices.
And using the team of subject matter experts that I referenced previously we took a look at each of our baseline reference models, and what did we do is we plotted out those models and met at the wonderful Lucent-nrso facilities and split into subteams based on our models.
Each subject matter expert feels comfortable with practices associated with their particular architecture or their segment of the industry.
In those subgroups they developed the beginning points or brainstorm beginning points of our best practices. Then we had to bring back everybody in the full group to review each of those individually because of the challenge we had to bring those to a technology-neutral level which I'm going to touch on in my next slide.
The brainstorming was also used for service features and I'll touch on the fact that this was something that was very new to us.
But the full team decided we wanted to work jointly on the service features and as 2 criteria we saw in our charter with each of the members of the team investigating internally in their own company and within their own segment to bring in information to help us with the service features effort.
Now, as I said, technology neutral was difficult for us.
The people involved are very deeply understanding of their own architectural infrastructure and generally of their own infrastructure within their segment of the industry but to have to think about it broadly across all segments of the industry brought about a lot of need to question each other, to talk about, well, this is the way we do it in our architecture, how is it done in yours.
So we had then to go into that deeper level.
But then we also needed in order to state our best practices and service features in a technology-neutral fashion, we had to raise that discussion up from that detailed look in order to come up with the best practices and service features that could meet the requirement for this commonality and we were able to.
And to the wonderful -- wonderful kudos to the folks in the industry to come up with that commonality.
Another aspect was service features, so let's look at that.
Most of the previous NRIC work in the area of best practices had been either white papers or best practices themselves.
Service features was new.
And challenging to all of us.
We looked at the charting.
It called for commonly available capabilities, increasing the user's interest in adopting the broadband service and the technology-neutral piece which I just talked about.
So we took a look at it and related it to the expectation of an end user who's migrating between providers without really an awareness of the underlying infrastructure variations.
And we determined that we would then take that view from the end user's perspective and look at it directly related to the user's quality of experience.
As I said, this was again a real challenge to take this position, because all of us were used to looking at the operational part of our networks and now we all said, you know, well, we're all users of this, let's look at it through a user's perspective for the service features.
So how did we do?
Well, let's look at the results for best practices.
First we reviewed all of the best practices that were relevant to residential broadband high-speed internet access and found that of those, there were 97 that were relevant to that.
And this kind of leads into one of the things you'll see that we made an observation on.
Because broadband in many of the segments of the industry rides over already-existing infrastructure, we looked at all of the relevant items about that infrastructure that could be related to broadband but then we had to look at, OK, what do we need to look at for the increased deployment of high-speed residential network access and we have reviewed those best practices and said they really weren't relevant to that.
We were asked to come up with new ones and we did.
We loose looked at the NRIC work that was done on broadband and review the seven best practices that came out of that and made some recommendations that you'll see on page 40 of the full report.
And you can see off to the right of each of the best practices what our recommendations were regarding those that had been previously made best practices out of NRIC 6.
Some of them we had to make modifications out of to bring them up to date.
Some of them were duplicative or they really weren't best practices.
And then we had five that we served to the signer security group 2 b which was in the process of working through best practices in that review that they did and we found three that we didn't need to make a change to.
They were fine as they stood.
We then identified 10 new industry best practices which you'll see in pages 41 and 42 of the full report.
And these just at a high level focused on performance design, environmental conditions, privacy, security, the selection implementation and deployment in order to reach the most users, alarms, back-up power.
Mitigation of harmful interference as well as network performance operation, and all of these are centered on benefiting the increased deployment of residential high-speed internet service.
Then we moved on to phase three of our work, which was -- which is the service features.
And the group was able to identify 10 service features for broadband service providers that would increase the deployment of residential broadband internet access service and you'll see those actually on pages 14 and 15 of the body of the report.
on the bottom of 14 and on to page 15.
Those are the topics of rapid divisioning, help, ease of troubleshooting, access to the services, scheduled maintenance, windows, appropriate latency.
Ability to access the internet, transparency of application, presentation and security.
As we were doing this final phase of our work, we also found some things we wanted to make sure were in the report.
We had a couple of recommendations.
One of which is that there's -- probably should incorporate these features as they're developing their networks and the second that internet service providers should not intentionally restrict legitimately supported applications.
We made an observation that I referenced previously and that is that one of the beauties of broadband is that in many cases it rides over the existing infrastructure and so we wanted to point that out.
So it makes good use of the already-underlying architecture.
And then we had three considerations.
The first of which we all felt very strongly about, that some form of tax benefit legislation could really help to incent parties to use high-speed residential internet service.
We talked about several bills that were up in our legislative branch and secondly, we felt that providers should look to the technical references in all the work that's been done in the standards by bodies to create those.
And then finally, that the consumer should take into conversation the need for security as well as their options for internet service providers as they make their choice for a high-speed residential internet access service.
You'll see those on page 15 and 16 of our full report.
It's always great when you're working on something to have a lot of attention in that area.
And it was just fabulous to see something that we were completing our report on the FCC adopted an order that linked to that effort and that's the consumer statements that were made in the order that in some places has been called the net neutrality order, I believe.
But it really nicely complements the work on service feechures, because it talks about what the consumer entitlements are in terms of access to the internet.
I won't read the whole thing.
I'm sure you've all seen it.
Been in the news a lot.
So we ended up with an addition of first of all the documentation of our reference models and those show the architectural alternatives for provisioning high-speed residential internet access service.
We took from there the capability of developing 10 technology neutral best practices for the deployment and 10 service features that might increase in end users' interest in adopting the broadband services.
You have the full report.
Hopefully you'll have a chance to read that and look at that before you do your voting in the next couple of weeks.
And with that, I'd like to open it up for any questions that there might be.
>> Mary, thank you very much.
Splendid job.
We very much preach -- appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
I want to introduce Tim Donahue -- Karl Rauscher.
>> I want to welcome you and would you like to take a few minutes to address the council?
>> Thank you.
I just wanted to a take a couple of minutes to come down.
The first thing I want to do is commend all the many companies around the table who worked so hard with such commitment, with such heroic in many cases in the wake of hurricane Katrina and hurricane Rita and I think the work that was done really just was really impressive and y'all ought to be proud of that.
It's the kind of cooperative work that's just -- we need to have.
We need to have more of, so I commend you for that.
The second reason I wanted to come by was to commend my chairman, chairman Martin, on the steps he has taken to put the best foot of this commission forward in rededicating ourselves to the concepts of public safety, particularly in the homeland security area, which I know this group has worked so hard on.
As you know, I've been an apostle of the more activist FCC for a long period of time, and I think under Kevin's leadership we really are moving in the right direction.
And it's such a high priority for you.
It's -- I think now you can see an even higher priority.
You may have thought for the commission around here.
So I'm delighted to see us going in that direction.
It just shows the urgent priority of all of this stuff we're working on, whether it's natural disasters or homeland security or you name it.
So I hope it will be all of our -- all of us rededicating ourselves to that.
I particularly enjoyed the presentation on broadband that we have that objective for 2007 deployment, aboutive demands of strategy and strategy demands implementation.
I know that's what you're turning your attention to here, so I congratulate you for that.
I'm glad that you found that this statement in network neutrality that the commission voted on was something that dove tails nicely with your work.
I think it's important as we go forward in our proceedings here at the commission that that basic policy dedication is actually reflected in the specifics of what we do.
So with that, I just wanted to thank you all for your continuing work in this.
This is preimminently a public sector and private sector partnership working together.
That was the reason for the success, I think, after the hurricanes.
That's going to be the reason for any success we have in getting this country ready for the challenges of terrorism and homeland security.
Let's all keep up with good work.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, commissioner.
And now we will hear from focus group 3A and 3B.
Caverl?
There you are.
-- Karl?
There you are.
>> Mr. Chairman, chairman Martin, commissioner Copps and council members.
On behalf of the many focus group members, my co-chairs and I are very excited to present our final deliver rabbles today.
First I will describe -- deliverables today.
I will describe the methods used and then John Quigley and David Frigeri will go into detail about the findings in these two areas.
Our complete report has been delivered to you in our 200-plus page document that was sent to you a few weeks ago.
Final deliverables are described as providing a report that recommends the best practices for wirlingse industry and public data networks and also providing new best practices that apply uniquely to wireless networks and public data networks.
So that is what is in the final deliverable.
If you look at the mission statements for 3A and 3B you'll find that they have eight imperatives in them and we've done all of those.
Let me read through to refresh and give you context.
The first thing we were told to do not necessarily in this order, develop best practices.
We were told to refine and modify as appropriate best practices, to improve the an blick ability to wireless and public data networks respectively and to address some specific topics in detail.
We were also asked to evaluate the efffasi of best practices, -- efficacy of best practices.
I'll talk about a survey we did later.
We were asked to perform a gap analysis to determine where best practices were missing to address these areas.
And we were asked to conduct a survey and focus on the special needs of the wireless industry and refine existing best practices.
We've done each of those.
Thanks to the contributions of the excellent representation we've had from the council members here, we've done each of those in a quality way.
You can read about that in the final report.
So the mission for public data networks is similar and is providing to you there in your handouts.
We had great representation from across the country in both areas.
Nearly 100 people participated directly between 3A and 3B.
In addition there are many others who stepped up to provide expertise on specific subject matter areas as expertise was needed.
So many experts from across industry putting a lot of work into producing this important work.
In fact, if we -- we tally up the hours this time, the amount of time spent in meetings, in deliberative, rigorous discussion on best practices was about 5,000 hours if you count the time that's spent by people alone -- or this is 5,000 participant hours.
Count the time people spent on their own back at their companies working with individuals, it's well over somewhere around 12,000 hours.
I'd point ought that that in the estimate in the council's charter I was reflecting on that recently.
The work on 3A and 3B is easily more than half that time than was suggested for my focus groups.
A lot of work went in here.
Your representatives are to be congratulated.
I encourage you to seek them out and thank them for their contributionses.
Best practices, some of us have been involved in this process since its beginning.
What we did before 9/11 was look at what happened in the past and we learned from it.
And so there was this historical way of learning from outages.
What we did after 9/11 is -- that's not good enough.
We need to anticipate the kind of things that could happen so we began using a frame work in the development of best practices that there's eight ingredients making up the communications infrastructure and you see those there on the slide.
We used this approach again and we said four wireless networks, public data networks, what are the differences, what are the at bhutes, the D.F.O.'s Jeff Goldthorp asked us to make sure we didn't just start with best practices but take a fresh look and we did that.
That's where we started off at the beginning of the process.
We identified a number of gaps that you'll hear from John and David an we addressed each of those.
Best practices need to be mod fight, they're good as written or we need to come up with new ones.
We addressed all those gaps in a systemic and comprehensive way.
The basic three method ologies we used are the gap closer process we described.
We reviewed best practices for an Kabulability for wireless, pruss the public -- apolitic built.
-- apoliticability.
We ended up modifying best practices and you'll see the numbers shortly.
We also as prescribed conducted an effectiveness survey.
The chart I'm showing shows that it was the most effective NRIC survey to date.
Surveys were done in terms of respond ends.
We had a 52% increase in the number of entities that gave information in the industry.
The focus of this survey was on effectiveness and we found that around like 95, 97% of all the best practices were deemed to be moderately effective or effective.
Again, to get out of the possible group think expanding out to a larger community we found people coming back saying these things are very helpful.
So with that, let me turn it over to my co-chair for the wireless group, Jonathan Adelstein and he'll be followed by --
John Quigley and then we'll turn it to David Frigeri.
>> Thanks, Karl.
I want to give a special thanks to Karl.
He's been around the NRIC committee since the first one.
This was my first opportunity to co-chair an NRIC committee and Karl really has a lot of personal capital invested in this arena.
So thanks for your leadership, Karl.
We appreciate it.
I'd like to start by just going over deliverables forest wireless best practices group which was to really do three things and Karl hit on these.
Perform a gap analysis, survey the wireless industry concerning the effectiveness of best practices, and focus on the special needs of the wireless industry.
This is something I'll talk about in a few slides later but again this is the first time that an NRIC charter has asked specifically to focus on the wireless industry.
And I think we've proven that.
It's been of great value to date and we'll take you through some of those examples.
How did we approach this?
We engaged more than 50 industry experts over the course of it.
Of the 18 months.
Articulated about 138 attributes specifically around wireless networks.
And we formed eight task groups there that's on the slides, led by specific individuals with specific tasks to look at all those concerns and use the attributes that the team outlined.
Some of the key points are is that we reached beyond just a regular NRIC participants to do this work.
We took a very wide scope in our work.
We looked at the area interface.
We look at back office support and support of wireless networks and we really spent a lot of time focused on the power infrastructure supporting wireless networks and that really has turned out to be very key and very critical, certainly of late around our response during the hurricanes.
The task groups provided specific focus in areas to get work done and bring it back to the entire group, so that was where the structure of the eight groups really was keefment all 28 --
key.
All 285 concerns were brought to resolution.
There was either found to be an existing B.P. to cover it, a new best practice or we modified an existing best practice.
And really, here is a summary.
After we went through that process we produced these results and I think that these really are very strong results.
51 new best practices just focus on the specific needs of the wireless industry and 22 modifications to existing best practices.
It's probably worth noting that 32 new best practices in the network lane really does stand out.
And we'll show you where those germ Nated from -- germy Nated from.
We were helped get to this body of work.
With as an industry truly value the best practices.
And want to take advantage of our charter as an opportunity to make them even more valuable to the wireless industry.
special workshops.
We really worked as a team to get out of maybe just some normal active workshop meetings and we planned over the course of our charter to look at flee special workshops.
-- three special workshops and I'd like to briefly go over each one of them now.
The power workshop which was hosted by ieee brought in 46 experts from telecom, electric utilities and government as well as acedemia.
With a special emphasis on providing power for wireless infrastructure.
That was a very worth while day and many of the eight new power best practices were dreekt output from that session.
The oil fare interface workshop brought in 21 wireless experts.
These are all experts that are not norblely a part of the NRIC focus group, so these were really heavy hitters from each of the companies that dedicated resources for not only the two days listed but that work went on for about two months that was facilitated out of this focus group.
Lastly, we had a public service workshop in June where 26 experts from the wireless industry, city government and various other industries came together to focus on the impact of wireless needs in -- like the city of New York.
Excuse me.
Special recognition and thanks would go to ieee and to commissioner Geno menchino of New York for hosting that session.
We recognize the partnership with the city of New York in trying to work on that.
Some simple best practices.
There's three that are just good examples of the work from this team.
I'd like to walk through one of them which is the first one there.
This came out of that special power conference that I just mentioned.
And it's a new concern for wireless due to the number of elements or number of cell sites focused on reliable back-up power.
I can tell you personally from a carrier's perspective it seems intuitive to be able to have this type of contact information with the power companies but in reality it's a real challenge It's a real challenge and putting a lot of focus and support behind a best practice like that requires a lot of effort but would absolutely gain a lot of value when you go through a major event like one of the hurricanes.
The recommendations coming out of this team, we would like to recommend a vote by the council to accept the best practices that we have submitted.
Although our work was extremely thorough, wireless is rapidly changing and we recommend that future councils maintain the focus on the wireless industry.
Keeping best practices as a voluntary matter is really critical from this team.
They're not always aapplicable and must be reviewed by subject matter experts prior to implementation.
And lastly, I would just say that I appreciate the council's opportunity to lead this team.
Thanks in advance for your time to review all the work from this focus group.
And I would like to introduce at this time David Frigeri from internap to go over focus group 3B.
Thank you.
>> Good afternoon, chairman Martin.
I'm David Frigeri from internap network services.
I'm going to read the charter charge for this focus group.
The council shall evaublet the an politic built of all best practices for providers.
Council shall perform a gap analysis, survey the network data industry concerning the effectiveness of the best practices, focus on the special needs of the public data network industry and refine existing best practices to focus their apoliticability to the services industry.
Those are our three main focuses.
As you can see over 60 industry subject matter experts.
And like John, I want to emphasize that these are subject matter experts.
We took a very diverse approach to the recruiting.
We reached into acedemia, independent research institutions as well as the major carriers and major hardware and software vendors.
We identified some of the attributes of public data networks which was particularly important as we've all been to the internet data services base that we understand what are the differences and similarities between the private network and public infrastructure.
Considered over 200 concerns regarding P.D.N. and we broke that down into eight task groups that Karl described earlier.
45 new best practices and 19 modifications, heavy concentration in network.
As you can see, 20 new and 13 modified.
That came out of four identified gaps, understanding what the existing best practices are and what the new needs are as we involve and the difference between those two is what is the gap.
You can see software, hardware and policy following closely behind in terms of concentration new best practices.
Our recommendations from focus group 3B as ow don'ted by the council of best practices and modifications of existings best practices within the final report.
You'll see an area of concern which should be considered as we move into the future.
This has to do in getting the context of voitover I. pimplet and voice overI.P. on phones.
We need to understand that these phones work off the power in these buildings.
We know commercial real estate power resources are extremely different than the resources available at a C.O.
This is something that the group identified as something that should be considered moving into the future.
Finally, I would like to thank Karl for your leadership and really mentoring me, particularly through the early days of this.
He really made a difference in terms of my understanding of the industry and just how important best practices are.
I'd like to thank Nextel, John, Mr. Donahue for the opportunity to lead this group.
Thank you.
>> In putting this presentation together we thought that it would be appropriate to make a few additional words about best practices that we have -- we believe are about 100 really critical best practices that are now new and going out into the world.
First of all, the best practice process is one in which there's a lot of sharing.
We come up with 100 best practices.
A lot more sharing of information takes place across the industry and a lot of learning that's healthy for -- to be taking place for our country.
One thing that should be clear to people is when we develop best practices at NRIC we're the experts at the table.
That's something I don't think we should take for granted.
We need to continue to provide a safe environment and people don't need to see their lawyers to the meetings but their technical experts.
Since we're not trying to say this isn't the exact wording or articulation that applies everywhere.
It's more of an overflowing type thing.
We want to capture it even if it doesn't apply in every situation.
It was mentioned earlier by my colleague that these don't always apply.
It's the nature of the discussions.
I think if we're overly cautious about what was best everywhere we'd have a short list of practices.
I don't think our company can afford to have that kind of list.
This needs to be a very robust and rigorous process and the one we've had for over 10 years has been a healthy one.
And I just want to urge for that to be continued.
We're providing guides for tens of thousands of people who will never participate in the process and we believe it is a model process for the sectors.
I got an email a few hours ago from a group of people in the industry here working trying to help some other country somewhere and the best practices that we provided, nowhere else does this take place in the world and it is very helpful.
It's been an honor serving in this capacity and if there are any questions I'd ask John and David to join me.
>> I need to ask a question.
What's the plan for implementation?
The worst-case scenario here is we end up with all kinds of best practices or a wash in best practices but they don't get implemented.
When I got to the bottom of page six it scared the hell out of me where it said interest wanes at -- waned at the end.
I'd have been happier if it said interest increased at the end.
I'm all for keeping this stuff voluntary, too, but if it doesn't get enforced we'll have to look at other ways to get these things implemented.
I'm interested in knowing what the concrete plans are for doing the outreach and making sure industry knows about it and once they know about it how do we get them in action so we know the country's safer.
>> I'll make a comment and see if my colleagues or other council members want to chime in.
Because these best practices are shown over and over again to be effective in promoting reliability, the companies highly value these things.
They see them as something that will help run their business better.
Relike to is a very important at beauty for the services of network operators and the equipment that equipment suppliers sell.
We're very much motivated to provide highly reliable things, whether it be services or products.
As far as outreach, we -- myself and those involved with lots of outreach, whether it be ieee, different commet conferences, spoke at something last week.
Whenever we're available to speak and pro meet these things.
We've made a website available.
People around the world know about these things.
There's a lot of awareness that this is the best place where the guidance is.
I actually think there is high implementation already.
The last -- this time we measured effectiveness.
Last time we measured implementation.
It was around 88%, 89%.
It is implemented.
100% isn't always the best answered because they don't always apply.
100% isn't necessarily better than 90%.
In addition -- is there anything you'd like to add?
>> Thank you for the question, sir.
One thing I think is important to ample fy is constant outreach.
Working for a company like internap we exist because of our about to understand the performance of the major carriers.
I would suggest to you that the risk is not associated with the major carry rs but the risk, when we speak about internet the risk is associated with on ramps.
I think outreach plays an important part, that we get out to these thousands of ma and pa networks who are the first entity to touch the end user.
Thanks.
>> I noticed that bill had his hand up.
>> If I may, commissioner, I guess the theme that I would look at from our point of view is we look at best practices as a Bible.
They absolutely are key to our operation but I think the key point is that there are some areas as Karl has pointed out they don't necessarily apply.
A very real example I couldn't help but think about as we face some of the situations in New Orleans, best practices calls for buried fuel thanks.
In the flooding areas and so forth.
That was a real challenge for us.
In light of that I'm not sure that burying a fuel tank in that area would make the most sense.
The best practice calls for not deploying anything in a high-risk area.
Well, there are huge parts of New Orleans that are by nature high-risk areas and we can't fail to serve ow can't fail to provide -- or can't fail to provide wireless coverple in those areas.
From our -- coverage in those areas.
From our point of view there is nobody perhaps more than us that support these best practices but I think the real caution is they do require judgment of professionals in the industry and that's the concern I think you're hearing that if we said we just want to make she's mandatory, that's the solution to our problem, I think that's scary for the people who have worked so hard on it.
>> Thanks, bill.
Yes, art?
 
new captioner

if best practices calls for not employing anything in a high-risk area, there are huge parts of New Orleans that are by nature high-risk areas and we can't fail to serve or provide wireless coverage in those areas, so from our point of view, there is nobody, perhaps more than us, that supported these best practices, but I think the real caution is they do require the judgment of professionals in the industry, and that's the concern I think you're hearing is that we just want to make these mandatory.
That's the solution to our problem.
I think that gets to be scary for the people to the who worked so hard on it.
>> Just to follow up in terms of the importance of having experts, we're not just talking about experts on particular technology, but the people Karl and others are talking about are the people who within other companies are working on their best practices, so this form and forms that are part of it provide an opportunity for the sharing of experiences and coming up with best practices among the best practices, so the implementation is almost natural in a process in which you actually have experts working on these issues and sharing information which are part of their daily activities, not some extra activity.
Thank you.
>> OK.
Thanks.
Any other comments?
>> Any other questions?
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Well done.
Appreciate your hard work.
All right.
Next we'll hear from focus group one-c.
Nancy Pollock and Bob.
>> Thank you.
Thank you chairman and members of the council.
Our group is an interim report we're starting here.
So -- this is always good when I get this part.
And the end objective of this report is to assure that the best practices impact public safety are effective.
That's what we were looking at in this particular report.
The best practices that we looked at, the first issue was to find the ones that impact public safety.
That is directly impact us.
One of the realities is that if you have a network outage or a problem with a network, people can't dial 911 for whatever reason.
We end up potting a lot of best practices, but we looked at ones that had specific relationship to public safety.
Doing so, we reviewed all of them.
We, preparedness and we put those in these sub groups so they could then divide them out and work on them.
Each of those best practices were thoroughly evaluated.
How well it contributed to emergency service communications and the technical abilities of doing it particularly related to cost.
Clearly a discussion on that issue.
The sub groups combined all of that information, and we had some general group meetings that we -- where we went over the entire pack package, and we evaluated every single one in detail with lots of discussion about them.
And an interesting part of this is you just saw Karl's group, 98% of best practices were effective.
We came up with the same number.
We found a few of them that were effective and required some bit of updating.
How many of these best practices should public safety be included in?
Should public safety be included in the best practices because they were a definite participant in making it successful.
We found some were no longer effective and recommended them for deletion.
It's interesting, we went through this and in working with other sub groups we've gone through many again in the second round, so we're getting used to this.
As we continue this evaluation, we're going onward.
And one of the questions that came up was should there be a similar set of best practices -- similar set of best practices for public safety, that is, for the peace aps.
Many are for carriers.
Many are carrier-specific.
Yet, if you go look at a public safety center or peace a, some of those same items will apply directly to them.
Until discussion of power, should some of these be modified and a separate group established?
That's something we're going to took public safety officials about.
So I turn this over to Nancy.
>> The, as bob as indicated, this is an interim report.
So in our time report which you will hear on December 6, I be, is the date, we are going to be going over in much more detail the effective best practices that were reviewed for public safety impact.
And what we have done to update the best practices that needed updating.
As it related to emergency communications.
We'll also review those best practices which we recommend for deletion because they are no longer implemented or not applicable due network infrastructure or changes in programs, they refer to programs that perhaps no longer exist.
We will summarize them in that final report the conclusion of the outages, and review network failure notifications to --
that were added to our charter, actually, throughout this process.
And we will also discuss the factors that should be decided in selecting 911 selective routers and or alternate peace aps in those outage situations, including an analysis of those factors.
As bob as indicated earlier in the presentation here, a fully-functioning 911 system is essential.
Not only to the public, which relies own it,, but to the industry.
Because if we don't have a fully if you thinking 911, I guarantee you there's going to be congestion issues, redialing issues, unnecessary use of resources and so forth.
So the fully functioning 911 network, although it is part of the overall network infrastructure is really critical to the entire network infrastructure as a wall whole, so come back on December 6 for that final report.
We're here to answer any questions on this interim report.
If you have any, we'll be happy to entertain them.
>> Appreciate your good work.
Next up, focus group 1-be.
And Jim Nixon.
>> Good afternoon, everyone.
Thank you for the opportunity present the results so far that focus group 1-b has arrived at.
We do have one report we're working on with input from a lot of people and a lot of companies, and we greatly appreciate all their time and your commitment in having them participate.
These are the charter items that we're covering in this report.
Basically generic architectures that 911 will need to advance going forward.
And what kinds of transition issues we foresee, what types of things might need to be done to help move that progression of the system in the right direction.
Results in brief here concerning the generic architectures, basically, we think that the 911 network has to be built on an open architecture because business is good.
People are going to invent new ways to use the system, new ways to improve the system.
They ought to be able to do that.
On the other hand, we ought to balance that with some reasonable standard suasion so the peace aps who are the end users of this process, don't have to keep updating their system to include the eight tracks or whatever the earlier --
earlier developments, various people might build on their own and implement on their own, but which don't have the long-term viability or broad acceptance to really justify every peace ap in the United States having to include that capability in their system.
And with an I.P. network, that scope that word, every peace ap, needing to react to change and improvement becomes more and more important, and becomes more and more apparent to everyone because of the breadth of communications we're looking at here.
The in the case -- the network should be able to -- should have to demonstrate the highest quality and data output for 911 calls Witt.
God solid access to the data.
So we have to make sure those issues are addressed carefully.
You have to have end-to-end support for I.P. text and voice.
It's an interesting term. And it basically addresses the concept that you can be typing in your data, and talking at the same time.
So that you can give the benefits -- the full benefits of the 911 system to the broadest possible range of users, including myself as my age catches up with me over time.
You need to facilitate end-to-end opera ability with this information critically with the issue that there will be a number of independent network providers and operators out there.
We need to make sure, again, there's that common standardized set of tools that the 911 system can be built to and be provided on a standard high-level -- high level of accessibility and usable.
The 911 -- usability.
911 calls need to be treated with priority and with call access completion and band Witt.
Need to support the enter mediate call centers.
Tough telematics, relay services, which currently are included in the system to some degree.
There's no reason at all as we design a new 911 system that's based on I.P. that, those capabilities can't be part of the basic requirements rather than in some cases, they've been added on as after thoughts when the need was identified or when a technology or service was identified.
Again, that goes back to the whole point of the open architecture, and you need to be able to transfer the I.P.
calls with data, not only to other I.P. 911 centers, but to all 911 centers to the degree that they can help that data.
So we're talking about backwards compatibility of not only the voice, but let's look at how we can maximize the backward compatibility of the data that will be available, sometimes for the first time in an I.P.-based 911 network back into the existing 911 system, so we can get best service to everyone that needs help.
Peace aps should be able to apply to emails S.N.S. forward-type calls.
The whole issue of do -- will they ever be able to receive the same level of emergency service?
And that is the store in forward type services is not what we're talking about right here.
We're saying that there is some information.
There is some information that can be delivered to the 911 center that can be incorporated into a 911 call, particularly support-type information, that might well be best transmitted in these modes and should be able to be included into the 911 response.
Certainly we need to look from a policy perspective as well as a technical perspective how these systems would eventually fit into the overall 911 service, but that's beyond the scope of what we're talking about today.
Then the peace aps should be able to connect to those servers that have available to them the new types of information like streaming video.
For instance, if you look at the 1-d report which addresses what the police, fire and ambulance folks responding to an incident hope to get over a 911 network, that includes things like still cameras, bank cameras, so when you're responding to a call you know whether it's an accident or someone making a threat.
So the peace aps have been to be able to get that, otherwise the responders are never going to be able to have access to those.
It's a critical issue when you look at keeping the progress being made on the police, fire and ambulance front, even with the progress that needs to be made in the peace aps so that you can connect the dots and provide that information and the better service that everyone hopes to get out of the next generation 911 network.
Some of the transition issues, obviously, I talked quite a bit about new types of data, and how the -- it needs to be handled.
Not only from the perspective of the new 911 networks going out, the new peace aps turning up to take advantage of I.P.
capabilities.
But how we can retro fit that in the best way possible to provide service for the legacy systems that are out there, so that they can maximize this information as best as examples of this data here, I touched on a little bit of this.
Telematics information from a car.
Hazmat on a fire structure, on fire involved in the real time in the initial response and follow on activities.
Some of the other issues in here -- we've obviously worked very closely with Nina, and we support their path plan and structure plan accomplishing levels of information, not just because we need some kind of hierarchy or bureaucracy on how we handle that, but so we can prioritize this information and use the band width backward compatible capability we might did vice to --
did advise to enable the most important information to get through and in some ordered fashion.
We believe that the following critical issues need to be addressed in order smooth -- address a smooth transition.
New types of data.
I've talked about that quite a bit.
We need to make sure we can work that through there in a standardized, yet flexible way.
New technologies will need to be reported.
There's no way we can flip a switch to I.P. at any particular point in time.
That needs to be delivered under the standards so that they are not always trying to chase new ideas and new software upgrades.
And the networks need to allow data updates as the incident to be able to reach out, essentially.
To databases or data sources that were identified, maybe identified at the initial initiation of the call, or that had been subsequently identified as being germane to the response so that data can be added into the response process.
Next steps for our final report will -- we'll look at these issues here that are up on the board.
I do want to comment, though, that throughout this process, we've moved along from obviously our initial issues, added some new issues and new players as we've gone along, and I've been extremely pleased with the way the people they've gotten engaged, committed.
I made some really good commitments and input to this process, so I'm very encouraged by that.
Be happy to answer any questions anyone might have.
>> Would you raise your hands so the audio folks can see you?
>> Just realizes this is focused on generic architecture, I can't help but think one of the transition issues is timing.
Is there any feeling from you personally or from the group --
how long does it take for something like this to happen someone for a transition like this to happen someone
>> Well, many of my friends in the audience know I can talk for a long, long time on this.
I'm not going to today.
But I think we need to focus in our report, the main goal was, what do we think the 911 network could look like by 2010?
So that's been our timing focus.
One of our early recommendations was that by 20 10, there should be an I.P.-based 911 network available for peace aps to connect to.
Now, whether that network volunteers or grows out of individual peace ap networks that are eventually connected.
A state or network -- we've had a lot of good conversations over, but we've not tried to nail down a best way to approach that or a timeline that's simply beyond our scope, and two hours is not enough time to talk about it.
Yes?
>> One other brief item.
I'm not sure if this would be 1-b or 1-c.
But when you look at a national, regional peace ap, one thing that does need to be addressed is what geographic diversity because as we saw in New Orleans, the backup center was also in trouble.
And much as the bits organization, I think found after 9/11, there was distance between primary and secondary, I think that settled into 200 miles, but the key point, I guess, is because we need to come up with a best practices for how that would work.
>> That's a fantastic lead-in for our next report.
We're looking at one of our next remaining items from the list here what kind of a role would it play?
We've had some very, very good discussions of those, as well as the scope of how you could cascade calls in a Katrina-type situation.
That discussion is not mature enough for me to speak for the rest of the group on that, although, I'm appearing in air ports everywhere if you want to give me a chance to talk about it.
>> Any other questions for Jim?
>> Thank you very much.
>> The last focus group report is 1-a from Mary Boyd.
>> Good afternoon Jim is going to help me get set up.
I'm going to report this afternoon on from 1-5, information that's really specific to the network, to the timers and quarries, and while I must remind the council, this work was done back in the spring to have been delivered to the council in June.
And our work is really related to day-to-day traffic, not disaster situations as we've seen recently?
Katrina.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, you will see in our final report coming to you in December, recommendations for the next initiative, and sort of tag teaming with some of Jim's efforts in looking at disaster situations for peace aps, and when networks get congested, how do we move them easily.
But for the purposes of this afternoon's council meeting, I'm going to try to get the power point go down.
Our charter was to look at consistent thresholds for completing database quarries within the 911 network, and also to look at metrics in thresholds for determining unacceptably high traffic concentration points.
Now, for a non-engineer, and I wasn't built to do engineering, this was a subject that was tough for me.
However, you know, we had tons of expertise and subject matter experts.
And I commend each and every one of them who came to the table and helped us.
As in the other focus groups, we broke up into two subgroups.
One looking at database timers, the other looking at the concentration points.
Susan Sherwood from Verizon wireless actually chaired our database timing initiative, and Phil Lindsay from quest took the network concentration.
However, in addition to these people, we had engineers from all the other major local exchange companies, wireless industries, third-party providers, looking and evaluating and participating in these initiatives.
As we got into the discussions of concentration points within the 911 network, we would always find ourself discussing congestion.
So for the purposes of our report, we thought that we'd draw out that our charter was on concentration, not on congestion.
It's very easy to go there, but we wanted to make sure we defined those for you.
You'll see in your power point that we actually for the record note that concentration is really when the E-911 network and infrastructure come together and converge, versus congestion is traffic exceeds its capacity.
But we were asked to look at major concentration points.
So you'll see in the third definition, that those -- we looked at major concentration points where you could basically have one event that affected the delivery of the 911 emergency call.
Those -- for the council and for the F.C.C. we agreed were as follows.
Naturally, the public safety answering point, we saw as with the hurricanes, if you lose them, they are down.
There's no other alternate in the area.
You've got a major network failure area.
The alleys.
You have alleys both within the wire line and wireless network that we identified could be a major concentration point for failure.
The selective routers, these routers serve not only for traffic routing, but they are also -- we have routers in the and you have government now owning routers.
So once again, it's important to note that those exist throughout the country.
We have in our report, and I apologize that y'all don't have that, but should you need reference to this network -- this is probably the best network Dram that I have had act -- diagram, that I have had access to.
And it's Kudos to one who actually started this.
We took from it and built to bring in the concentration points we were looking at.
So if you ever need a topology, I tell you to look to this report.
We also identified within the wireless networks you have, the M.P.C.'s, the G.M.L.C.'s.
Tough determining equipment that are major concentration points.
Mainly because on the P.D.E., if you lose it, you lose the ability to send the information on to the peace ap.
Then the M.S.L.C. is really what's -- what cal locates the S.Y.
Fairly comprehensive analysis, so as we look at all these concentration points, and what would cause it to be unacceptably high?
Well, if it exceeds its basic design capacity.
However, as we know, our networks are very stable on a day-to-day basis, however, if you have a system out there, a network that's not redundant, it sort of is at risk if it fails to achieve the five nine's.
-- per the engineer's advice and in our report, the way to mitigate this is to add redundancy to the network.
As you can see in the summary, we agree that the 911 network appropriately manages the traffic today.
In normal day-to-day situations, and we don't see unnecessary delays in the call delivery for 911 and to the peace aps.
So going on -- I'm going to switch gears.
I took a red eye, and so if I'm a little drifty, y'all just bear with me here.
\[laughter]
Frontier doesn't have those lounging seats.
Oh, great.
This is on record.
I bet I get an email.
\[laughter]
>> I can see it coming now!
\[laughter]
>> Sorry Mr. Chairman.
>> That's all right.
>> OK.
Let's switch gears.
Let's talk about database timers in the 911 network.
Our group looked at -- do you focus on throughout the network?
Was there reason for us to look on the wire line side?
Probably not.
That's engineered.
It's consistently flied.
Peace aps don't see inconsistency in how the wire line comes forward them.
Where they do see inconsistencies are in the wireless because of the various types of networks and P.D.E.
So for the purpose of our report we focus on the wireless for quarries from the network and to the database.
We identified there are really three components, the M.S.C., the mobile switching center, to the mobile positioning center, or to the gateway mobile location center.
There's another component which is the peace aps receipt of the alley, and the quarry to the alley data base to get the face one-phase two information.
Then the peace aps ability to re-bid.
So without, Mr. Chairman, going into the all the timers we concentrate on in those three, we just gave a couple of examples in the power point.
We actually recommend for phase one that there are recommendations on network timers, the reason being the quarry to the M.P.C. should be made in less than one second.
We, in our report we talk about peace aps ability to re-bid for phase two.
So we take phase one, timers, phase two, timers, then we go to the peace aps to talk about their ability to re-bid and get a location update, and a recommendation of how often that's done within a 30-second interval.
-- interval.
The reason we make these is critical.
It's all about consistency of information, and how it's presented to a peace ap.
If a call taker is seeing it coming in, as we reported it earlier, about data consistency, same thing for that.
If it's inconsistent for call takers, it makes their job a little bit more difficult.
We also encourage, we know there's call handling C.P.E. that can automatically re-bid into the phase two, alley.
We recommend that not be set to do it only because -- or if it does it quickly, it will cause congestion.
So we actually recommend within, I think what, 15 seconds or re-bid.
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, we are still working in 1-a.
I know you're glad to hear that.
We are engaged in best practices.
You will also see is, in addition to my reference of congestion and disaster situations, we're going to go out and take a stretch, Jeff, and make recommendations to the future initiatives related to E-911, and those are still being formulated.
But this concludes 1-A's report.
Can I answer any questions?
>> Mary, thank you very much.
>> Thank you, sir.
>> Quite a job, especially since you had very little sleep.
>> That concludes the presentations for today.
I want to thank everyone for the positive and productive meeting.
I especially want to thank the council members, the F.C.C., chairman and commissioner for coming in and saying a few words for us.
The steering committees the focus groups for today's session, your earths, as always, are greatly appreciated.
You know, I think the subject matter that's been discussed is of critical importance, obviously in the deliverance of emergency services and future architectures, especially given everything that's happened in the last six months in terms of disasters, and hopefully one more won't hit us.
But the best practices we're developing are going to make a difference in the services we provide.
And I think that was demonstrated by the way Katrina and Rita, both our businesses and the way public safety in the community.
I want to thank focus group chairs for presenting today.
Your hard work is evident and greatly appreciated.
I know there was a lot of time and effort that was put behind it.
I want to congratulate the focus groups 3-a, 3-4, and third base.
-- and 3-b.
You should be proud of your contributions to the council because we certainly are.
Thank you.
Our next and last enRick council meeting is scheduled for December 6.
Unless anyone has any comments, questions?
I will turn it back over to Jeff, who will adjourn the meeting.
Any questions or comments?
Council?
Thank you all very much.
Jeffrey?
>> Our next meeting is the 6th.
It's in the morning.
If I said good morning, it's because I'd never said good afternoon at an enRick meeting in my life.
Please have a safe and speedy journey home or extend afternoon here.
Last time I checked it was a nice day.
And again, carry our things back to all your folks back in your companies that are doing all this work.
We appreciate it.
And it chiefs results.
1r a good day.
-- have a good day.