Transcript FCC by liaoqinmei



 IN THE MATTER OF:                  )
 COMMITTEE MEETING                  )

 Pages:   1 through 175

 Place:   Washington, D.C.

 Date:    May 24, 2011

                                 Official Reporters
                           1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600
                           Washington, D.C. 20005-4018
                                   (202) 628-4888


IN THE MATTER OF:              )
COMMITTEE MEETING              )
                               445 12th Street SW
                               Washington, D.C.

                                May 24, 2011


                           Ajit Kahadune
                          Andrew Seybold
                           Arnold Hooper
                       Brian Fontes, Ph.D.
                             Byron Neal
                      Chief Charles Warner
                     Chief Douglas M. Aiken
                    Colonel Steven Cumoletti
                          Dominic DeMark
                     Dorothy A. Spears-Dean
                       Dr. Dennis Martinez
                      Dr. Kenneth C. Budka
                            Eddie Reyes
                       Chief Harlin McEwen
                         Jeffrey Johnson
                             Joe Peters
                         John T. Collins
                              Joe Olson
                        Jonathan W. Moore
                              Ken Boley
                    Kenneth J. Zdunek, Ph.D.
                          Leonard Edling
                           Mehran Nazari
                           Michael Cline
                           Michael Coyne
                          Paul Steinberg
                               Ray Lehr
                            Rich Mosley
                           Richard Tigon
                           Robert Turner
                           Roger Quayle
                           Steve Sharkey
                        Thomas Bretthauer

               Heritage Reporting Corporation
                       (202) 628-4888


                 Tom Goode
     Sonya B. McCann/Rick Engelman
          William (Bill) Schrier
  Bradley A. Stoddard (via telephone)
        David Fein (via telephone)
       John Brophy (via telephone)
      John Lenihan (via telephone)


             May 24, 2011

     Kevin McGinnis (via telephone)
       Jackie Mines (via telephone)
   Mark J. Hill, Sr. (via telephone)
     Mike Beckstrand (via telephone)
      Robert Nelson (via telephone)
       Stephen Meer (via telephone)
         Tom Sorley (via telephone)
 Jacqueline J. Miller (via telephone)
        Major Hugh T. Clements, Jr.
                Charles Dowd
             Christopher B. Epps
                Raymond Flynn
                   Doug Mah

    Heritage Reporting Corporation
            (202) 628-4888

 1                   P R O C E E D I N G S

 2                                                  (10:02 a.m.)

 3             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Let me get started with

 4   making sure I know who we have on the phone bridge.

 5   So I'm going to do a quick roll call of that and then

 6   we'll convene the meeting.

 7             Bradley Stoddard, are you on the phone

 8   bridge?

 9             MR. STODDARD:    I am.

10             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    David Fine?

11             MR. FINE:    Yes, sir.

12             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    John Brophy?

13             (No response.)

14             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    John Lenihan?

15             MR. LENIHAN:    I'm on here.

16             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Kevin McGinnis?

17             (No response.)

18             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Jackie Mines?

19             MS. MINES:    I'm here.

20             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Mark Hill?

21             (No response.)

22             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Mike Beckstrand?

23             (No response.)

24             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Robert Nelson?

25             (No response.)

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Stephen Meer?

 2             MR. MEER:    I'm here.

 3             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Tom Sorley?

 4             (No response.)

 5             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     And Jackie Miller?

 6             (No response.)

 7             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Is there anyone on the

 8   phone bridge whose name I did not call?

 9             MR. WARNER:    Charles Warner.

10             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Hi, Charles.    How are you

11   doing?

12             MR. WARNER:    Much better.

13             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     And who else?

14             MR. HUGHES:    Ken Hughes.

15             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Ken Hughes?

16             MR. HUGHES:    Yes.

17             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Anybody else on the phone

18   bridge?

19             MR. MITCHELL:    Frank Mitchell.

20             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     I heard Mitchell.

21             MR. MITCHELL:    Frank Mitchell.

22             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Okay.

23             MR. DUNBAR:    Thomas Dunbar.

24             MR. BOLEY:    Ken Boley.

25             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Hi, Ken.

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1              MR. BECKSTRAND:     Good morning.   This is Mike

 2   Beckstrand, Cal EMA.

 3              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Thank you, Mike.

 4              Anybody else we haven't heard from on the

 5   phone bridge?

 6              (No response.)

 7              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Charles, thank you for

 8   not coming.   Charles is having kidney stones.      And I

 9   told him take some morphine and get up here you big

10   weeny.

11              (Laughter.)

12              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     We appreciate you not

13   creating a distraction, Charles.

14              MR. WERNER:   It would have been interesting,

15   to say the least.   I may have said a few things that

16   you wouldn't have wanted to hear.

17              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Understood.

18              So at this time I'd like to convene the May

19   20 meeting of the ERIC PSAC.     We call this meeting to

20   order.   And it's my pleasure to introduce

21   Admiral Barnett.    Admiral?

22              ADMIRAL BARNETT:     Chief, thank you so for

23   much for the opportunity to address this second

24   meeting of the ERIC Public Safety Advisory Committee.

25    So whether you're participating in the room here or

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   on the phone bridge, I really want to thank you for

 2   being here, being on the line and for the work that

 3   you've done.

 4             I'm sorry that I wasn't able to make it to

 5   the first meeting.    I didn't have a kidney stone and

 6   was not taking morphine at the time, but I may have

 7   been being a weeny.    I don't know.

 8             But at any rate, when you look around the

 9   room and when you look at the resumes of the folks we

10   have on the phone, you think of the literally -- and

11   I'm not saying you guys are old, but the hundred of

12   years of experience and all of the expertise that you

13   are bring to bear on some, to me, of the most

14   important questions that the Federal Communications

15   Commission and really the country are facing right

16   now.

17             We rely on this.    And here's the thing.

18   It's certainly is what we wanted when ERIC was set up

19   and we said we have to have a public safety advisory

20   committee, that kind of direct input, the ability to

21   have conversations and to have powerful conversations

22   among you to inform us.     It may be things that are

23   absolutely crucial to us.    It may be things I don't

24   want to hear, but I do want to hear all of it and it's

25   exactly what we look forward to.    So thank you for

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   this.

 2                I know that we have four very important

 3   reports today coming from the tasking you received.

 4   The topics of inoperability, applications and user

 5   requirements, security and authentication, and network

 6   evolution.    So over the past few months I know that

 7   you have worked very hard on these things and strived

 8   diligently to get these documents ready.     I look

 9   forward to hearing them.

10                I'm not going to be with you all today, but

11   I'm going to be listening in and participating, at

12   least my ears participating wherever I can as the

13   committee prepares to discuss and deliberate these

14   recommendations.    I want to thank you once again.    And

15   particularly thank some of the leadership -- Bill

16   Scarier, Jackie Miller, Dennis Martinez, and Ken Budka

17   for your leadership.

18                I know that task was daunting and Ken has

19   already told me that there was a little bit of time at

20   night, a little time on the weekend.    The FCC does not

21   pay overtime.    We apologize for that, but we do

22   appreciate that expertise.

23                And before concluding, I certainly want to

24   thank your leaders, Chief Jeff Johnson, Chief Eddie

25   Reyes, the chair and vice chair.    Certainly, their

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   time and service to the PSAC already has been

 2   remarkable and I think it adds directly to the benefit

 3   that the FCC and the nation gets out of that.      And I

 4   look forward to their continued leadership because

 5   it's certainly not over.    There's more to be done as

 6   we work to ensure a nationwide inoperable public

 7   safety broadband network for our first responders and

 8   emergency workers.

 9               So once again, thank you so much for the

10   work and I look forward to the results today.      Thank

11   you, sir.

12               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Thank you, Admiral.

13               And for the record, when the Admiral was

14   talking about the hundreds of years of experience, he

15   wasn't talking about you Harlin.

16               (Laughter.)

17               MR. MCEWEN:   That's your first hit.

18               (Laughter.)

19               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   I'm only taking one.

20               So Admiral, thank you.    And thank you to

21   the staff for all the support you've given us.     There

22   are a lot of folks on the phone bridge and sitting

23   around this table that cared a lot about this topic

24   and we appreciate the opportunity to have a voice.         So

25   thank you Admiral.   We know you have things that are

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   demanding your attention so we understand when you

 2   need to go, but thank you very much.

 3             ADMIRAL BARNETT:     Not as interesting as

 4   this.

 5             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Thanks Admiral.

 6   Chief Reyes?

 7             MR. REYES:     Chief, thank you very much.

 8             Again, I just want to compliment the

 9   chairman, Chairman Genachowski for hosting this most

10   important meeting.    Obviously, Admiral Barnett for

11   hosting us here today.    But I especially want to put

12   in two plugs.    First of all, for the Commission staff

13   that has supported us tremendously during this effort.

14   Jennifer Manner, Gene Fullano, and Brian Harley have

15   just been -- it's been invaluable the support that

16   they've given us.

17             This is a lot of work that I think is going

18   to be demonstrated here when the committee and the

19   working chairs give their report and it certainly

20   could not have been done without their effort, but it

21   could not have been done without the support that we

22   got from the Commission.     And from the highest level,

23   from the chairman all the way down to the three

24   attorneys that were dedicated to this project and this

25   committee, heartfelt appreciation has to be clearly

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   expressed to the Admiral and also to the chairman.     So

 2   thank you, Admiral Barnett.

 3              I think a lot of the things that I wanted to

 4   say have been said.   I'm going to keep this short

 5   because I'm very much interested in allowing all of

 6   yo, especially you sitting out in the audience to hear

 7   and see and witness first-hand the outstanding work

 8   and contribution that has been made by the four

 9   working groups in a very collaborative manner, in a

10   very effective manner, and most importantly, in a very

11   efficient manner.

12              These four working groups were given a very

13   quick turn around, very short time line to turn around

14   what you're going to see a tremendous amount of work.

15    And I told Chief Johnson on the way here this morning

16   that I think certainly at the local government sector

17   had we put a full-time staff to put this thing

18   together we couldn't have gotten it done in as quick

19   of a time as these four working groups did.

20              So without further ado, Chief, I think what

21   I'd like to do is just go around the table,

22   acknowledge the persons that are present here so that

23   the person on the phone bridge can be aware of who's

24   present.

25              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Certainly.   Good.   Let's

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   start with Chief Aiken.      Let's do self-introductions,

 2   your name and who you're representing.      Thank you.

 3               MR. AIKEN:    My name is Doug Aiken.     I

 4   represent the International Municipal Signal

 5   Association.

 6               MR. BRETTHAUER:    Tom Bretthauer.   I

 7   represent the State of Ohio.

 8               MR. BUDKA:    Ken Budka.   I represent

 9   Alcartel-Lucent.

10               MR. COLLINS:    John Collins for the American

11   Hospital Association.

12               MR. CUMOLETTI:    Steve Cumoletti, New York

13   State Police representing New York State.

14               MR. EDLING:    Len Edling, Chicago Fire

15   Department, representing the Interagency Board.

16               MR. OLSEN:    Jonathan Olsen representing the

17   National EMS Management Association.

18               MR. DEMARK:    Good morning.   Dominic DeMark,

19   representing Verizon Wireless.

20               MR. SHARKEY:    Steven Sharkey, representing

21   T-Mobile.

22               MS. SPEARS-DEAN:    Good morning.    Dorothy A.

23   Spears-Dean, representing the Commonwealth of

24   Virginia.

25               MS. TURNER:    Robert Turner, representing

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   Satellite Industry Association.

 2              MR. PETERS:    Joe Peters, representing the

 3   State of Texas.

 4              MR. SEYBOLD:    Andy Seybold, representing the

 5   National Sheriffs Association.

 6              MR. SCHRIER:    Bill Schrier, representing the

 7   mayor and the people of the city of Seattle.

 8              MR. ZDUNEK:    Ken Zdunek representing the

 9   Illinois Institute of Technology.

10              MR. NAZARI:    Good morning.   This is Mehran

11   Nazari.   I represent Rural Telecommunications Group.

12              MR. GOODE:    Tom good, representing the

13   Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions.

14              MR. QUAYLE:    Roger Quayle, IP Wireless.

15              MR. MOSLEY:    Rich Mosley, representing AT&T.

16              MR. CLINE:    Michael Cline, State Coordinator

17   of Virginia, representing NEMA.

18              MR. STEINBERG:    Good morning.    Paul

19   Steinberg, representing Motorola Solutions.

20              MR. MCEWEN:    Harlin McEwen, representing the

21   International Association of Chiefs of Police.

22              MR. LEHR:    And I'm Ray Lehr, representing

23   the National Governors Association.

24              MR. NEAL:    BJ Neal, Syniverse Technologies.

25              MR. MIRGON:    Dick Mirgon, APCO

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   International.

 2             MR. MCCANN:     Sonya McCann, representing

 3   Sprint.

 4             MR. MOORE:    I'm Jonathan Moore of the

 5   International Association of Firefighters.

 6             MR. MARTINEZ:     Dennis Martinez, representing

 7   the Harris Corporation.

 8             MR. KAHADUNE:     Ajit Kahadune, representing

 9   Nokia Siemens Networks.

10             MR. HOOPER:     I'm Arnold Hooper.   I represent

11   Tennessee Valley Regional Communications System.

12             MR. JOHNSON:     And I'm Jeff Johnson.   I'm the

13   chair of this esteemed group and it's a pleasure to

14   have you here today.

15             I will be brief.     For the people that have

16   achieved a point in their career where you're selected

17   to be on a committee like this it says a lot about how

18   you've invested your time, professionally and

19   personally, and it says a lot about how you're

20   regarded and respected in your community.

21             It seems like the last 15 years of my

22   33-year career in public safety it seems like I'm only

23   dealing with the best of the best.    And it ends up

24   skewing kind of your expectations.

25             I look around this room and some of you I

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   didn't know three or four months ago and I knew

 2   nothing of your productivity.     I saw your resumes.

 3   But I have to say I had very high expectations and had

 4   them completely exceeded.

 5                The leadership shown by the committee

 6   chairs, the leadership shown by that handful of people

 7   on any committee that steps up and cranks out the

 8   work, the leadership shown by those people that were

 9   traveling internationally, working more than two full-

10   time jobs and very demanding, stressful jobs, the

11   leadership shown by you to invest your time and

12   expertise to review this was not for the money and it

13   was not for the glory.

14                It was because you care that this is done

15   right, and I just want to acknowledge that we get that

16   about you.    And I want to offer a personal thank you

17   on behalf of the chairman, on behalf of Eddie and

18   myself, the Admiral, the staff, and more importantly,

19   on behalf of public safety and those people who we're

20   sworn to protect.

21                You folks made a difference.   And you don't

22   often get a thank you.     I know sometimes as a

23   firefighter -- I know the cops don't get this, but as

24   a firefighter people say thank you to us all the time.

25                (Laughter.)

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    People say thank you to

 2   us all the time.     And for those of you that don't ever

 3   get a chance to hear that thank you.

 4              MR. MCEWEN:    The difference, Jeff, if they

 5   wave with all five fingers when they tell you thank

 6   you.   They only use one for us.

 7              (Laughter.)

 8              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    I appreciate that.   I've

 9   gotten a lot of this.     And one of the things I got out

10   of this is the best name tag I've ever had in my

11   entire career.     You can't tell me Sigmund Freud

12   doesn't live.    It says Chief Execution Officer.    This

13   is when spell check works against you.

14              (Laughter.)

15              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Anyway, thank you all.

16   It has truly been a pleasure and an honor to make your

17   acquaintance and I look forward to the next year and a

18   half of continuing to develop work product.

19              So with that, at this time I'd like to turn

20   it over to Gene Fullano, the designated federal

21   officer.   Gene?

22              MR. FULLANO:    Thank you, Chief Johnson.     I

23   just wanted to run through a couple of housekeeping

24   matters quickly.

25              For those who are on the bridge, you either

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   have or will shortly be receiving the handouts that

 2   were presented to the membership.   Those handouts this

 3   morning consist of the first draft of the

 4   inoperability working paper as well as the first draft

 5   of the application and user group working paper and

 6   copies of the most recent drafts.

 7             In addition, there has been handed out a

 8   one-pager summarizing the changes that were proposed

 9   and received from the membership at this point in the

10   deliberations as well as the recommendation treatments

11   by the working groups.   There will also be a

12   PowerPoint presentation.

13             With that said, let me thank everyone.     And

14   there won't be enough thanks going around today

15   because it's been a tremendous effort.   I've had the

16   pleasure of working closely with the working group

17   chairs as well a sitting in on the working group

18   meetings and I know there's a lot of sweat put into

19   these reports.

20             We'll break for lunch.    We'll come back.

21   We'll distribute copies of the network evolution piece

22   as well as the security and encryption piece and

23   proceed with presentations there.

24             Jeff, would you like to comment on how you

25   would like to take a poll of membership support for

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   the recommendations?

 2             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Thank you.

 3             I think what we're going to try -- there's

 4   really two ways we can do this.    One way is the

 5   committees can make their reports and we can wait to

 6   the end and then circle back.     And the advantage of

 7   that approach is we've heard all four reports and

 8   there may be issues that are going to be dealt with

 9   later and we have an opportunity then to hear that.

10             However, what we may do is we may take a run

11   at doing it by committee.    And the reason I say we may

12   pull that off is we've all seen each other's work.

13   We've already circulated, cross-circulated,

14   cross-reviewed, and we've actually seen whether that

15   was inchoated in the report or not.

16             So I think I'm going to try to do it by

17   working group right up front.     But if we bog down, I'm

18   going to hit the brakes and then we're going to push

19   it to the end and do all four at the end of the day.

20   So that'll be our goal.    I'd like to work through it

21   committee-by-committee.     But if we bog down and there

22   seems to be an abundance of "well, that's coming in

23   the next report," then we're going to hit the brakes

24   and we're going to hear all four reports and then

25   circle back.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1              MR. FULLANO:    I have one more comment to

 2   add, and I apologize.     Please keep in mind that you

 3   represent the organization that nominated you.      So as

 4   Chief Johnson proceeds with taking his poll, if you

 5   speak up, please note the organization that you

 6   represent in doing so.    Thank you.

 7              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Thank you, Gene.

 8              Also, for those folks on the phone bridge,

 9   here's how we're going to handle the phone bridge.       We

10   need to have about 30 votes to pass a subcommittee

11   recommendation.   So we will not forget the phone

12   bridge.   We will do the phone bridge a little

13   different however.   We will assume your vote is

14   positive unless you vote no.    So I'll go to the phone

15   bridge and I will ask you if there are any negative

16   votes against it and that just saves trying to manage

17   15 people saying yes and us trying to decide who said

18   yes and who said nothing.

19              So I'm going to go to the phone bridge and

20   say is there any negative votes against the proposal.

21    Please weigh in if you do.    Also, it is awfully

22   difficult on a phone bridge to break into a bunch of

23   hands in the room.   So if you would like to speak and

24   you're on the phone bridge, state your name.       I will

25   repeat your name and we have someone in the room

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   helping us monitor.    We'll record that and you'll know

 2   you're in the queue.

 3             Okay, Brian Hurley.    Any comments from

 4   Brian?

 5             MR. HURLEY:    (Off mike.)

 6             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Okay.   Very good.

 7             Anything else that I have missed in

 8   introductory remarks before we turn to the esteemed

 9   Bill Schrier from the City of Seattle for our first

10   working group report?

11             MR. PONTS:    This is Brian Ponts on the

12   phone.

13             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Hi Brian.   Welcome.

14             MR. PONTS:    For those who are trying to get

15   to the Commission, Independence Avenue, 14th Street,

16   and all of the other streets are shut off.    So I don't

17   know if I'm the only one in this mess, but there may

18   be a few other people tied up in this traffic.

19             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Thank you Brian.     That's

20   probably my security detail.

21             (Laughter.)

22             MR. PONTS:    It's an impressive one.     It's

23   been going on for about a half an hour.

24             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Thank you for calling in.

25    For those that are on the call that in the same spot,

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   we'll catch you when you walk in, but thank you for

 2   bearing with us, Brian.

 3             MR. PONTS:   Thank you.

 4             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Anything else?

 5             (No response.)

 6             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Absent that, Bill Schrier

 7   with the Applications and User Requirements working

 8   group presentation and recommendations.   Bill?

 9             MR. SCHRIER:    So again, this is the report

10   of the Application and User Requirements workgroup of

11   the Public Safety Advisory Committee.

12             And I want to start out by thanking the

13   members of the committee, Mark Hill, the vice-chair of

14   the committee.   I think the work of this committee

15   actually underscores the wisdom of the FCC, and that's

16   kind of an interesting phrase, "wisdom of the FCC,"

17   you don't hear all the time, of course.

18             The wisdom of the FCC in intermingling both

19   commercial and public safety members on committees and

20   on the PSAC because in the case of the Applications

21   and User Requirements group that commingling brought a

22   variety of viewpoints from both industry and public

23   safety, which I think really helped move this forward.

24             Here are the things we're going to go

25   through today.   The first is an applications list, a

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   list of applications which will be familiar to our

 2   public safety members, of course, as well as our

 3   industry members, guidelines for well-behaved

 4   applications.    And I'll start by going through some

 5   assumptions.    There are actually a number of

 6   assumptions in the report, but these are the ones I

 7   wanted to call out.

 8              The first one local hosting and national

 9   hosting and applications stores, we need to realize

10   that when we do applications that there will be some

11   that will be nationwide applications.    There will be

12   like angry birds.    You'll have it once someplace

13   nationwide and everybody downloads it and uses it from

14   there.

15              But many of the applications, in fact most

16   of them will be locally hosted.    There will be a

17   computerized dispatched system for a police department

18   or a fire department that will connect to a tablet,

19   for example.    So a lot of them would be locally hosted

20   and locally developed.

21              We assumed that there would be a ubiquitous

22   network.   And by ubiquitous we mean that there would

23   be no roaming in between public safety networks.     So

24   if there's a public safety network in New York City

25   and one in Washington, D.C., a New York City police

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   officer here in Washington, D.C. wouldn't know that

 2   they're roaming.   In other words, there would be no

 3   roaming indicated on their device.   That it's

 4   ubiquitous public safety network.

 5             On the other hand, if there's a roaming

 6   indicator on the device, that indicates to the public

 7    safety officer that they're on a commercial network.

 8    That they're probably paying for time.   So in the

 9   context of this report, roaming means you're on a

10   commercial network or otherwise you're on the public

11   safety network.

12             Certification and testing, the one thing

13   that came out in our discussion was that applications

14   need to be certified.   That poorly designed

15   applications consume network bandwidth and actually

16   could damage the network or obviously damage the

17   ability of first responders to respond.   So there

18   needs to be certification and testing of applications

19   just like is done in the commercial world.

20             The network evolution and road map we

21   assumed, and the Network Evolution workgroup will talk

22   about this more, that there's going to be continually

23   evolving environment here.   LTE is not static.

24   Applications won't be static.   And these will

25   continually evolve over time.   So that just

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   underscores again the certification and testing

 2   process because there will be new versions and

 3   releases.

 4                And lastly, there's a requirement coming out

 5   in this workgroup for nationwide governance.    When you

 6   build these networks and you start certifying

 7   applications, there has to be somebody who sets

 8   standards.    Somebody who sets guidelines for things

 9   like application.    Someone who determines what is a

10   well behaved application and isn't runs the testing

11   lab, for example.    So that someone has to be some sort

12   of a nationwide governance entity.

13                So the next thing we've got here is a list

14   of applications.    And the group put these in roughly

15   priority order.    And I say roughly priority order

16   because I wouldn't worry too much about the priority,

17   but that's what the order of this list is.

18                So the first thing that we felt was the most

19   important was some sort of an emergency function.

20   Some sort of a thing where public safety officer is on

21   a device and can push a button on that device or

22   launch an application that indicates the officer is

23   having difficulty or the public safety professional is

24   having difficulty.

25                And I won't go through the rest of these

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   because they're described in the report and they're

 2   probably familiar to most of you.    I will highlight

 3   one thing, No. 4, Incident Management Tools, Including

 4   Data Access.    This is something that many public

 5   departments have today and so this covers a wide

 6   variety of applications.

 7              This is things like getting to NCIC, keying

 8   a license plate number, a name, a date of birth and

 9   getting back whether there are wants and warrants on a

10   particular individual.    But incident management tools

11   also could include NIMS, the National Incident

12   Management System, for example.    So that covers a wide

13   variety of different applications that are in use

14   today or might be used.

15              Item No. 5 was referred to, the Welcome and

16   Splash page was referred to in the FCC's original

17   waiver order in may of last year and are talked about.

18    You don't roam from one public safety jurisdiction to

19   another.   The network at least appears at this time

20   will be at this time will be built up by local cities,

21   counties, and regions.    We certainly have seven who

22   have waivers right now, or eight, pardon me, that have

23   waivers right now in their building.

24              And when you go to a new jurisdiction, you

25   might also transfer to a new network operating center.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1    You might also have a new point of support when you

 2   go from New York City to Washington, D.C. if you're

 3   having trouble.   The Welcome or Splash page could be

 4   as simple as a text message.     You're in the

 5   Washington, D.C. area now.     Here's who you call for

 6   support.   So those are the first seven.

 7              And I'll go onto the next slide, which is

 8   the remainder of the applications we've listed.

 9   Video, obviously, No. 9, is a high priority for this

10   network and the reason we're doing this network.

11   However, it's also not very near term in terms of the

12   way that it can be put on the network because of

13   things like quality of service.    And item No. 12,

14   voice, we had a debate as to whether ought to be No. 1

15   or it ought to be No. 12.    And in the end, we

16   determined that the main reason we're building these

17   LTE networks is for data communications at this time.

18              Public safety departments have voice

19   networks, have LMR networks presently that work and we

20   know that mission critical voice for public safety is

21   going to be the challenge for LTE, a technological

22   challenge, so that's why it's at the bottom of the

23   list.   And that's because 20 years from now or 10

24   years from now the list may be in reverse order with

25   voice the most important.    But today we felt that

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   voice was at the bottom of applications.

 2                The second part of the report is well

 3   behaved applications.    So what do I mean by well

 4   behaved?    I've got a couple of granddaughters at home

 5   who are two-years old and six-years old.     Certainly, I

 6   wish they were well behaved.    And as a grandparent

 7   helping to raise the grandkids, my wife and I have

 8   guidelines for how the kids ought to operate.

 9   Similarly, when you put in an application -- and they

10   don't necessarily follow them, but that's a different

11   story.     When you put an application on this network,

12   you've got to have both guidelines and standards for

13   how those are developed.

14                There could be high numbers of users.   In

15   fact, there probably will be high numbers of users.

16   We know that public safety incidents may occur within

17   the footprint of a single cell site or two cell sites.

18    Lots of users on a single cell site, using the same

19   application or multiple applications.    Unless those

20   applications are conservative with bandwidth and

21   network resources, there could be difficulties with

22   the network, especially in the context of a single

23   site.

24                We know bandwidth is constrained and we know

25   that there are going to be new apps and devices.     I

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   look around the room here and I see all sorts of

 2   different devices -- smart phones and tablets.     I wish

 3   you guys would use more Microsoft products.   Forty

 4   thousand people in the Seattle region make their

 5   living that way, but let the odd pads work too.

 6              (Laughter)

 7              MR. SCHRIER:   But these devices, and

 8   especially little devices like smart phones that set

 9   up a wi-fi hotspot or a police vehicles or fire

10   vehicles that set up wi-fi hotspots around an incident

11   it might appear as a single device to the network, but

12   it might have 10 or 15 different devices attached to

13   it.   And we know that the technology will march on and

14   those devices will become more ubiquitous.

15              This next bullet, Control Plane and Traffic

16   Plane.   Just like LMR networks, at least trunk

17   networks or LTE networks have a control plane where

18   the control signaling occurs and a traffic plane where

19   the traffic is carried and each one of those could be

20   points of contention, again if the application isn't

21   well designed.

22              I've already talked about testing and

23   certification of applications.   And this is going to

24   get hard -- testing and certification -- so in many

25   cases a local jurisdiction might buy a computerated

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   dispatch system from a vendor that includes a mobile

 2   component to it.   And that vendor could be a vendor

 3   that's commonly used across the United States or it

 4   could be somewhat of a niche vendor that actually

 5   develops that mobile application.

 6              Who is going to say that mobile application

 7   niche vendor is well behaved?    That it is conservative

 8   in network bandwidth?    That when it goes onto the

 9   network it won't bring the device and the network

10   down?   Somebody has got to do that.   Somebody has got

11   to do testing.   It could be local testing.   It could

12   be national testing.    But somebody has to set the

13   guidelines and certify.

14              Our next item, Standard for Operating

15   Systems.   Again, you look at the devices around the

16   room you find a whole bunch of different operating

17   systems.   Apple's IOS, Windows Phone 7, Blackberry,

18   Blackberry Q&X, Android, the major operating system.

19   And there are 30 or 32 different flavors of Android.

20   Are we going to have standards for these devices that

21   we deploy for public safety or are we going to expect

22   all applications to run all devices, especially for

23   national applications, the ones that come from a

24   national apps store?

25              Who sets the standards for those operating

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   systems or do we even need standards?    It runs on

 2   everything.    And certainly individual departments in

 3   individual cities who have standards and what they

 4   buy, although the larger departments will probably buy

 5   a variety of devices.

 6                Codecs and protocols the best example I've

 7   got here is video codec.    Video will be bandwidth

 8   intensive.    You can put video codec in the hardware in

 9   chips on the device or it can be in the software.      The

10   software will require a lot more computing power on

11   the device and there will be a question -- those two

12   codecs will have differences in how they use network

13   bandwidth and resources.    That's one example of

14   codecs, but there are others of protocol as well.      So

15   all these things talk to well-behaved applications.

16                So I talked about the applications lists,

17   the guidelines.    I'm going to briefly talk about

18   comments from other workgroups.    And you've got in

19   front of you a piece of paper, The Comments Received

20   and Actions Taken on the Applications and User

21   Requirements Draft Report.     I won't go through these

22   all, but I do want to highlight a couple.

23                From the Evolution workgroup on page 5, the

24   statement was "It doesn't look like the assumption,

25   the new queued nationwide cores is needed for any of

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   the topics discussed in this report."     Our workgroup

 2   discussed this when we last met.    We still felt the

 3   assumption that we need just a few nationwide cores is

 4   important because of the ability to manage the

 5   network.   So we did not change the report, despite

 6   that comment.

 7              The next one on page 8, "The network must

 8   support non-real time video, video taken by a

 9   citizen's smart phone and then sent via next

10   generation 911 services to 911 centers."    The comment

11   was that present commercial networks don't support

12   these sorts of things.   For example, SMS is not

13   apparently presently supported in LTE network.     So we

14   agreed that the network would evolve over time and so

15   we made revisions in several places to refer back to

16   the Network Evolution workgroup report.    I think that

17   those two things go hand in hand.

18              On the second page of the document you have

19   in front of you, the second paragraph there's a

20   general comment, "Are there any management functions

21   that need to be supported in the context of

22   applications -- software download and update or

23   distribution of patches?"   We agreed with that and

24   made revisions and functions were added to the report.

25              This again underscores the need for

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   well-behaved applications.     It underscores the need

 2   for having some sort of mechanism whereby an

 3   application can be updated in real time for security

 4   or other reasons or in the field for security or other

 5    reasons.    There is a whole ecosystem of how we're

 6   going to manage applications on devices.

 7                Then about two-thirds of the way down the

 8   second page, Section 5, Guidelines to Well-Behaved

 9   Application.    The comment is "The attributes of a

10   well-behaved application are not clear."     We agree

11   with that.    They're not.   And again, this is where we

12   can learn, obviously, from our commercial partners

13   because if you go on any telecommunications carriers'

14   network they have these guidelines.    They have

15   certifications.    They've already broken the ground and

16   it's probably beyond the scope of this workgroup to

17   replow that particular ground.

18                And then the very last comment impacts on

19   the traffic plane recommend a section on cyber

20   security.    We didn't actually put in a recommendation

21   or a section on cyber security because we have a

22   separate workgroup report on that.    But again, this is

23   a public safety network, so it underscores the fact

24   that it's got to be secure and it's got to be secure

25   from threats like domestic hackers or terrorist

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   hackers as well.    So cyber security is important

 2   throughout all the work that we do.

 3                And that's this workgroups report.     I

 4   welcome your questions and comments.

 5                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Thank you, Bill.

 6   Excellent report.    Comments from the floor.

 7   Mr. Seybold?

 8                MR. SEYBOLD:   Yes, I was looking and I

 9   didn't see a discussion of whether SIP and non-SIP

10   applications can coexist.     SIP applications require an

11   IMS core or an IMS partial core.      It's not clear to me

12   because we don't have an architecture yet defined

13   whether we're going to have IMS in the back end or

14   not, but if we do then non-SIP applications won't run.

15    And so we need to be very aware of all that.

16                MR. SCHRIER:   Thank you, Andy.   SIP is

17   Service Initiation Protocol -- Session Initiation

18   Protocol, which has to do with voice and video

19   applications, correct?

20                MR. SEYBOLD:   Where there are a lot of

21   applications that are written in SIP, not just video

22   and voice.

23                MR. SCHRIER:   And SIP requires IMS to be

24   implemented?

25                MR. SEYBOLD:   Yes, it requires some port,

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   not the full IMS back end, but some portions of the

 2   IMS system must be in place.

 3               UNIDENTIFIED MALE:    (Off mike).   So it's not

 4   required.

 5               MR. SEYBOLD:    Okay, then my information on

 6   that was wrong.    Thank you.

 7               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    So we have someone on the

 8   bridge?

 9               MR. ROKE:   Yes, John Roke has just joined.

10   I apologize for being late.      I had an earlier meeting

11   that ran over a few minutes.

12               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Go ahead.   Are you just

13   weighing in or do you have something to say on the

14   topic?

15               MR. ROKE:   No, no, no.   I just joined the

16   call.    That's all.

17               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Okay.   Thank you for

18   letting us know.

19               MR. ROKE:   Okay.

20               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Dennis?

21               MR. MARTINEZ:    I think it's important to

22   recognize that because it's an IP network many

23   different IPE-based protocols can run on top of it,

24   SIP being one of them.      And on top of that, may

25   different application paradigms can be implemented and

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   IMS is one of those.       So it's really a whole rich

 2   variety of protocols we can layer on top of the core

 3   transport network and many different application

 4   paradigms.

 5                MR. MIRGON:   The question I've got is does

 6   that create a problem with the security layer?      If

 7   it's riding on top, then is that outside the security

 8   layer or is that within the security layer?

 9                MR. MARTINEZ:   That's a great question.    We

10   that security can be implemented multiple layers.        So

11   if you're running applications, for example, on top of

12   a VPN, that's a very common, very effective paradigm.

13    You can also embed security within the applications.

14    So for example, in some federal applications there

15   may be a need to implement a federally-certified

16   encryption technology that might not be implemented in

17   the VPM, might be implemented in the application.

18   Both of those are effective technologies.

19                MR. MIRGON:   Okay.   So then what's the risk

20   of having an application developed that become

21   proprietary, vendor-specific, and impacting the

22   interoperability of the network?

23                MR. MARTINEZ:   In the context of security or

24   just in general?

25                MR. MIRGON:   Probably in both.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1              MR. MARTINEZ:   We're going to talk about the

 2   security aspect of priority in our session later.

 3   Perhaps we can defer the question until the

 4   Applications group relative to the other side.         So

 5   great question.   We will discuss it.

 6              MR. MIRGON:   Okay.

 7              MR. NAZARI:   One basic question.     Other than

 8   the cost, what is the real reason for not deploying

 9   IMS?   I mean it seems that on the commercial side IMS

10   is becoming more and more in integral part of the

11   network.

12              MR. MARTINEZ:   I think the application list

13   that was just shown is a wonderful example.      The

14   question would be how many of those applications are

15   supported in IMS today and the answer is almost none

16   of them or very few of them.     So I would say that

17   those applications that are on that list or perhaps

18   others to be added that can be implemented at IMS

19   that's a great approach, but certainly IMS today

20   doesn't support that whole complement of applications.

21              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Yes, sir.   Roger?

22              MR. QUAYLE:   If I can just add, a lot of SIP

23   applications that would be supported by very simple

24   (Electronic interference).     An example, is instant

25   message like the -- garbled -- That's all setbacks.

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Harlin?    Was there a

 2   question from the phone bridge?

 3               MR. FINE:   David Fine here.     I'm having

 4   trouble hearing some of the speakers.

 5               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    So Roger, could you

 6   restate.

 7               MR. QUAYLE:    What I was saying is that --

 8               MR. FULLANO:    Excuse me.     When you speak,

 9   please raise your hand so they can see you in the

10   back.    They're having a hard time because it's so

11   dense.

12               MR. QUAYLE:    So the point I was making is

13   that there are a lot of SIP applications that don't

14   need an IMS.    The can be supported with very simple

15   SIP service, which are often just software running on

16   a small unit service.      I also commented that common

17   instant messengers like Microsoft instant messenger --

18   I think they call it Windows messenger now runs on

19   SIP.

20               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Harlin.

21               MR. MCEWEN: I would just say that this is an

22   outstanding example -- this discussion -- of the

23   complexity with which we face.      And there are people

24   in this room that have different capability, different

25   technical expertise, different backgrounds.         In order

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   to build a successful public safety network, everybody

 2   here has to be involved in that discussion as we move

 3   forward.   You're not going to build a network in this

 4   room.    But I think it's a good point, which we've been

 5   saying right along, we need all the players at the

 6   table.

 7               Public Safety has a certain amount of

 8   expertise from its own experiences.    Much of that

 9   expertise is not known to the commercial world.      On

10   the other hand, the commercial people just spoken have

11   a certain amount of expertise that's unknown to us.

12   So I just want to make the point that the complexity

13   that we face you're really seeing what needs to be

14   done as we move forward.

15               You're not going to solve it here, but we're

16   seeing a micro cell of that discussion here.

17               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Thank you, Harlin.    I

18   couldn't agree more.   Please Paul.

19               MR. STEINBERG:   Bill, just a quick question.

20    I don't know.   This may be a bridge too far, but did

21   you consider the possibility that some applications

22   may need to have standardization initiated so that

23   they can be interoperable and ubiquitous?      I think

24   certification is a good step, but simple example of

25   push-to-talk services there is no real standard today

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   for creating that.

 2              MR. SCHRIER:    So essentially, what you're

 3   saying Paul is that the 3GPP or ATIS here in the

 4   United States needs to actually create a standard or

 5   create standards and further releases of LTE that

 6   supports some of these applications.    And also besides

 7   that, we know that ATIS and 3GPP will be defining a

 8   whole variety of new features in future releases of

 9   LTE that will support applications that we can't

10   envision or upgrades or modifications to existing

11   applications that enrich their functionality.

12              I think that's actually a good comment and I

13   propose that we craft some language around it.

14              MR. STEINBERG:    Just a slight clarification.

15    I'm not saying it's necessarily a 3GPP or ATIS.    I

16   think it maybe some unknown standards group that has

17   to be created or drafted into it as well, Bill.

18              MR. KAHADUNE:    I'd agree that we should have

19   some kind of framework for standardizing applications.

20    3GPP itself does not do application standardization.

21    It will create the architecture to run applications

22   over.   So I would agree with what Paul said.   We need

23   to have a body.   We need to identify who that ought to

24   be.   And then we also have to obviously look at the

25   cross-platform aspects of being an android or whatever

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   the different phone OS's may be.

 2                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Excellent.    Roger and

 3   then Dr. Kahadune.

 4                MR. QUAYLE:    On the question of

 5   standardization, for example, for push-to-talk voice,

 6   that really means push-to-talk group call voice.            And

 7   for that to be carried efficiently on an LT network

 8   means multicast, which is a component of EMVMS on the

 9   down link.    So the push-to-talk voice really needs to

10   be standardized primarily within 3GPP.         If it's not,

11   then we'll instantly have a significant deviation for

12   U.S. public safety from the standards, which means

13   that public safety will no longer be able to take full

14   advantage of the LTE commercially go system.

15                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Understood.    Dr. Kahadune

16   or was it Bill?

17                MR. SCHRIER:    It was actually me.     Coming

18   back to Ajit, so in the commercial world who does

19   application standards?

20                MR. KAHADUNE:    OMA has been doing

21   application standards for 3GPP networks and CDMA

22   networks.    So for example, MMS, which originally was

23   in 3GPP is in OMA.    Push-to-talk over cellular, which

24   hasn't been so widely deployed, but was done in OMA,

25   the device management specs are done in OMA.        Bar

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   codes and how they're read by the terminal and used as

 2   application there.   So there is a group there in OMA

 3   that would do this, but there may be for public safety

 4   we need to look realistically -- I think you did the

 5   right thing in identifying the applications first.

 6   Then we need to figure out how we want to make them

 7   interoperable and at what level.

 8             How far do you want to go?      So if it's to

 9   say we will use, as an example, SIP for push-to-talk,

10   then we define the codec and the STP header, but     then

11   do you also go to the point of defining the look and

12   the feel of the application so it's consistent across

13   all the devices so no matter which device you pick up

14   it looks the same to the user.      So these are all the

15   kind of more detailed questions that would need to be

16   done in further study.    And you probably need to have

17   before we go to any of these kind of formal standards

18   body.

19             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Dr. Martinez.    Go ahead.

20             MR. SCHRIER:    I'm sorry.    So what you're

21   suggesting is there needs to be a group like OMA that

22   does the same sort of standardization for public

23   safety applications.

24             MR. KAHADUNE:    Right.    And who that should

25   be I don't know.   I think that's probably too early to

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   tell how we should do it.

 2                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Dr. Martinez and then

 3   Mr. Seybold.

 4                MR. MARTINEZ:   We've had other venues in

 5   which we've discussed the idea that a common paradigm

 6   for building applications is to layer them on top of

 7   network services.    And there's a very important

 8   difference between applications that are built on

 9   network services and those that are.      They're both

10   viable.   They both work.

11                IMS is an example where you're creating a

12   services layer and then on top of that supporting

13   applications.    I think it would be good for this

14   workgroup to look in its future work at how we build

15   on that notion of a collection of network services.

16   That's an area where standardization is very, very

17   effective.    Email services -- there are just numerous

18   instances where we have applications that run on

19   standardized network services.

20                Rather than jump to the whole end

21   application as a standardization process, I'd say we

22   probably ought to move up the protocol stack, so to

23   speak.

24                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Dr. Martinez, when you're

25   talking about the future work, could you restate what

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   you think the body of that piece of work is.

 2                MR. MARTINEZ:   I think the body of work is

 3   to look at the implication of building some of these

 4   applications on top of standardized network services.

 5    IMS is one example.

 6                MR. SCHRIER:    And so that almost sounds like

 7   a standard in and of itself.        Wherever possible

 8   applications will be built upon standardized network

 9   services as opposed to outside the network services

10   framework.

11                MR. MARTINEZ:   Yes.   So you might not, for

12   example, standardize the user interface of the

13   application, but you certainly would like to

14   standardize the network services that are behind it.

15                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Got it.    Andy?

16                MR. SEYBOLD:    Getting back to push-to-talk

17   on this thing, it's very important.        I mean today

18   there's push-to-talk on all three of the nationwide

19   commercial providers, but all three of them are

20   separate unto themselves.      So they don't work across

21   network.   If we had MMBS in the network, which is

22   needed for push-to-talk, we have to make very sure

23   that there aren't multiple providers of push-to-talk

24   and multiple different formats that are not compatible

25   across the network.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1             MR. NAZARI:    I just wanted to agree with

 2   Dr. Martinez.   Having an IMS in the network would

 3   allow applications that are created for any services

 4   to be more deployed on a standard basis rather than on

 5   an ad hoc basis.   So I think if you could consider

 6   where or how we could implement IMS it would be a good

 7   move, moving forward.

 8             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     So here is where I think

 9   we are on this issue.    I'm hearing two pieces of

10   recommended study for future work.     One, study the

11   implications of building on top of a standardized

12   network, right, Dr. Martinez?

13             MR. MARTINEZ:    -- services.

14             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Services.   And then

15   second, Ajit, I think this was you talking about

16   creating standards, such as OMA, right?

17             MR. KAHADUNE:    We need to have probably some

18   kind of standards, whether it's OMA or ATIS, there has

19   to be a place where we can go to define how the

20   interoperability and the service actually would work.

21             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Understood.

22             MR. MARTINEZ:    I think there is a third one

23   here, which is push-to-talk voice is an application,

24   whether it's 12 or 1, it's certainly going to be an

25   important application.

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1             I want to clarify something.     MMPS is one

 2   way of accomplishing bandwidth efficient push-to-talk.

 3    It isn't the only.   Multicast is another one.     And

 4   they're very different.    So I wouldn't limit the

 5   discussion of push-to-talk to a requirement that

 6   therefore we must have an MBS.    Multicast would

 7   certainly a viable alternative.

 8             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     So if we have essentially

 9   those three areas of further work, was there a

10   consensus or did I hear anything that sounded like a

11   motion to amend the work of the committee or do we

12   just have these three things for future work?

13             Future work?     So let's set those things

14   aside and recognize we're going to continue to keep

15   track of two types of outputs in this discussion --

16   recommendation for future work and amendments to the

17   committee report.

18             Further comments on the committee report,

19   and thank you for that dialogue.     Yes sir, Roger?

20             MR. QUAYLE:     Probably my significant

21   comment, and it probably doesn't really affect the

22   outcome of the applications working group report, is

23   the assumption that's being made that there has to be

24   only a few nationwide cores or EPCs.     Now the EPC

25   doesn't have to be large and expensive and difficult

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   to manage.    It is, obviously, if you're an AT&T or a

 2   Verizon and you buy an EPC that serves millions or

 3   tens of millions of subscribers.        But my company has a

 4   EPC that scales down to the economic -- and we're not

 5   the only company.    We know that others are working on

 6   similar products and simply haven't announced them

 7   yet.   And with LTE being an open standard, I think

 8   you're going to see an increasing number of companies

 9   addressing the small end of the market.          And of

10   course, the advantage then of having a local EPC is

11   that the traffic stays local.     You don't have to back

12   hall every cell site at 50 megabytes each back to a

13   national, original core and that in itself makes you

14   far more resilient to disasters that might affect

15   transmission.

16                That doesn't mean that you can't authorize

17   users on a centralized HHS or a network of proxy HHSs.

18    But the reason I raise this is not only this working

19   group has made the assumption, but I think it's a

20   general assumption that's being made by this committee

21   and fundamentally it's a flawed assumption.

22                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Yes.    Bill?

23                MR. SCHRIER:   That's an interesting concept,

24   Roger, but a lot of the things we talked about today

25   also are key -- network evolution is key.          So in other

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   words, which features of LTE that we say that we're

 2   implementing now, which features Release 8 are we

 3   going to implement?   Which features in Release 10?

 4   And as we have more and more cores, it's going to be

 5   more and more difficult to keep all of those cores in

 6   sync so that an application that works in Washington,

 7   D.C. will work in Trayer, Iowa, which is my hometown

 8   and Tema County, which has 16,000 people in an entire

 9   county?   And there will be an LTE network in Iowa.

10   Will it have the same core?     Will there be multiple

11   cores in Iowa?   Will they all be the same release of

12   LTE?   Will they all implement the same features?    Will

13   they all implement IMS or EMBS or whatever?      The more

14   cores you have it vastly, vastly complicates the

15   management of this network, add management and expense

16   overhead.

17               So there might not be a technical reason to

18   have just a few cores as an assumption, but there are

19   a vast variety of management and technology reasons to

20   do so.

21               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Roger, please?

22               MR. QUAYLE:   First of all, the LTE standards

23   are designed so that different releases and different

24   networks can coexist.     There is fundamental concept of

25   backward compatibility.    So as you look at Release 9

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   and Release 10, I think there are probably very, very

 2   few features that need to be universally implemented

 3   in the entire national network at the same time.

 4              Also, of course, where the argument falls

 5   down is features don't need to be only implemented in

 6   the EPC.   They're also implemented in the MOBs.    So if

 7   you had only a few regional cores, but then a mix of

 8   different vendors, MOBs, then you have to synchronize

 9   those as well.

10              So fundamentally, I don't believe there is a

11   problem.   It is relative easy to manage a small, local

12   EPC.   Most of the work in managing a network once the

13   vendor or system integrator has deployed and optimized

14   it, the management that forwards on the local

15   jurisdiction is the management of subscribers and

16   their priorities.   And that's the sort of task that

17   you'd perform currently locally for your own networks.

18    And do you want to have a situation where whenever

19   you want to add a new users you have to go to a

20   centralized bureaucracy?

21              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Ajit and then Harlin.

22              MR. KAHADUNE:   I think even in our committee

23   we discussed the single core, or let's say a cloud

24   core or regional cores.    But in reality, when you look

25   at the discussion about the architecture of the

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   network, how we should have it, whether it's a

 2   national type with few cores or have, as what Roger is

 3   mentioning, having some localized cores we got to the

 4   conclusion at least that it's very difficult to tell

 5   today what's the right answer.

 6              I don't think really there's a flawed

 7   assumption that we're having a centralized core.       I

 8   think we can say we really don't know.     There's a

 9   leaning that way, that we'd like to have less cores.

10   Less is better, easier to do, but I don't believe that

11   at this moment it's really even the appropriate time

12   to really look at this.

13              Because for the Applications workgroup or

14   even the IOT the actual architecture has not been

15   determined, right?   We don't have a governance entity

16   that would determine how they want to build their

17   network or the funding that come that way.    So this

18   kind of debate at the moment, to me, is probably too

19   early to have about how we should build a network at

20   this level of committee.

21              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Harlin.

22              MR. MCEWEN:    You almost said what I wanted

23   to say.   And that is I mean I think it's very

24   informative to hear these different thoughts, but to

25   be very honest with you there again is the issue that

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   I raised earlier.    And that is, we come from different

 2   experiences.    Roger comes from a different experience

 3   than I do.    And his idea that we can have all these

 4   little pieces and it'll all work makes me very nervous

 5   because I've lived through the land mobile lack of

 6   interoperability for many, many years with pieces here

 7   and pieces there.    Money that can upgrade this piece

 8   and not that piece and one county does it and the

 9   adjacent county can't.

10                You say it's very easy to do that and it'll

11   all work, but the fact is when they are all operating

12   with different levels of service I find that not the

13   way for us to start this discussion.     I find the way

14   to talk about this is to begin to look at a different

15   model than public safety has ever had and that is one

16   that's funded as a business model and keeps all those

17   pieces in sync in a way that we don't have that

18   problem again.    So I just want to make that point.

19                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Thank you.   Paul?

20                MR. STEINBERG:   Just a suggestion and I

21   think the discussion lends itself to that.      This is

22   almost like the governance topic in the sense that it

23   does cut across several of these and maybe a better

24   tact would be to extract that, the discussion of the

25   size and scale of the cores.      I don't think it bears

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   directly on the applications proper.    I mean the

 2   applications and how they're hosted and how they're

 3   standardized somewhat immaterial to that.     So maybe

 4   rather than try to lose the issue in a little detail

 5   in various reports maybe we're better to deal with

 6   that head on.

 7              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   One of the things I was

 8   thinking was that when each of you were given your

 9   assignments you were given short-term goals and

10   long-term goals.   So as we contemplate future work, I

11   think that there's a certain amount of this that just

12   belongs in the longer term goal and does require

13   further analysis, requires further study and more in

14   depth conversation and debate.

15              We're going to take a couple more comments

16   on this.   We'll go to the phone bridge and then we'll

17   ask if there are any formal amendments to the

18   committee report and then we will stall or move.     So

19   coming around.   Yes sir, Mr. Nazari?

20              MR. NAZARI:   Thank you.   I do agree that at

21   this point trying to address how the core is going to

22   be design and evolved would be outside of this

23   committee's -- what we need to focus on is how it

24   should be designed, vis-a-vis, how it's going to be

25   operated and maintained like upgrades, what versions,

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   how it's going to be downloaded to different parts of

 2   the core and how secure it is for disaster recovery

 3   and so on and so forth.

 4                This committee at this point cannot design

 5   or dictate how the core should be laid out because

 6   there are a lot of different elements that's going to

 7   impact it.    The back haul is a big issue.     How are

 8   these various cores going to be integrated and how are

 9   they going to work together?     So those are a lot of

10   things that are not known at this point and I think it

11   would be a waste of this committee's time trying to

12   figure out whether it's a few or so many.

13                So I think we should put it out, but give it

14   a guideline as to how the cores should be designed as

15   far as disaster recovery, maintenance, and meeting up

16   with the various different versions that have to be

17   loaded onto the cores to be compliant with the

18   interoperability for the whole network.

19                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Thank you very much.

20                Mr. Schrier for a wrap up.

21                MR. SCHRIER:   I think these last set of

22   comments has been excellent and I would propose that

23   we do strike the assumption of a few nationwide cores

24   and in place of it say that we need a nationwide

25   architecture and a business model to maintain that

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   architecture as an assumption.

 2                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   That's it.   Very nicely

 3   done.   And when you say "strike that," do you mean in

 4   your committee report?

 5                MR. SCHRIER:   Yes, if you want to have that

 6   as an amendment, I would propose that has an

 7   amendment.

 8                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Restate the amendment and

 9   we'll look for a second on that.

10                MR. SCHRIER:   That we strike the assumption

11   that in the committee report that there are a few

12   nationwide cores.    We assume a few nationwide cores

13   and in place of it say we assume that there is a

14   national architecture and a business model to maintain

15   that national architecture over time.

16                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Is there a second on the

17   amendment?    So noted by Thomas Bretthauer.    Discussion

18   on the motion to amend.

19                (No response.)

20                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Seeing no opposition, is

21   there no opposition on the phone bridge?

22                (No response.)

23                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Okay, seeing no

24   opposition, all of those in favor of amending the

25   subcommittee report signify by saying aye.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1              (Chorus of ayes.)

 2              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   On the phone bridge say

 3   nay if you're opposed.

 4              (No response.)

 5              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Okay, passes unanimously.

 6              Bill, do you have anything else before we

 7   consider the adoption of your subcommittee report, as

 8   amended.

 9              MR. SCHRIER:   I think we should add a

10   section that talks to the applications standards issue

11   and something that says we recommend that there be a

12   standards body for management of public safety

13   applications or creation of public safety applications

14   similar to OMA in the commercial world, or maybe we

15   should have that as an assumption or put that under

16   governance.   So maybe it would be in the context of

17   nationwide governance as part of that section saying

18   that one of the functions of nationwide governance is

19   to create and manage standards and guidelines for

20   applications development.

21              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Okay.

22              MR. STEINBERG:   You may have the language in

23   the report and we're very close to it already on page

24   5, Architectural Background, and again you're talking

25   about assumptions, but standards for applications the

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   workgroup assumes "Public safety wireless broadband

 2   network will have governance and a governing entity

 3   will control which applications are allowed on the

 4   network."    So there maybe a tweak of words there that

 5   are necessary to accomplish what we're looking for.

 6               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Comments Bill?

 7               MR. SCHRIER:    So we would actually say the

 8   governing entity will set standards for and will

 9   control which applications are allowed on the network.

10               Is "standard" to strong of a word?      Set

11   standards and guidelines?     Set guidelines for?

12   There's a separate comment on certification.      How

13   about if we just say -- the amendment I propose is,

14   "And the governing entity will set standards for and

15   control which applications are allowed on the

16   network."    So we add the phrase "set standards for."

17               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Paul?

18               MR. STEINBERG:    You may want to leave

19   yourself open, Bill, to allow multiple standards

20   groups to contribute standards for different topics.

21               MR. MARTINEZ:    The work of standards

22   creation need to be in work of an SDO for no other

23   reason than that there are regulations that govern how

24   competitors can collaborate and SDO forums are one of

25   the few.    So that work really needs to happen in an

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   SDO.

 2              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Harlin.

 3              MR. MCEWEN:    I would weigh in on being as

 4   cautious and as noncommital as possible.    In other

 5   words, the problem here is we're trying to, in a

 6   sense, set some very what I would say are strict

 7   parameters in some cases to things that we I think we

 8   have to have much more informed discussions about and

 9   I'm nervous about putting language into our

10   recommendations that contain us in a way that we may

11   not like later.   So I think the less it says about it

12   and the more it just gives some suggested things that

13   need to be resolved in the future the better.

14              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Further comment?

15              (No response.)

16              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Mr. Schrier, anything

17   further?

18              MR. SCHRIER:    I think that this paragraph 11

19   does need to be modified because right now it says,

20   "The governing entity will control which applications

21   are allowed in the network."    Control is a pretty

22   strong word in that context.    And maybe we just

23   replace "control" with "manage."    Will manage which

24   applications are allowed in the network.

25              So I propose that as an amendment, to

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   replace the word "control" with "manage" in paragraph

 2   11 on page 5.

 3                MR. MCEWEN:    Do you need a second?

 4                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:      So that's a motion.    Do

 5   we have a second by Harlin?

 6                MR. MCEWEN:    Sure.

 7                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:      Discussion on the motion

 8   to replace the word "control" with "manage",

 9   paragraph 11, page 5?

10                MR. MCEWEN:    If we drop any reference to

11   standards?

12                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:      Bill?

13                MR. SCHRIER:    I think manage implies

14   standards as well.    I mean we could put something --

15   actually, the heading of that paragraph says Standards

16   for Applications.     We could modify the language

17   further, I guess.

18                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:      What's your thought.

19                MR. SCHRIER:    I think "manage" is suitably

20   flexible.

21                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:      Leonard?

22                MR. EDLING:    In regard to the standards,

23   what if we looked at something along the lines of

24   adopt standards and manage where it doesn't matter

25   where that entity gets -- we can look at different

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   entities to actually develop the standards and then as

 2   part of that managing we're going to adopt certain

 3   standards that those applications will then run under.

 4    It may give you a little more flexibility in that

 5   realm.

 6                MR. SCHRIER:    So then instead of control

 7   we'd say "adopt standards and manage which

 8   applications are allowed on the network"?

 9                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    And Harlin, are you

10   comfortable with that, "adopt standards and manage"?

11   Mr. Mirgon?

12                MR. MIRGON:    Fundamentally, I don't have a

13   big problem with the statement that was just

14   presented, but if you leave it as manage I mean it's

15   kind of implicit.    If you have to set standards to

16   manage it, you do that.      If you need to set policies,

17   you do it.    I think the more detailed language we get

18   into the more constraining we get.      Where if the

19   direction is just manage, then you're pretty open to

20   do what you need to, to manage the networks so it

21   behaves and operates properly.

22                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    So the last I heard we

23   are at adopt standards and manage.      Dick, you don't

24   have a huge problem with that, right?

25                MR. MIRGON:    No, I can leave with either

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   way.   It was just an observation that sometimes we get

 2   into too much detail.

 3              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Okay.   So we have the

 4   motion.   We have the second.   Is there any further

 5   discussion on that amendment?    And I'd open the phone

 6   bridge.   If you have any opposition or clarification,

 7   please weigh in now.

 8              (No response.)

 9              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Hearing none, all those

10   in person all those in favor of the motion signify by

11   saying aye.

12              (Chorus of ayes.)

13              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Oppose same sign.

14              (No response.)

15              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Phone bridge is there

16   anyone opposed to the motion?

17              (No response.)

18              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Okay, unanimous from the

19   phone bridge.   Is there anything else that needs

20   amending out of the subcommittee report before we move

21   to our next report?    I do want to make a note that we

22   have noted under governance that we want to deal with

23   application standards and creating a standards body of

24   some type or recognizing a standards body of some

25   type, that for future work we're dealing with the

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   implications of building on top of a standardized

 2   network and we talked about the standards.     We've

 3   already moved that.

 4              Harlin, I caught your comment on

 5   push-to-talk voice as one of the things we need to

 6   look at, the size, scale of the core, right, and all

 7   the elements of core design in terms of mission

 8   criticality, survivability, and all of those kinds of

 9   things.   And we dealt with the application.    So that's

10   the total sum of future work I've heard so far on this

11   topic.

12              Do we have a motion to accept the

13   committee's body of work as amended?    Andy Seybold

14   with a motion.   Is there a second?   And we have Ray

15   Lehr with a second.   Discussion on the motion?

16              (No response.)

17              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Phone bridge you're live

18   if you have discussion.

19              (No response.)

20              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Hearing none.   In person,

21   all those in favor of the motion signify by saying

22   aye.

23              (Chorus of ayes.)

24              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Opposed same sign?

25              (No response.)

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    On the phone bridge, if

 2   you are opposed to the motion, please state your name.

 3              (No response.)

 4              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Motion passes

 5   unanimously.    My congratulations Mr. Schrier to you

 6   and your committee.     Any final comments.

 7              MR. SCHRIER:    Again, I just want to thank

 8   the committee for their great work, their phone calls,

 9   and the support in this.    It really was a team effort.

10              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Excellent work.    My

11   compliments.

12              We're now moving into the Interoperability

13   working group.    Jackie Miller, are you present on the

14   phone bridge?

15              (No response.)

16              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    We move to the esteemed

17   Chief Doug Aiken, co-chair.     Doug, you're up.

18              MR. AIKEN:    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19              We have a deck that we can use here also.

20   I'm not sure how we go about how we go about changing

21   slides.   Bill, did I see you had a clicker of some

22   sort here or maybe you'd like to roar right through my

23   slides.   Thank you.

24              All right, I'm here today to represent the

25   committee along with Ajit, who is off to my right

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   here.    Jackie Miller, who is the chair, is at a

 2   National Council of SWICKs meeting in Austin at the

 3   same time and unfortunately couldn't be here and asked

 4   me to make this presentation.

 5               Our members, as has been said earlier,

 6   really are our greatest asset in this effort of the

 7   working group because of the diversity of that working

 8   group.    And I know it's already been said this

 9   morning, but a number of us come from the public

10   safety world so we can deal easily with what works and

11   what doesn't and what we need to do and what we fear

12   won't work.

13               But the other folks, the folks that have

14   much more experience in the commercial world bring the

15   reality of how these devices would work and how the

16   technology works.    So it was very, very helpful as we

17   went through our committee work to have both

18   perspectives and I appreciate all of the people on the

19   work group, which are listed here.

20               If I may, I just want to run through a

21   couple of things.    One, our charter for our working

22   group was basically to make recommendations for public

23   safety and for operability and to take advantage of

24   evolving technology.    And I think it's apparent that

25   that evolving technology is evolving as we sit here

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   and changes all the time.    And certainly is going to

 2   shape where the network and where the broadband

 3   network goes.

 4                Our short-term question was what rules or

 5   policies must be implemented.    So we took that to mean

 6   what laws do we want to lay down that are going to

 7   shape this network and make requirements.       And in

 8   order to consider that, we came up with an approach to

 9   our work.

10                We said we had to find a starting point, so

11   we used the fourth further notice of proposed

12   rulemaking as our outline to address interoperability

13   questions.    And the working group discussed the need

14   to develop policies or rules the FCC would adopt.        And

15   in doing so, we went into a situation where we said

16   we'll use a four-level scope of classifications.         And

17   you see up there in front of you and I believe

18   everybody has certainly had the opportunity to read in

19   our report.

20                And we came up with four terms.    One is the

21   working group, which meant that it was something we

22   thought we could address and make a recommendation to

23   the FCC that they should, in fact, adopt or become

24   involved with that area.    Then we had NetAd, which we

25   defined as the Network Administration and said that

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   this properly as in the hands of the Network

 2   Administration and not in a rulemaking by a federal

 3   body.

 4             And then the NetLo recognized that there are

 5   individual networks at the local level, including the

 6   early build out networks that would also be in a

 7   position to make decisions and work with the NetAd and

 8   not be addressed in rulemaking.   And finally,

 9   NetId/NetLo, again coordinate in order to make the

10   network operate properly.

11             We also recognize that with the uncertainty

12   of the funding sources, the amount, the timing, and so

13   forth of the network that recommendations where NetAd

14   or NetLo funding levels will certainly be determined

15   far outside of this working group or our working group

16   and perhaps this group, in general.

17             A discussion of governance was ever present

18   as we went through because it affected everything.    In

19   order to enable the working group to make productive

20   discussions or have productive discussions, we made

21   the following assumptions regarding governance.    and

22   the first was that we would recommend that the FCC

23   should support a nationwide network governing entity.

24    And through the adoption of rules, it would allow the

25   NNGE to guide the network design and governance along

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   with the assistance of ERIC and this PSAC.

 2              And second, that the governing body has been

 3   identified as a priority in both legislation and in a

 4   number of discussions in the public safety level.     So

 5   those are the assumptions we made going forward with

 6   the working group regarding the structure and

 7   accountability of the yet-to-be-identified governance

 8   body.

 9              At that point we went into our

10   recommendations.   And I am not going to sit here and

11   read all of these.   The topic is in the left column.

12   Our brief summary is in the right.   There are six

13   pages of these slides.   I'd like to just call or make

14   note of a couple of then and then move more into the

15   comments we received from the other members of the

16   other working groups and address those.     It probably

17   would be more productive.

18              We certainly started with open standards,

19   saying that Release 8 was a starting point for public

20   safety.   We know there is discussion of why not

21   Release 9 and I think that will probably come up as a

22   discussion point here.   But we wanted to start with

23   something that was available and people understood

24   that had features that were widely recognized.

25              Another one was system identifiers.     Lots of

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   discussion there.   We, as a working group, see the

 2   benefits of adopting a single nationwide PLM ID.      I

 3   know again there are other thoughts on that, but it

 4   goes to building a network rather than a large group

 5   of networks and trying to make them operate together.

 6              Under roaming configurations, when we first

 7   started our work we were talking about roaming, should

 8   we be roaming, should we not and it became apparent

 9   that roaming in most of our minds is roaming from one

10   commercial network to another and incurring the

11   charges for doing that.

12              So the committee adopted a term of transit

13   operations, meaning not in your normal area.   So if

14   you did roam from the Washington area to the New York

15   area, you were a transit in that area.   You weren't

16   roaming.   And we recognize roaming as moving out of

17   the public safety network to a commercial network or

18   other carrier.   So roaming to us is traditional

19   roaming and transit operation means you're not in your

20   home base and you may or may not have all of your

21   applications available to you as you move around.

22              Public safety roaming on networks, again

23   just to bring the point broadband move around the

24   nationwide network seamlessly and hopefully without

25   additional cost to their operation.

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1              Another point to bring out is the last one

 2   that was on our list of recommendations and that is

 3   how the public safety nationwide network will

 4   interface with next generation 911.   Something we

 5   think is very important to keep our eye on as we

 6   evolve.   We certainly support the network being fully

 7   capable with the next generation 911.   There are any

 8   number of applications that those of us who deal with

 9   911 systems every day certainly are anxious to see

10   come about.   And it has to be seamless between the

11   caller, the PSAP and the forces in the field.   And we

12   have to be able to move that information rapidly.     So

13   it's important to remember that the 911 centers are a

14   part of the network.

15              The actual meat of our report is in response

16   and changes to comments.   And again, we have several

17   pages here of comments.    And again, I believe you have

18   those comments in front of you.   I'll try to highlight

19   some of them.   There was a comment that we talked a

20   lot about -- user equipment -- and we had not, in

21   fact, talk about LTE-enabled equipment, which was not

22   really a subscriber device or something in the hands

23   of a public safety official, such as chem bio sensors,

24   cameras, mobile command and so forth.   And we agreed,

25   and we did update our recommendations to include

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   LTE-enabled equipment.

 2              We also were referring to ourselves as the

 3   IOT, and it was pointed out that that is already

 4   commonly used to mean interoperable testing.     So we

 5   corrected that and called ourselves the IWG and

 6   updated the report to become the Interoperability

 7   Working Group and not the IOT.

 8              There was another comment in Section 1 where

 9   we said we would be equal to commercial networks.        And

10   again, we knew exactly what we meant, but we obviously

11   didn't express it.

12              (Laughter.)

13              MR. AIKEN:    And so it was said perhaps we

14   should be using the term "as found on commercial

15   networks" and we did make that adjustment.

16              Another comment dealt with a change in our

17   report.   Basically, what we said was the report

18   identifies at what level we expect rules or policy to

19   be developed, measured, and enforced.    We, on the

20   public safety side at least, have learned from our

21   experience with land mobile radio that establishing

22   technical standards is only part of assuring

23   interoperability and that we have to allow the network

24   to evolve and let the users assist in that evolution

25   in order to have true interoperability.    Setting rules

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   alone we don't believe is going to accomplish that.

 2              We had a question asking us do we believe

 3   the timing and amount of funding implies more

 4   interoperability or less?   While funding certainly

 5   determines timing, but certainly it would also

 6   determine a capacity, redundancy, and capabilities of

 7   the network, so there is a need for flexibility of

 8   design to support all those variables as we move

 9   forward.

10              In Section 3.3, a comment received was that

11   there are a number of functions and responsibilities

12   that a governing body could perform and that we should

13   list them all in the report, talking about

14   interconnection and back haul wired links and

15   standards for operation and construction and

16   negotiating agreements with commercial carriers and so

17   on.

18              The IWG did not go to this level of detail,

19   although we could have added those examples so the

20   concern would be that it was more information than

21   needed to be included and certainly would be addressed

22   moving forward when a national governance was in

23   place.

24              Another question we received in our report,

25   Section 4.1, was why we didn't adopt Release 9.    And

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   Release 8 would be our starting point, but they said

 2   it appears to be in conflict with a statement of the

 3   Evolution working group that specific LTE standards

 4   not be mandated.

 5                Our working group wanted to use what was

 6   currently defined and operational as a starting point

 7   so that we could make informed decisions.       But we're

 8   certainly open to further discussion.

 9                I'm going to ask Ajit, did you want to

10   expand on that?    I know we've had the discussion more

11   than once about why we're at Release 8.

12                MR. KAHADUNE:   Ajit Kahadune for Nokia

13   Siemens.   So the discussion on which release to start

14   with we know that today in commercial operation

15   Release 8 is running on a few networks already around

16   the world.     The problem of going to Release 9 was so

17   do we say just Release 9?

18                Obviously, some of the other workgroups had

19   specific features that they wanted from Release 9,

20   which has an impact on device availability and network

21   availability at this moment.     So we thought it would

22   be better to start with the baseline of Release 8 and

23   look forward in the process that when the network

24   administrator is established that they should go

25   through and pick, based on the requirements of public

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   safety, which specific features are needed because it

 2   may not even be Release 9 then.    It could be even

 3   portions of Release 10.

 4             And then the other aspect of this is when we

 5   look at Release 9 availability no commercial network

 6   has yet launched with Release 9 features.    We only

 7   finished the actual standards about a year back.       So

 8   as a result the interoperability testing, the

 9   performance, even the feature development are based on

10   commercial demand at the moment.    So there may be

11   features that public safety would want.

12             Let's take an example of MBMS since we talk

13   about it so much.    Only maybe one or two operators may

14   want that, so you may not see that feature widely

15   available in devices.   So it gets to a level of detail

16   that you start to go and then you're falling into the

17   morass of problems, so we thought Release 8 is a very

18   good baseline to start.   It's well established.   It's

19   good for broadband, which is what we're starting with

20   for public safety.

21             And then the governance with the network

22   administrators should then determine, going forward

23   what specific features or baseline releases need to be

24   done because that becomes part of the process of

25   upgrading your network over time.    When do you set the

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   baseline to go up and when do you execute it in your

 2   network?

 3               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Thank you, Ajit.

 4               MR. BUDKA:   Just to echo a comment, in the

 5   Network Evolution Subcommittee we discussed this as

 6   well and felt that it was important from the

 7   perspective of network evolution for public safety to

 8   lag slightly the deployment in the commercial world

 9   for many of the reasons stated today.

10               MR. AIKEN:   We don't want to be on the

11   bleeding edge again.

12               In Section 4.3, the argument was made again

13   in a comment that multiple PLMN IDs could be used and

14   there could be operational benefits to supporting that

15   concept and that a decision on a single one is best

16   left to the governing body.     We agree.   We gave

17   preference, based on our discussions, to the benefits

18   of one.    But we did state that it was premature to

19   make any final decision on that and that would be a

20   future decision of a governing entity.

21               Again, continuing on the same subject in

22   Section 4.4, we received a comment that public safety

23   should take a position that there will not be any

24   roaming between public safety networks and no roaming

25   charges.    And we noted that because we believe it's in

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   support of the same area we went into.

 2                And 4.5, the comment was "The national

 3   governance entity would be responsible for

 4   interconnections of all of the local regional networks

 5   and interconnection to commercial carriers."        And

 6   again, we noted that without making any changes to our

 7   report.

 8                We received a comment that there needs to be

 9   some minimum set of guidelines and standards for

10   robustness.    The working group's intent was that

11   minimum standards would bet set which should be done

12   at the NetId/NetLo, that network administrator and

13   network local administrative levels of governance once

14   they were established.

15                There was comments about in building

16   coverage and the fact that local jurisdictions were

17   best able to determine coverage areas within buildings

18   and other types of structures.    We noted that, but did

19   not make any changes to our report.

20                And then another in Section 4, eliminating

21   roaming issues and costs.    Supporting roaming does not

22   incur costs for equipment -- I'm sorry -- does incur

23   costs for equipment, communications, links, and

24   personnel.    These costs are not eliminated as the

25   context suggests.    And we made a change basically to

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   say that a design that minimizes roaming issues and

 2   reduce costs within the public safety network in

 3   Section 5, so we did make that adjustment.

 4             Again, another comment on roaming.     Let's

 5   just say no roaming and no charging.   We felt that the

 6   cost of network service should be recovered through

 7   user service fees without the provision for roaming

 8   fees between public safety networks.

 9             The need for building was viewed as an added

10   layer of complexity and bureaucracy that would

11   certainly hinder interoperability.   Again, from the

12   standpoint of the charge that was given to our working

13   group.

14             Another comment at 5.3, there should be no

15   cross-charging for the volume of traffic within the

16   public safety network.   And we feel that we have

17   addressed that, but perhaps there would be further

18   discussion here today on that.

19             In Section 6, the discussion was around

20   testing and standards, the function of a PCSR in

21   Boulder to do testing and verification and to ensure

22   interoperability.   The comment was that local, early

23   builders are responsible only to use equipment from

24   vendors which has gone through all stages of testing

25   at PSCR and I recommend we just stated here.   The

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   working group stated that commercial test houses for

 2   the 3GPP conformance for user equipment and additional

 3   public safety tests would be better to really lower

 4   costs.

 5              And for network equipment, the PSCR Idaho

 6   Labs could also be okay.    But however, the net

 7   administrator really needs to determine what and where

 8   testing would take place.    And for us to determine way

 9   in advance of that establishment and say this is who's

10   going to do what makes no sense.     But the point is

11   that a lot of this in 3GPP is already going on and we

12   can ride on that and not have to do all that testing

13   individually.

14              Ajit, do you want to add to that?

15              MR. KAHADUNE:    Yes, that about captures it.

16    We have GCF and PTCRB that do UE conformance testing,

17   so for commercial use that will cover the bases of

18   devices.   Now if there's additional testing specific

19   to public safety features, then there is an option to

20   either go to those places and ask them to do it, or to

21   have PSCR to do the additional testing.     So again, we

22   can leverage the commercial testing and not go and

23   retest everything from the ground up.

24              And then for network equipment, PSCR has

25   already had an established process and network

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   equipment has been going through there, so again just

 2   from the committee point of view we felt we want to

 3   have testing.    We want to have conformance for

 4   interoperability.    But to go and start picking the

 5   test houses, in particular, is too beyond the scope of

 6   our committee at this time.

 7              MR. AIKEN:   In 7.5, was the discussion of

 8   deployable assets.    And originally, the working group

 9   decided it was out of our scope.    And then a comment

10   was that the use of deployable assets has a great

11   bearing on interoperability and should be within your

12   scope.   And we looked at that and said I guess that

13   was in hour four of one the telephone calls and we

14   were trying to race to hang up.    And it was fairly

15   easy when somebody said out of scope and we all said,

16   okay, move on.

17              But reconsidering that, our text has been

18   revised at 7.5 to include things such as Cows and

19   Colts and so forth, and include a discussion there

20   again say, though, however that net administration

21   should be responsible to determine what should be

22   tested beyond radio conformance based on input from

23   stakeholders and working with the testing groups and

24   houses to ensure interoperability.

25              And finally, at 7.6, we weren't sure of this

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   comment because basically the comment was about the

 2   use of fixed locations and whether or not they were

 3   appropriate.    We had said we should minimize the use

 4   of fixed locations.    And the comment was that it makes

 5   no sense.    It should be up to the local jurisdiction

 6   to make all of these decision.    It's not a one size

 7   fits all in the FCC rules.    And while we reviewed

 8   this, we believe that there may be a misunderstanding

 9   between the working groups or the comments received in

10   that there certainly will be devices located within

11   the public safety network that operate from fixed

12   locations.    And if that is what the comment addresses,

13   then we agree because we just consider those to be

14   other user devices and not really fixed.

15                But if the comment is over giving total

16   local control to use spectrum for fixed links and

17   other activities, we don't believe that that's

18   something that should just be granted to local

19   control.    It should be part of the administration of

20   the entire network to oversee that type of use.

21                And Mr. Chairman, that's basically a summary

22   of the changes and the key points of interoperability.

23    Again, everybody had a chance to review it.     And

24   before I conclude, I know it's been said before, but I

25   have to recognize Ajit as our all-star player because

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   every time the committee said how are we ever going to

 2   accomplish that he said I'll do it.       And so I know

 3   that he was in Europe last week and 12 hours out of

 4   sync with the rest of us and working on airplanes and

 5   working on Saturdays, Sundays.     We had a call Sunday

 6   night.   We were working on this, so I really want to

 7   recognize his efforts in bringing this report to you

 8   today.   Thank you, Ajit.

 9              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Okay, the floor is open

10   for comments.    Yes, sir.   Mr. Nazari?

11              MR. NAZARI:   While I understand and

12   recognize the committee's approach in giving the

13   coverage requirement and reliability to the NetAd and

14   NetLo because it's just outside the scope of this

15   committee, do we need to specify at least some quality

16   of service that the NetAd/NetLo need to adhere to when

17   they're trying to get through this build out phase and

18   coverage requirement?    Because in the absence of that

19   I mean the NetAd/NetLo could come up with anything

20   they desire.

21              So the question here is, is that the intent

22   of this report or this committee, or should we expand

23   on it?

24              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Harlin?

25              MR. MCEWEN:   I would say the committee

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   intended it to be just what it is, and that is that,

 2   in the first place, what you say is important.      But at

 3   the end of the day, there has to be some flexibility

 4   on the part of whatever the governance -- whoever the

 5   network administrator is.     In other words, I keep

 6   going back to the point that we're not ready today to

 7   make the kind of commitments that are some are

 8   suggesting.    I just don't think we're ready to do

 9   that.

10                So I would say that from my perspective I'm

11   going to put a lot of faith -- I mean I currently am

12   the chairman of the license holder.      I won't be in the

13   future.   But I'm perfectly willing to give a lot of

14   leeway to whoever that is and with the belief that

15   they will probably manage this network.

16                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Further comment?   Yes,

17   Ken?

18                MR. BUDKA:   Just mention that this issue

19   also came up in the Network Evolution Subcommittee.

20   And there is such a many tentacle beast here.       These

21   requirements also have a huge impact on cost and

22   equipment.    And to look at any one requirement in

23   isolation without considering the whole ripple effect

24   throughout the whole system we felt that that

25   particular item is something that should be a local

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   decision.    That no one size fits all across the

 2   network.

 3               MR. NAZARI:   I mean I agree with that, but

 4   it seems that we are talking about interoperability in

 5   great length, which is the right objective.       Why

 6   wouldn't we be able to at least state what the

 7   coverage quality should also be throughout the

 8   network?    And I'm not saying this just so that we

 9   could turn this to a 5,000-page report, but at least

10   something that at least gives the NetAd/NetLo an

11   objective that says this is the mandate.       You need to

12   meet certain quality of service.       Now what that

13   quality of service is it could be very long or it

14   could be short and specific.

15               I do agree that they need to have the

16   ability to manage and build out this network in

17   various different parts of the country, but in the

18   absence of stating what that coverage requirement and

19   reliability requirement is I think it leaves this a

20   little bit hanging.

21               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Ray?

22               MR. LEHR:   Again, I appreciate the comment.

23    I think everybody around the table wants to get the

24   best coverage we absolutely can for public safety use.

25    I think the problem is that that's the big driver of

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   the cost of the network, that better coverage is going

 2   to mean more expensive and right now we don't have any

 3   of the funds in plan.    So I think like Harlin says

 4   this is a decision that's got to be made once the

 5   governance is in place, there's a structure that says

 6   how we're going to pay for this network.       Then we can

 7   make a determination of how much coverage we want.

 8             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Mr. Seybold?

 9             MR. SEYBOLD:    I was just going to say

10   coverage is thing that depends on area-by-area and I

11   think that some of the areas are going to get built

12   out quickly.    Some of them are going to get built out

13   with high-level sites that cover large pieces of area,

14   but don't have a lot of capacity.    And there's going

15   to be a lot of fill in.    So this is an evolving

16   process and I think to tie a thing that says from day

17   one you've got to build out X percentage of your pops

18   or whatever doesn't make any sense.

19             What makes sense is that the governance body

20   and the local provider build out where they know they

21   need it when they need it and then expand.

22             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Dr. Martinez?

23             MR. MARTINEZ:    I'd like to build on the

24   comments of Dr. Nazari.    We need to step back.    The

25   broader issue here may not be who makes any particular

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   decision.   We can't answer all those questions today.

 2    The Commission has certain jurisdictional authorities

 3   and things it may or may not do.   Ultimately, it's

 4   subject to the statutes that Congress imposes on them.

 5               We cannot address that issue here.    What we

 6   can do, however, is make recommendations that will

 7   push or move the ball forward and that is what we do

 8   need to do.   We need to move the ball forward, whether

 9   or not there are codified in rulemaking or the NGE

10   implements and enforces them those are issues to be

11   determined for sure.   But that should not preclude us

12   from making substantive recommendations on how we move

13   the ball forward, particularly on this issue of

14   interoperability.   It is the essence of what we're

15   trying to do.

16               We need to move the ball forward and simply

17   deferring to a future act of Congress, creation of a

18   governance, whatever it is doesn't feel like it moves

19   the ball forward and we need to do that.   We have

20   systems being constructed under the waiver.      We have

21   federal funds being expended and it isn't clear that

22   if we don't do something soon that we are not going to

23   end up in a situation where we have hampered our

24   ability to implement interoperability.

25               To the point that Ken made earlier, we faced

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   this issue in our committee that, look, we can't make

 2   a decision nor are we being asked to make a decision.

 3    We're being asked to make recommendations, whether

 4   the Commission can act on those recommendations under

 5   its authority or a governance entity that's to be

 6   determined, but it should not hinder our ability to

 7   make recommendations.    It doesn't feel like we've

 8   moved the ball forward enough on this issue of

 9   interoperability.

10             So that was a comment you noted in our

11   workgroup as input.    It isn't clear that there has

12   been a response to that comment.

13             MR. AIKEN:    I hear what people are saying,

14   but I think that our working group has discussed this

15   more than once and we just feel it's premature.

16   Obviously, this committee can modify any of these

17   reports in any way it wishes, but I really feel that

18   setting those standards at this time was beyond what

19   the working group determined.     So I think it's really

20   going to be an open discussion, Mr. Chairman, whether

21   we add some other language or not.

22             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Mr. Neal?

23             MR. NEAL:     Dennis, I think that we're still

24   struggling again, and I think this came up in the last

25   discussion about needing to establish some sort of

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   fundamental architecture.   We talked about that

 2   business of whether we're going to have 150 cores or 6

 3   regional cores or one single core.   I find it very

 4   difficult to engineer a solution on interoperability

 5   and how roaming-like services may work, whether

 6   they're chargeable or not without having some sort of

 7   topology and architecture and philosophy about how the

 8   network is architected and designed and so we've got a

 9   chicken and egg problem here where we feel a little

10   constrained on making further and heavy or deeper

11   recommendations from this point without knowing more

12   about the fundamental architecture of the overall

13   network, but we certainly don't believe we've had

14   enough time to look at all of the issues and concerns

15   associated with that yet to make that recommendation

16   in the period of time that we had to do it.

17             So I think we're still struggling with I

18   think in my mind two basic things.   What is the

19   network architecture look like from a topology and

20   philosophy perspective and the whole government entity

21   or network administrator, if you like to call it,

22   those two things need to happen I think very quickly

23   as a matter of the next step of work.   I believe you

24   called Chief Johnson.

25             I think if we spend a lot of effort trying

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   to solve some of those problems we can come back to

 2   knocking some of these things off of this

 3   interoperability list in a little bit more succinct

 4   manner.

 5              MR. AIKEN:   Perhaps it should be a

 6   recommendation to the working group, as we move

 7   forward to reconsider and look further into this, but

 8   I'm not again comfortable trying to set some standard

 9   or some level sitting here today.

10              MR. MARTINEZ:   I don't think that's what I'm

11   saying.   We're not certainly empowered to set

12   standards or do any of that.    And I don't think that's

13   what we're being asked to do.   We're being asked to

14   make recommendations.   Now if the recommendation is

15   this issue should be deferred for reason X, Y, Z or

16   there was not adequate time, I understand those.   I

17   understand those two legitimate constraints.

18              But if nothing else, can we at least make

19   recommendations on establishing boundary conditions

20   that can, again, move the ball forward.   It is a grave

21   concern that there is a great deal of work being

22   performed and as I said federal monies being expended

23   and contracts being issued and we're not even able

24   today to make recommendations on substantive issues on

25   this most important issue called interoperability.

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1               Simply deferring it an organization

 2   downstream that is yet to be defined that maybe this

 3   112 Congress will act upon is really a stretch.      It

 4   may act upon it.    It may not.    And what if it doesn't?

 5    Then we will have lost a year and we can't afford

 6   that.

 7               MR. MCEWEN:   With all due respect, Doctor,

 8   I'm not looking at what if it doesn't.       We're looking

 9   at that it's going to do it and we're going to have

10   some sense of where we're going to go.      So I want to

11   be positive.    I mean the fact is that the

12   recommendation from the group was to be cautious.        And

13   let me go back to the concept that those of us in

14   public safety have been talking about now for four

15   years as it relates to the quality of service and the

16   coverage.   It is very simple.

17               Public Safety would like to cover every inch

18   of this country that it can possibly cover within the

19   funding that we're allowed and within the technical

20   capabilities that we can do that.      If you want to say

21   that, fine.    That is our goal.    How to do that and

22   what that means I think is premature today.

23               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     As it relates to

24   governance, and we're going to come around to this

25   issue of governance because it's percolated up in

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   every committee.   I think there are people here today

 2   that are prepared to recommend that we deal with

 3   governance in late summer/early fall and allow all the

 4   moving pieces that are in place today to have a better

 5   finality before we tear into governance.   I think it

 6   gets to convoluted and there are too many variables.

 7   It's like stacking two soccer balls on top of each

 8   other.   You move either one of them and the thing

 9   comes down.   I think we can focus on the more hard

10   parts of this science or the science part of this and

11   let the governance work its way through.   The

12   likelihood that we'll have certainty one way or

13   another by early fall is very high.

14              So I think the smart thing to do in terms of

15   governance is deal with some of those issues later.     I

16   think there's really only three models for governance,

17   maybe to Harlin's point.   We're going to have the

18   public safety spectrum trust, which is the current

19   national broadband licensee.   They're going to be

20   alive and govern the 10 megahertz they've been

21   allocated and we have a governance model and on it

22   goes.

23              Two, there's a new governance model, and of

24   course, there's a number of bills on the Hill that

25   addressed this, but we'll have a new governance model

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   and they'll be charged with some of this

 2   responsibility, or three, we'll have our current

 3   public safety model and then might as well not have

 4   governance because it's a free for all.       And I think

 5   it is such a train wreck in terms of trying to create

 6   standards in this environment that we're probably

 7   wasting our time.   So I think both models call for a

 8   little patience in dealing with the governance piece.

 9             So as it relates to that, I think delay

10   might be wise, but that's not to take away from the

11   meaningful dialogue we're having.     Bill?

12             MR. SCHRIER:   So to follow up on that, I

13   would move that we ask the Public Safety and Homeland

14   Security Bureau of the FCC to call together the PSAC

15   in late September, this group in late September to

16   address governance.

17             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   So we have a motion to

18   ask the Public Safety Bureau of the FCC to call this

19   group back into session for the purpose of considering

20   governance issues in late September and we have a

21   second by Mr. Mirgon, a discussion on the issue.

22             Andy, did you have something?

23             MR. SEYBOLD:   No, I was going to second

24   before Dick bet me to it.

25             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Okay.    Yes, Dr. Martinez?

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1               MR. MARTINEZ:    I guess I'd like to comment.

 2    First of all, I agree with that.     And I'd like to

 3   comment that there have already been recommendations

 4   in the fourth FMPRM that the Commission make this a

 5   topic of rulemaking.      So just as a point to be added

 6   to that, on top of what PSAC does there has already

 7   been suggestions that the Bureau undertake that under

 8   a Rulemaking process.     That's a comment.

 9               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Thank you.   Mr. Mirgon?

10               MR. MIRGON:    I apologize for this because

11   this got said once a moment ago, but in moving the

12   ball forward a lot of times it's about timing.         I know

13   when AFCO started the discussion about putting LTE out

14   there as a public safety standard there was a lot of

15   debate about why are you doing this now and so on.

16   And timing is critical.     And with this issue in front

17   of Congress right now, and with the body coming up,

18   right now I think we're probably a little bit

19   premature

20               However, if Congress fails to act, then

21   something has got to move to break the ice.       So I

22   think that's critical to this whole debate is we've

23   got this congressional issue over here.       We've got

24   ERIC here and there's got to be a right time that it

25   comes together and today isn't the day.       But if

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   Congress doesn't move, the next meeting is probably

 2   the time and place.

 3                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Further comment before I

 4   call for a vote.

 5                (No response.)

 6                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Hearing none, all those

 7   in person if you're in favor of the motion please

 8   signify by saying aye.

 9                (Chorus of ayes.)

10                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Opposed to the motion

11   same sign.

12                (No response.)

13                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    On the phone bridge, is

14   there anyone opposed to the motion?

15                (No response.)

16                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    The motion carries

17   unanimously.    Back to you, Mr. AIKEN.     Any further

18   considerations before us?

19                MR. AIKEN:   (No response.)

20                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Is there a motion to

21   accept the subcommittee's report?       Mr. Lehr.   Is there

22   a second?    Mr. Seybold.     Discussion on the motion?

23                (No response.)

24                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Hearing none, those in

25   person all in favor of the motion signify by

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   saying aye.

 2                (Chorus of ayes.)

 3                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Opposed same sign.

 4                (No response.)

 5                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    On the phone bridge, is

 6   there anyone opposed to the motion?

 7                (No response.)

 8                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Excellent.   So we have

 9   finished the first two reports.      We've got some work

10   for future study.    We've passed a couple of motions

11   dealing with our immediate future.      And I think right

12   now the biggest issue before us is lunch.

13                Gene, are we okay to reconvene at 1 p.m.

14   Eastern?   Okay, so for those folks on the phone

15   bridge, we are going to reconvene at 1 p.m. Eastern,

16   which is 65 minutes from now and the bridge will be

17   reopened at that time.

18                I would suggest that for Chief Warner we

19   have a seat there for him.       We have seat here, maybe

20   two seats.    I think if we pulled those seats out of

21   folks that aren't going to be here we can move from

22   coach to business class with free, easy movement.

23                (Laughter.)

24                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    So when we return let's

25   do that.   So we stand in recess until 1 p.m.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1             (Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., a recess was

 2   taken until 1:08 p.m. this same day.)

 3   //

 4   //

 5   //

 6   //

 7   //

 8   //

 9   //

10   //

11   //

12   //

13   //

14   //

15   //

16   //

17   //

18   //

19   //

20   //

21   //

22   //

23   //

24   //

25   //

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1             A F T E R N O O N      S E S S I O N

 2                                                   (1:08 p.m.)

 3             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Thank you for coming back

 4   after lunch.    We appreciate that.

 5             It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce

 6   Jennifer Manner.    Jennifer Manner is the deputy chief

 7   of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and

 8   has been immensely helpful in everything getting us to

 9   this point.    So Jennifer, would you make a few

10   remarks, please?

11             MS. MANNER:    Thank you very much.    I'm very

12   soft spoken because I'm from New York.

13             So I've been paying close attention and I've

14   been watching on the web upstairs and you guys are

15   doing terrific work.    And I really wanted to just take

16   a minute to applaud everyone and to especially to

17   thank Jeff and Eddie for taking the lead on this group

18   and Dennis Martinez, Ken Budka, Bill Schrier, Jackie

19   Miller and Doug AIKEN for all their work leading the

20   working groups and for all those folks who I have --

21   because I would be lying about taking just a minute --

22   you guys have all done tremendous work.

23             I know we gave you a very, very tight

24   deadline on this.    No one's heard about that more than

25   Gene, myself, and Brian and we appreciate the time and

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   effort you've put into it and are very, very thankful

 2   and have very much looking forward to hearing the

 3   final results of this meeting today.

 4               So that, I wish you well for your afternoon

 5   deliberations and I'm sure it will go well.      And once

 6   again, my sincere thanks and the Bureau's thanks.

 7               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Thank you very much,

 8   Jennifer.

 9               Any items that were latent from our first

10   session that failed before this group before we kick

11   off our last two working groups?

12               (No response.)

13               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Hearing none, I'd like to

14   turn this over to Dr. Dennis Martinez, the chair of

15   the Security and Authentication Working Group.

16   Doctor?

17               MR. MARTINEZ:    Thank you.   Do we have our

18   charts?    Great.   Thank you.

19               Let me first start by acknowledging the

20   great group I had an opportunity to work with shown

21   here on this chart.     Stacey is not able to be with us

22   today.    In his place I believe we have Mr. Rich

23   Mosley, so thank you.     We had a very good time the

24   last two months, a lot of work to do.      I appreciate

25   all the hard work by our committee members.

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1               What I want to do first is introduce to you

 2   what our charter was.   We had two questions to

 3   consider.   The short-term was to ensure that the

 4   broadband network is interoperable, what security and

 5   authentication features would be required and then the

 6   long-term really was about best practices.

 7               In looking at those questions, you can see

 8   that there are certainly immediate short-term issues

 9   that are before us to address by way of

10   recommendations and then there are longer term issues.

11    And we felt that in order to do justice to both we

12   needed to have a methodology in which to frame the

13   work that we did.   We looked at the network as an

14   information system and therefore we could look at this

15   large body of work that's well established in IA or

16   Information Assurance principles.

17               NISCH has addressed this issue extensively.

18    NISCH publication 800-27 is a great read if you're

19   having a hard time sleeping.   I recommend it.

20   Actually, a great deal of content.   They've done a

21   wonderful job in framing at a high level this problem

22   and so we benefitted from looking at it.

23               We began by then looking and developing a

24   set of high-level objectives for what the security

25   architecture should be about and we did use what we

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   referred to as a risk-based methodology, both for

 2   looking at our current work and we believe as a

 3   process going forward.

 4             The key objectives that we worked towards

 5   were actually first group minus the last one.    I would

 6   like to credit the work of Bill Schrier's team for

 7   introducing the last one to us.   But basically, we

 8   said, look, we needed a very small number of well

 9   articulated objectives that we felt could capture the

10   essence of what the security architecture was about

11   and we came up with that list.

12             Bill Schrier's team noted the two things

13   that we thought was important, and we've incorporated

14   into the report.   One was this notion of role-based

15   security and the ability to have local control of the

16   management and security consistent, of course, with an

17   overarching security policy.

18             Just for those not familiar with it,

19   role-based security means that a person in a public

20   safety role may have a different function based on

21   circumstances.   So they may perform a line level

22   responsibility one day, but the next day may have

23   responsibilities for scene command.   And consistent

24   with those different roles that person may require

25   different access to security capabilities and so

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   that's what role-based security is about.      And Bill

 2   hopefully I've captured that correctly in summary.        So

 3   thank you for your contributions in that particular

 4   area.

 5              We then looked at this notion of risk-based

 6   methodology well established in the industry and

 7   really there are three key words that make up

 8   risk-based methodology.   The first is the notion of

 9   risk.   And that is understanding what exposure we have

10   to threats, what are the likelihood of attacks and

11   success and on an up-front and ongoing basis to do

12   risk assessment, to try to quantify both the

13   likelihood and cost of a breach.

14              The key notion in risk-based methodology is

15   the notion of threats, understanding the threat

16   problem, the source and type.   This is done through

17   threat assessments and there are well-defined methods

18   that are used to perform threat assessment.     And the

19   final portion is to understand the vulnerabilities,

20   those flaws or weaknesses in the system that threats

21   can attack.   So fundamentally, that's what risk-based

22   methodology is about and we did incorporate it and we

23   recommend it on an ongoing basis.

24              With that, then we look at specifically the

25   public safety network and then we said what does a

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   security profile look like in risk-based methodology?

 2    And there's just a few we want to point out.     We

 3   won't read the whole thing to you.    You've had a

 4   chance to see it in the report.

 5                I will say that on the risk side, the risk

 6   of breach, the risk of not having accessibility to the

 7   network is quite high.    The public safety mission is

 8   about life and property, and not having access to

 9   communications we know is a huge and great threat, not

10   only to the first responders themselves but to the

11   mission they're trying to perform.    So the cost of

12   breach is actually quite high and that factors into

13   the equation of how important it is to provide

14   security.

15                On the notion of threats, we've just listed

16   a handful.    You could go on and on, on this list.

17   It's a very dynamic and evolving world.     I'd like to

18   focus on vulnerabilities.    This network is very, very

19   different from traditional public safety networks,

20   which are operating in a closed environment.     This

21   network will be open to many users.    There will be

22   many applications that run on the network.      Internet

23   access may or likely be provided.    There are a large

24   ecosystem of devices and computing environments that

25   will be used.    Inherently, this network will be a

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   frequent target of cyber attack.   That is a

 2   fundamental assumption, both because of its nature in

 3   terms of criticality to our nation's first responders,

 4   but also because it shares a technology heritage with

 5   LT commercial networks.

 6             So with that, let me start by highlighting

 7   our key recommendations.   We recommend adoption of

 8   this risk-based methodology, both on an ongoing basis.

 9    When we're trying to answer security questions or

10   make recommendations about security authentication

11   that we do so consistent with the methodology.   We

12   recommend this methodology.   We recommend acceptance

13   of a statement of key objectives, recognizing that is

14   likely to continue to evolve as our understanding of

15   the problem does.

16             We have recommended mandatory implementation

17   of certain key standardized LTE security features and

18   my colleague Ken is going to talk briefly to those in

19   just a moment.   We believe that roaming to commercial

20   networks should, of course, be supported with

21   standardized security technologies.   We believe that

22   access to the Internet should be allowed.    That should

23   be our goal, but we do have to perform a due diligence

24   risk assessment on that.

25             We recognize that there will be a

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   diversified set of applications and therefore the need

 2   to support a flexible architecture in which we can

 3   recognize that jurisdictions have their own security

 4   policies that will need to be complied with as well.

 5               The comments that came back pointed us to

 6   three areas of future work.    First is this notion of

 7   defining requirements for securing the management

 8   systems that are used to basically perform all the

 9   functions associated monitoring, configuring, and so

10   forth.    That was a great comment from I believe the

11   Evolution group and we believe that is absolutely a

12   topic that needs to be addressed in the future.

13               Related to that is multiple groups commented

14   on transaction logging.    We used the term analytics to

15   refer to how you analyze transaction logs to take

16   corrective action and continue to assess your risks

17   and vulnerabilities.

18               Another comment we received was that the

19   development and distribution of applications is going

20   to be very different than it is today in public

21   safety.    So an apps store, if you wish, in the

22   figurative sense of the word.    And that will, in

23   itself, pose many vulnerabilities and therefore needs

24   to be treated under the risk-based methodology.

25               So these three items were a result of the

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   feedback that we received from the other workgroups.

 2               I'm going to skip the next couple of charts.

 3    I will stop briefly on this one here.     This chart the

 4   details are not important.    What's important is that

 5   the very act of mandating LTE as the technology

 6   standard for the broadband network has inherently

 7   therefore pulled in a great deal of security

 8   architecture.   It is defined in the standard and very

 9   intrinsic to it.   And so by virtue of that one

10   declaration of LTE base, we believe that a great deal

11   of security policy, in effect, was defined.

12               With that, let me turn this over to my

13   colleague Ken, who's going to talk very briefly to the

14   five security groups that are covered under the

15   standard.

16               MR. ZDUNEK:   Right.   So what I'm going to do

17   now is just a brief double-click on these five areas.

18    So in the overall recommendation when we talk about

19   mandatory implementation of key LTE standardized

20   security features what specifically do we mean by

21   that.   And before I got into the summaries of each of

22   those areas, a word about the guiding principles, I

23   guess, if you will, the rational that we used to come

24   to the conclusion that we did.

25               First of all, we needed to reflect a balance

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   between the user need to have ease of access to the

 2   network, the requirement to have security commensurate

 3   with the mission criticality of the system that we're

 4   operating and also to make sure that we would ensure

 5   the interoperability that's also demanded by the

 6   applications.   So we're very cognizant of balancing

 7   these principles and very often the discussion

 8   centered around ease of use versus security features.

 9             The other guiding principle had to do with

10   the fact that agreement that we wanted to require the

11   minimum number of security requirements as, again,

12   consistent with the standard.   Thirdly, to provide or

13   to use industry best practices.   And Dr. Martinez did

14   talk about looking at this network as an information

15   system and therefore being able to leverage practices

16   from that domain.

17             And the other I guess driving force,

18   underlying principle was where we had interesting

19   discussion and divergence of viewpoints.   We were

20   trying to in all cases identify the convergence of the

21   different viewpoints from the vendor side, the user

22   side and the regulatory side, for example.   So with

23   that maybe wordy introduction, we found it very useful

24   to use this table format that you see to capture the

25   LCC position in the series of questions that they had.

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1    So each of these charts has this common format.      The

 2   FCC position on the middle, the FCC questions that you

 3   had on the top right, then our comments and working

 4   group background on the far left, the lower middle our

 5   working group position and then comments.      So it's

 6   fairly straightforward to see what the FCC view and

 7   what our position was.

 8               So for example, on the network access

 9   security domain, this is really the radio layer, our

10   conclusion, the consensus of the working group was

11   that all three of the layers that are specified by LTE

12   should be incorporated or should be required.       And we

13   could not come up with a reason not to require this

14   approach.

15               And recognizing the fact that in contrast to

16   maybe existing public safety wireless infrastructure

17   that, again, the NOD was going to be exposed to

18   attacks from user equipment that would be commercially

19   available, so this was very important to protect.        And

20   again, looking at the uniform approach for

21   interoperability reasons.   So that's the summary of

22   our position on the network access side.

23               Moving to the network domain security side

24   on the next chart, the question for the FCC is should

25   we adopt rules for this network domain security?      And

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   what we're really talking about here is the security

 2   requirements for exchanging user information and

 3   signaling information between nodes within the LT

 4   network.   And our conclusion was that again consistent

 5   with the LT standard that the network security domain

 6   should be implemented according to the 3GPP standards.

 7    And again, the justification for the uniform approach

 8   and interoperability.

 9              On the user domain side, this is the next

10   chart.   Really for completeness this was not an FCC

11   question, so I guess I don't know if we go extra

12   credit for going beyond, but this was relatively

13   straightforward for completeness to confirm that the

14   user domain security features of LTE be implemented.

15              Moving to the application domain security

16   side, and this is providing security between the user

17   side and the provider of applications.    And our view

18   was that I guess we were cognizant that there were two

19   types of applications and really we focused on the

20   necessity to provide security for those type of

21   applications that would be resident in the USIM, the

22   User Security Identity Module, not realizing that

23   perhaps there may not be a lot of call for this on the

24   public safety side.     But if there was that the

25   relevant 3GPP standards should be mandated for those

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   use-end based applications.

 2                We noted here as some of the other working

 3   groups did that VPN support is going to be extremely

 4   important in the public safety wireless broadband

 5   network and that the security approaches would be

 6   necessitated there, but we did not see the reason for

 7   those specific security features to be mandated at

 8   this time.

 9                And finally, the next chart, the visibility

10   and configurability of security, the viewpoint of the

11   working group was really that there's quite a

12   different orientation between how public safety would

13   view the configurability of security very different

14   from the commercial world.    And so the conclusion was

15   that while very often public safety requires that the

16   user know whether a particular session or

17   communication exchange is secure or not that was

18   really   not the spirit of LTE so that these 3GPP

19   standards related to visibility and configurability

20   should not be mandated.

21                However, if a particular jurisdiction did

22   require visibility function, again, the standard

23   should be use.    So I think that really summarizes the

24   working group position in detail in each one of the

25   security domains.    And I'll turn it back over to

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   Dr. Martinez to talk about the little bit farther

 2   feedback in the areas that were discussed in the

 3   working group.

 4                MR. MARTINEZ:   Thank you, Ken.

 5                We don't need to go through all of these.      I

 6   just want to mention a few.     Input we got from the

 7   Network Evolution Group was interesting.       There is a

 8   standard that is also based on this risk-based

 9   framework to X.805.    So the point being here that

10   there is a great body of work that we can draw from.

11   We don't need to reinvent the wheel.     We believe that

12   the application of robust standards is important and

13   ITOX -- certainly requires further consideration.

14                Let me go on to roaming to commercial

15   networks.    This is one that requires a bit more

16   discussion.    In roaming to commercial networks, there

17   are obviously a number of security issues and that is

18   what is the level of functionality that we support

19   between those networks and therefore how are they

20   protected?    We're in uncharted waters here, which is I

21   will say that Intercarrier roaming in the way that

22   we've been talking about it isn't really a very common

23   function.

24                The ability of a user device to roam across

25   networks is, of course, very common.     We do it all the

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   time.   But those networks themselves are not

 2   necessarily highly coupled.     There is an important

 3   distinction here to be made.     What typically happens

 4   is the user device will select a different network.

 5   Will be authenticated on that network and then perhaps

 6   transferring to the user is session persistent

 7   software in a VPN, for example, or an application is

 8   maintaining continuity of service.

 9               It looks to the user like they've roamed in

10   the sense we would think about it.     That isn't really

11   what happened.   So this is an area where based on the

12   architectural result of what level of interface is

13   supported between the PSPN and commercial networks a

14   great deal of security work will need to be done in

15   the future.   So I just want to point that out.

16               I think that's probably the last one that I

17   want to mention.   You have the record of other

18   comments.   We incorporated pretty much all of the

19   almost verbatim as they were given to us.      Thank you.

20               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Harlin.

21               MR. MCEWEN:   You lead right into a good

22   point that I'd like to make and that is that -- and I

23   welcome any comment from anybody here that has more

24   experience in this certainly than I do.     Everybody

25   that I've talked to says when you roam you basically

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   have to reauthenticate.    That's something that is

 2   really not very good for us.    I mean we really don't

 3   want that.

 4                So the point is that's why a lot of us, not

 5   knowing what we're doing and relying upon many of you

 6   in this room that are more technical want a single

 7   public safety network where we're not roaming, where

 8   we're maybe moving from one system to another, but

 9   within a network that would let that from happening.

10   That's one of our goals.     I don't know how we do it or

11   what it means, but we know what we want.

12                The second thing is that that leads to the

13   issue about the roaming onto commercial networks.      In

14   other words, whenever that happens, unless somebody

15   can tell me how you've addressed that or fixed that,

16   we've been told that is going to be likely the

17   situation you see or you observe.    Those are two

18   things that are of great concern to us.

19                The third thing I wanted to mention is that

20   in law enforcement the people that are really in

21   charge of exchange of law enforcement sensitive

22   information is the FBI Advisory Policy Board.    And

23   they set the standards for security encryption and so

24   on and under all circumstances that has to be

25   followed.    I mean they're the people that set that.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   Law enforcement is required to follow those standards.

 2    I can guarantee you that in some cases that may not

 3   be the case today because when you're using commercial

 4   networks that isn't always followed.     But those are

 5   the kinds of things that we want to make sure -- I

 6   didn't read every word of your report, but I assume

 7   that you recognize that, right?

 8             MR. MARTINEZ:   Yes, we did.    And in fact, we

 9   got some great comments from the other work groups on

10   the notion.   We've included those comments in the

11   report that there are federal statutes in effect.        For

12   example, HIPAA, those are just two examples.     There

13   are certainly more.   There are requirements for strong

14   or two factor authentication.   We've mentioned those.

15    And of course, there are state and local ordinances

16   that must also be followed.   And there, indeed, may

17   need to be a system of precedence between those

18   different security policies if and when they conflict.

19    That's going to be an important topic.

20             MR. MCEWEN:   That's good.   Thank you.

21             MR. MARTINEZ:   Your comments, Harlin, are

22   really quite appropriate relative to roaming.     I

23   believe there is a strong feeling among the membership

24   here of PSAC, not just our working group, that it

25   really wouldn't be a good idea to have this

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   authentication happen as users roam.       In a degree to

 2   which we cannot let that happen, it's probably a good

 3   thing.

 4                And to the degree to which we can support

 5   true handover, not just roaming but handover is even

 6   more important.    Nirvana in this network would be that

 7   we have handover across the entire network, which is

 8   an even stronger form of roaming, if you wish.      But in

 9   all likelihood today, and I welcome others to comment,

10   we don't see a path to where you're not going to have

11   to reauthenticate between commercial networks and the

12   public safety network.       That's just a security system

13   that's just not likely to be implemented.

14                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Which may mean, and I

15   just want to make sure I hear you right.      Which may

16   mean that the earlier reference to being transient as

17   opposed to roaming becomes even more important.

18                MR. MARTINEZ:   It very much does.

19                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   A comment here and then

20   over here.    Roger?

21                MR. NEAL:   Yes, I think Dennis and Harlin

22   you're correct in the way that it works today in the

23   commercial networks is as you move to truly a foreign

24   network, a visited network you do have to

25   reauthenticate today.     I'm not sure that you wouldn't

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   want to do that from a security perspective and I

 2   think Dennis I believe that's what you were saying.

 3   As a security matter you want that by design anyway.

 4             MR. MARTINEZ:     Right.

 5             MR. NEAL:    And I think your assumption is

 6   correct is all I'm saying, Harlin.     That's how it

 7   works today.    But at the level we are, and we're not

 8   really at the engineering level yet, we can still

 9   specify and make recommendations and requirements

10   about things and talk to the technology experts to

11   come up with solutions.    I think that's possible.

12             And as far as how all this is going to work

13   in a transient, roaming-like inter-public safety

14   network I don't think that that's determined yet, but

15   I'm confident that given requirements that it can be

16   solved.

17             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Yes.   Roger?

18             MR. QUAYLE:     This is a technical

19   clarification on roaming authentication and to

20   Harlin's comment.    Assuming even we had the single

21   PLMN ID and the public safety user say roams from

22   Washington to New York to participate in mutual aide,

23   even though it's the same PLMN ID you still would need

24   to reauthenticate.    Any real scenario where you don't

25   have to reauthenticate is if you're continually

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   handing over between networks, which mean that you

 2   don't drop coverage at any point for more than a few

 3   seconds.   So real authentication, whether it's on your

 4   home network or on the visitor's network is something

 5   that's going to happen frequently anyway and is fully

 6   catered for in the standards.

 7              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Ajit?

 8              MR. KAHANDUNE:    Yes, I agree with Roger.   In

 9   fact, you can reauthenticate within your own network

10   because we have timers and when the timer expires we

11   don't give you a lease forever for your credentials.

12   We have to recheck you.

13              Going back to the commercial networks, there

14   is one possible solution.    If there is a network

15   sharing agreement in place where the public safety

16   PLMN ID is being transmitted on the commercial network

17   and we used a mokin feature and 3GPP where the traffic

18   would go back to the core we could escape having that

19   kind of roaming scenario.    You're on another network,

20   but you're not actually physically roaming then.

21              MR. MARTINEZ:    I think it's important to

22   make a distinction.     There is at the technical level,

23   if you look at bits and bytes across an interface,

24   there is continual reauthentication happening.    That's

25   part of the protocol.    What I think the point we were

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   trying to make was you don't want that to be visible

 2   to the users.    You don't want the users to have to

 3   keep entering credentials if you have a security

 4   policy that requires it.

 5                MR. MCEWEN:   We don't want those

 6   firefighters to be --

 7                MR. MARTINEZ:    Yes.   But the standard

 8   requires us, as has been noted by our two colleagues

 9   here.   The standard requires a reauthentication

10   process at various steps along the way.        That's

11   different.

12                MR. MCEWEN:   Thank you for the

13   clarification.

14                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    And for a matter of

15   record, the firefighters will be using your

16   credentials just for the fun of it.

17                (Laughter.)

18                MR. MCEWEN:   That's called role-based

19   security or lack thereof.

20                MR. STEINBERG:    Dennis, congrats on a great

21   report.   Two thoughts of maybe something to consider

22   going forward.    They're kind of in the mundane, but

23   they tend to be important.

24                One is just physical administrative

25   security, especially -- and it's impossible to know

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   what that needs to be without knowing the network

 2   architecture and what's national, what's local because

 3   you've got different administrative domains one of

 4   which could take the other out if it's improperly

 5   protected.

 6                The second is what you were just pulling on

 7   is the physical security around the device like the

 8   USIM itself because that thing moves around and how

 9   that's going to be manufactured, deployed, that sort

10   of thing is probably something else to be considered.

11    But again, it's probably too early to tell until we

12   see a little bit more.

13                MR. MARTINEZ:    Great point.   There was a

14   very, very small point ion the report, probably most

15   people missed it.    There is a very important

16   architectural issue with LTE in that the security

17   features we've talked about that are standardized are

18   only between the UEM and ENOB and therefore the ENOB

19   store crypto material.       As Paul, you and I know that's

20   not a practice we generally like to have in public

21   safety because those are not protected locations.

22                The way we've reconciled that challenge is

23   that if you need to have a level of security that does

24   not allow for that type of physical access, then you

25   have to do that a higher layer where it's end to end.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1    It's a footnote.    It's in the report.    I'll find the

 2   footnote.   It's actually one of the columns that Ken

 3   referred to that because we're not assuming today that

 4   the sites are physically secure, but yet they are

 5   carrying crypto material there are certain security

 6   implications that need to be understood.

 7               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    How may folks do we have

 8   on the phone bridge?    Do we have any?

 9               UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:    There are a bunch of

10   us, I think.

11               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Eight on the phone

12   bridge?   Okay.   Thank you.

13               Welcome phone bridge folks.     Any questions

14   from the phone bridge?

15               (No response.)

16               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Any further questions or

17   comments on this report?       Yes, Bill?

18               MR. SCHRIER:    I just wanted to commend

19   Dennis and the Security team for this report.      I

20   certainly learned a lot from the report and I also

21   thank you for taking some of the comments like the

22   rural-based security.      Clearly, that for law

23   enforcement especially with access to MTIC and other

24   databases, but also for folks like EMTs who may need

25   to access patient information the security is

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   absolutely essential, not just to comply with federal

 2   law, but to protect privacy as well.    So great report.

 3               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Further questions or


 5               (No response.)

 6               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Doctor, just one

 7   question.   I'm looking at page 15 of 29 on the network

 8   access security.   And this is because I'm not very

 9   sophisticated at this, we're talking about the

10   signaling layer security feature.     One of the

11   challenges we have under this notion -- and the reason

12   I'm not asking it next week is today is we're likely

13   to face this question tomorrow.    I'm trying to make

14   sure I'm dialed.

15               One of the challenges we have is this whole

16   notion of having priority on a network or being able

17   to preempt a network.   So now we're talking about

18   being transient on a network and roaming on a network.

19    And these two principles about preemption or priority

20   come to mind and I look at priority like trying to get

21   my first class upgrade.

22               You know if I'm in line I'm never going to

23   get the seat unless they know I'm there and the

24   current commercial network's design don't even know

25   I'm there until I get to the network.    So do you

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   address that in any way in here?    I'm sure it's not a

 2   part of this, but somehow instinctively it seems to me

 3   it is.

 4              MR. MARTINEZ:    We haven't specifically

 5   addressed that issue.   What we have said is that it is

 6   important that the security policy not interfere with

 7   those mechanisms, that it enable them.       So we haven't

 8   specifically said how you would approach that because

 9   that isn't obviously a security issue.       That's more of

10   an operability issue.   And I will say that there's a

11   great example of a feature that by virtue of having a

12   network that does handle continuous handover those

13   functions carry over.   That's standard in the LT.

14              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    The rules carry with it I

15   guess I'm saying.

16              MR. MARTINEZ:    And if implemented correctly,

17   then the behavior that you're looking for will be the

18   outcome.

19              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Thank you.    That's very

20   helpful.   Paul?

21              MR. STEINBERG:    Just a very quick

22   clarification, so the network has the knobs to turn to

23   set the priority as you will, yet you're really

24   talking about is some kind of an application layer,

25   something above what 3GPP defines policy charging the

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   rules function that makes the decisions based upon who

 2   you are, where you're are, or what you're trying to do

 3   what priority to request to the network and/or whether

 4   or not something else can be preempted in your behalf.

 5                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    And the network has got

 6   to see everyone that's queued to determine I'm

 7   important.

 8                MR. STEINBERG:    First, the policy engine has

 9   to see that and decide.       So it's a really important

10   point.    I don't think it's in any of these group

11   reports at all.

12                MR. MARTINEZ:    That is correct.

13                MR. STEINBERG:    And it's something that has

14   to be dealt with down the road for this network to

15   work.    It's not a commercial issue.     It's very

16   distinct for public safety.

17                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    And I get that sense.

18   Byron and then back to Dr. Martinez.

19                MR. NEAL:   Yes, a very similar comment.      I

20   understand that we don't want to create the burden of

21   you guys charging for air time and what not in a

22   roaming scenario and we're talking about this pseudo

23   roaming transient scenario, which we all agree I think

24   is what we're looking for and we'll solve that.       But

25   there may still need to be mechanisms in the network

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   that still look like roaming, even if you're not

 2   necessarily charging for it.    So the example I think

 3   of is if Bill Schrier's network here he's got a given

 4   number of users and for some week for whatever reason

 5   his network performance degrades and maybe it's

 6   because there is a firefighter seminar going on in

 7   Seattle and hundreds of Chief Johnson's guys are in

 8   Seattle consuming resources who are not normally

 9   there, for example.

10              I mean you at least need to know that that's

11   happen.   I would think that somewhere along the

12   network administrator line, whether you're charging

13   for roaming or not, you'd like to know that that kind

14   of thing is happening and probably like to see reports

15   on it and be able to manage your network

16   appropriately.

17              And perhaps in a case like that, that's a

18   policy enforcement point where if you're a visiting

19   entity on the network, even though you're a part of

20   the public safety community and we're not charging and

21   it's not true roaming, there may be some policy

22   decisions on preemption and quality that we need to

23   think about.    So all I'm saying is even though we

24   don't want to roam as we typically think of it as a

25   commercial matter, certainly from a financial

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   perspective there are some things that roaming

 2   services provide that at least help you manage the

 3   network as you have transients moving in and out.

 4                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Understood.   Roger?

 5                MR. KAHADUNE:   I think I might echo what

 6   Dr. Martinez says.    If you look at the questions that

 7   were given to the work groups, this kind of

 8   prioritization of users and applications when you're

 9   in transient operations really isn't covered by any

10   one group.

11                It's an operability question, how do yo want

12   to run your network, what kind of priorities do you

13   want to give for different classes of users.      And then

14   prioritization only matters when there is congestion,

15   ultimately.    So then you have to decide during that

16   time how do you deal with that.

17                User subscription gives a certain level.

18   There you can also if we use the GETS constructs you

19   have the ability to go higher, right, in the network.

20    And certainly for commercial networks GETS has

21   already been deployed and we've worked already in the

22   last two years to incorporate GETS with IMS as part of

23   the government program and bring it back to 3GPP.

24                So maybe that's a bigger question for the

25   next set of work.    Should we address priority and if

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   so, it needs to be looked at in a few different

 2   dimensions.   There's the user priority.    There's then

 3   applications level priority.    Then there's also

 4   transient operation priority that we need to look at,

 5   so there's a lot of things that need to be considered

 6   in reality when we look at priority from the system

 7   and it goes beyond the basic LT system.     We have to

 8   include the policy control as well because that's kind

 9   of our traffic cop in determining how users will be

10   treated when we're in a congested environment.

11               MR. MARTINEZ:   Maybe as a way to consolidate

12   this input the issue here I believe is something like

13   this.   When a carrier implements a network, they have

14   to select the operating parameters of that network

15   from within those that are supported by the standard.

16    And so that whole collection of configurations that

17   are typically setable, dynamically, or nondynamically

18   comprise the profile.   We call it the operating

19   profile of that network and a carrier does that

20   according to their business model or business

21   practice.

22               That is an area where there's a broad area

23   of policy to be created.    What is the policy relative

24   to priority and how is it implemented?     What is the

25   policy relative to quality of service, and so on and

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   so forth.   So that is a body of work that does need to

 2   be addressed in that how do you then configure or

 3   define the operating profile of a network?

 4               There are comments to this point in the

 5   fourth notice by various companies.      We have some

 6   particularly made comments to that affect that this is

 7   a very important step.

 8               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    That actually was very

 9   helpful to me.   And I tried to take notes to make sure

10   that we copy further areas of study.

11               MR. MARTINEZ:    Yes, sir.

12               MR. LEHR:   Just a quick question and then a

13   comment.    In the description of security you talk

14   about what's already in existence on the commercial

15   side, which obviously you've had a lot of experience

16   with.   Public safety is coming into this new, so

17   you're trying to take best practices and apply that to

18   public safety.

19               The one we haven't talked about is the

20   federal side of this.    And DoD, the FBI, Secret

21   Service if we build a network in the Washington, D.C.

22   area, they're all going to ride on that Public Safety

23   network when they have a presidential movement or

24   those sorts of things.      So are there any standards

25   that the DoD or the federal agencies have that we

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   haven't included in this or have we looked at that

 2   too?

 3                MR. MARTINEZ:    Very good questions.   But

 4   there are a whole collection of FIPS standards

 5   governing federal use of these kinds of networks.          We

 6   referenced some of those.       Other cementers to the

 7   fourth notice of proposal rulemaking did likewise.

 8   Yes, they're going to apply.       There are questions, for

 9   example, should user devices be required to be FIPS

10   certified?

11                Well, if you are, under certain conditions,

12   in compliance with certain federal mandates that may

13   have to happen.    Probably not all devices, but

14   certainly some and therefore only those devices that

15   have FIPS certifications will be able to run certain

16   applications.    That's inherent.     Yes.

17                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Any last questions or

18   comments before we call for a motion?

19                (No response.)

20                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    The chair would entertain

21   a motion.

22                MR. MCEWEN:   I move we accept the report.

23                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    We have a motion that's

24   seconded by Dr. Fontes.       Discussion on the motion?

25                (No response.)

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Phone bridge, discussion?

 2                (No response.)

 3                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Hearing none, all those

 4   in person that are in favor of the motion signify by

 5   saying aye.

 6                (Chorus of ayes.)

 7                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Opposed same sign.

 8                (No response.)

 9                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Phone bridge, if you're

10   opposed to the motion say nay.

11                (No response.)

12                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Motion carries

13   unanimously.    Congratulations.

14                We now entertain the report and body of work

15   by the Network Evolution working group presented by

16   Dr. Budka.    Ken?

17                MR. BUDKA:   Thank you, Chief Johnson.

18                The Network Evolution Committee also

19   benefitted from wide representation across the

20   different stakeholder groups that are represented here

21   on the FACCA.    We had broad representation from Public

22   Safety agencies and government agencies -- Ken Boley,

23   Bill Brownlow, Adel Ebeid, Doug Mah, Brant Mitchell,

24   Steve Noel, Andy Seybold.     Often Andy Seybold often

25   wears two hats, both representing the commercial

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   wireless view as well as a Public Safety view, Brad

 2   Stoddard and Gary Wingrove.

 3                Also, from the commercial service provider

 4   community Don Brewingham, Alex Coleman, Patricia

 5   Cooper, Steve Sharkey and Tom Sugrue.     And then from

 6   the Vendors Standards Committee myself, Ken Budka,

 7   Paul Steinberg vice chair of the Network Evolution

 8   Committee from Motorola Solution and Tom Goode from

 9   ATIS and Mark Polland, also from Motorola.

10                We had one question.   I guess we had half

11   the work of all the rest of the committees.      How to

12   establish network requirements that will ensure

13   evolution.    And from the outset, although this network

14   largely has not been built yet, considering network

15   evolution and what needs to be in place for network

16   evolution to happen from the beginning is a critical

17   element and some of the recommendations coming out of

18   our subcommittee deal with that.

19                Network evolution is the race without a

20   finish line and we just wanted to bring out the

21   interplay between the steady marching forward of

22   technology itself and also the use of that technology

23   by user groups.    And it's inherently this mix between

24   technology marching forward and how users are actually

25   using that technology that governs how the network

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   evolves, what elements of future technology should be

 2   incorporated into the network.

 3               Public Safety by adopting a commercial

 4   wireless technology is doing a bit of a paradigm shift

 5   and we looked at network evolution as a way to both

 6   take advantage of the benefits provided by commercial

 7   technologies' LT and also finding ways to mitigate

 8   some of the inherent risks that are involved in

 9   adopting a commercial wireless technology for public

10   safety use.

11               So in that spirit, commercial service

12   providers deal with this evolution question every day.

13    We took at look at the best current practices

14   currently used for network evolution by commercial

15   service providers.   We thought that in that are some

16   useful lessons that we can adopt for public safety.

17               Evolution is largely driven by the types of

18   applications and the types of devices that will be

19   used on this network over time.   And we took a look at

20   the NIPSTICK Broadband Taskforce report.   There's an

21   excellent set of applications there.   Not all of those

22   applications can be supported on day one on the waiver

23   networks.

24               We took a look at what needs to evolve and

25   what needs to happen in a network to support that full

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   suite and full spectrum of applications.   Supporting

 2   those applications have wide-ranging impact on the

 3   actual infrastructure that's deployed, the types of

 4   devices that are used, the types of testing as well as

 5   costs.   So we thought this was a nice way to drive the

 6   discussion about network evolution.

 7              Also, by understanding how LTE the

 8   technology itself is evolving over time and the

 9   factors that drive that evolution, public safety is

10   becoming part of the broader LTE ecosystem.     And by

11   understanding how LTE is evolving, how commercial

12   service providers are using LTE is a great way to be

13   able to anticipate where things may be headed in the

14   future, also to influence and impact how the

15   technology is evolving over time and how to also deal

16   with the risks that are involved and benefits in

17   adopting that technology.

18              As source material, we also looked at the

19   FNPRM comments and the body of reply comments.     And by

20   taking all of this basically developed a broad set of

21   recommendations for network evolution of the public

22   safety wireless broadband network.    Thank you, Bill,

23   for that comment.   We've changed that also.

24              An item that came up early on in our

25   discussion, it's tough to talk about network evolution

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   without having a basis for how decisions are made in

 2   evolving the network, how requirements are fed up to a

 3   governing body.   Governance is outside the scope of

 4   our Network Evolution Committee, but there is an

 5   overarching need for some sort of governance structure

 6   to facilitate network evolution as this evolves over

 7   time.   So we tabled that as an item for further study,

 8   but it's an essential item for network evolution.

 9              We took a look at the factors that are

10   driving commercial network evolution.   If you look at

11   why LTE is being deployed in the commercial service

12   provider space, one of the key driving elements is the

13   performance of the network technology, the delay, the

14   throughput, the speeds, the types of applications that

15   can be supported on the network as well as spectra

16   efficiency, network capacity, how much can actually be

17   carried over this infrastructure.

18              An important item is the cost of operating

19   and maintaining this network and deploying this

20   network.   It's a huge element in commercial network

21   evolution decision and how technology evolves.

22   Performance and cost devices, ability to support new

23   applications, and also the availability and

24   suitability of spectrum, these are all factors that

25   are driving the commercial wireless evolution and

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   driving the adoption of LTE.

 2                We take a look at how commercial service

 3   providers manage network evolution.    First and

 4   foremost is the recognition that there is explicit

 5   management of network evolution to the point of the

 6   networks are designed to be obsolete over time.

 7   Devices and network infrastructure is designed to be

 8   obsolete over time and there is typically a

 9   centralized structure that is making these evolution

10   decisions.

11                These evolution decisions are multifaceted.

12    They impact devices.    They impact back haul.    They

13   impact operations.    They impact costs.   All of these

14   factors are weighed in as commercial service providers

15   decide when and how to evolve their infrastructure

16   going forward.    This planning is based on cost benefit

17   based decision making.    Each new feature, each new

18   element of the network is looked at from the

19   perspective of the benefits of adding that

20   functionality as well as the costs.

21                An important part in network evolution going

22   forward is using the LTE ecosystem itself as a way to

23   manage the risks in a shared way across all of the

24   stakeholders.    And commercial service providers do

25   this by what's called aligning the LTE ecosystem and

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   it's the technological view of just-in-time

 2   manufacturing where functionality is first

 3   standardized, but is not rolled out into the network

 4   until devices exists that support that functionality,

 5   applications exist, there's some element of stability

 6   in that platform.    And that alignment of the ecosystem

 7   creates skill economies and lowers costs and risks.

 8                Throughout technological evolution also is

 9   the important issue of what's called backward

10   compatibility in the commercial wireless space.    In

11   the public safety space, I would use the word

12   interoperability.    As technology marches forward,

13   making sure that devices and applications still work

14   and still provide the level of functionality and

15   performance provided.    That doesn't happen by

16   accident.    It happens through the setting of clear

17   requirements and testing, testing, testing, and all

18   those elements are an essential part of network

19   evolution.

20                Taking a look at the applications that were

21   specified by the NIPSTICK Broadband Taskforce report

22   we broke these into two sets of applications.     A set

23   of applications which in the commercial world are

24   known as over-the-top applications.     And over-the-top

25   applications are applications that work as long as I

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   have access to an IP network I can run those

 2   applications.   They're operable.    They may not

 3   necessarily have some of the advanced features that

 4   you would expect in a public safety network, but

 5   providing basic Internet access, VPN access, status

 6   info homepages, field-based server apps such as CAD

 7   and RMS.

 8              Applications can run on top of a basic IP

 9   network service.    Also, access to responders under

10   incident command.   All of these over-the-top

11   applications can be provided on day one on the waiver

12   network that are being deployed.

13              As we look forward to evolving the network,

14   there are ways that you can enhance the functionality

15   that the network provides to make these applications

16   mission critical and primarily in the area of priority

17   services and security services.     So there are

18   applications that will run on day one that can be

19   enhanced over time with new features and new services

20   provided by the network.

21              Then there's a whole class of applications

22   that we're calling non-over-the-top applications,

23   which have implications on the network and devices and

24   the broader infrastructure.   Short message service and

25   multimedia message services are elements to provide

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   that type of functionality in the network require

 2   additional elements, potentially an IP multimedia

 3   system.    There are other ways to provide that

 4   functionality as well.

 5               Providing access to a land mobile radio

 6   gateway with quality of service also needs some hooks

 7   into the LT network to make that happen.    Also,

 8   location-based data capability using some network

 9   assisted features.    So rather than just GPS in a

10   device using the fact that you know a device is

11   talking to a certain cell face can be used to help

12   isolate and locate first responders in the field.     But

13   accessing that type of functionality requires some

14   additional features and capabilities in the network.

15               One element that's been talked about in

16   earlier discussions is this multimedia broadcast,

17   multicast service.    This is a scalable way to take a

18   stream of data, whether it be a video or voice stream

19   and deliver it to a very large number of first

20   responders.    This is a feature that is occurring in

21   the LT standards later in the phase and also

22   introduction of devices and software that support that

23   functionality is coming later.    That also affects the

24   types of applications that can be supported on the

25   network.

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Doctor, just a question

 2   about that.

 3                MR. BUDKA:   Sure.

 4                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:     Is that technology that

 5   can carry over to voice communications, not just

 6   multimedia?    The one to many feature is a big part of

 7   public safety requirements on a broadband network.

 8                MR. BUDKA:   There are ways you could provide

 9   voice service to multiple users that don't use this

10   service.   I think Roger was alluding to that earlier

11   where I can send a -- if we all happen to be in the

12   same cell as we are today, take a copy of the voice

13   packet, duplicate it 30, 40 times and send a separate

14   copy out to each user.       That's operable.   It works.

15   But you can see in certain cases that that not going

16   to scale well.

17                That additional piece is it evolves

18   multimedia broadcast, multicast service where all of

19   us can basically listen to the same stream

20   simultaneously.    One packet is sent out and we all

21   receive it simultaneously.        That's a basic building

22   block for streaming video to a large number of users

23   and also voice to a large number of users.

24                MR. MARTINEZ:   Ken, could you -- EDMBS and

25   multitask?    Multitask as --      I think there is an

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   important distinction.

 2                MR. BUDKA:    Sure.

 3                MR. MARTINEZ:    I know we're not in the Q&A

 4   phase, but given that Chief Johnson asked a question I

 5   thought this should be elaborated on.

 6                MR. QUAYLE:    I think he has his question

 7   marks on the difference between EDPMS and LTE and the

 8   3GPP standards and IP multicast.      We have experience

 9   in this, for example, in the New York network.         And

10   the network inherently is transparent to a IP

11   multicast stream, but the router upstream of the

12   network that's multicast enable basically takes that

13   multicast packet and breaks it up and sends it out

14   individually as Ken was describing a moment ago to all

15   the users.

16                So if you've got 60 first responders

17   involved in say a group call, then you're using 60

18   units of capacity on that cell site.       EDMBS in LTE is

19   multimedia broadcast and multicast servers.

20   Multimedia simply across planes that can be voice,

21   video, data, whatever.       And the M is multicast.    And

22   multicast and LTE essentially means that you're

23   sending the same information out to all users on a

24   central cell.    And broadcast is different in that it

25   becomes network wired or region wide where all of the

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   cell sties simultaneously transmit the same content

 2   and then the receiver and the user device can

 3   constructively combine that.    It's a bit like

 4   simulcast in LMR systems.

 5             So I think in most cases group calls would

 6   be carried with multicast because you'd always have

 7   different number of users on each cell sites.     Things

 8   like say daily briefings to first responders, new

 9   software downloads and other information that needs to

10   go out to a very large number of users network-wide

11   would go out using the broadcast part of EDMBS.

12             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Thank you.

13             MR. BUDKA:    Back to Harlin's earlier point,

14   some of these important points about evolution are

15   down in the weeds, but they have huge ramifications on

16   how the service works and also mission criticality of

17   the service.

18             Today the commercial wireless carriers are

19   deploying their push-to-talk service using this

20   multicast service where every voice packet that goes

21   out to every user is copied and replicated and sent

22   out to all the participants.    This works fine when you

23   have a small number of users or they happen to be

24   scattered throughout the network.    If you have an

25   incident with hundreds of responders all in the same

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   spot the dispatcher sends out a broadcast alert to

 2   potentially hundreds of users on the scene it breaks

 3   down.   So that's an important part of evolution.

 4   Paul?

 5              MR. STEINBERG:    And just to underscore your

 6   point, with the MBS -- so if you want to add

 7   capability like this later you really have to plan it

 8   out in a very careful way as to how you introduce it

 9   across the network and the devices nationwide in an

10   interoperable way, so these are tricky things to

11   actually work through.

12              MR. BUDKA:    So this timing element of

13   standards marching forward, there is this timing

14   element of readiness of devices.    There's also this

15   timing element of the types of applications and also

16   the operational scenarios that first responders will

17   be using this service for.    They are inherently

18   interrelated and one of our recommendations is --

19   we'll get toward the end is -- the need to actually

20   plan a roadmap, an application roadmap, a feature

21   introduction roadmap where we are explicitly looking

22   at this.

23              This is a great way to align the ecosystem

24   so that the market knows what's coming.    They know

25   what public safety needs and that alignment also takes

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   into account a couple of more factors, which we'll

 2   bring in.   And we mentioned one a little bit earlier,

 3   lagging the commercial market to take advantage of the

 4   testing as well as the maturity and the development of

 5   the ecosystem that that's an important part of this

 6   evolution roadmap as well.

 7               So any other questions or comments?

 8               (No response.)

 9               MR. BUDKA:   So this notion of this

10   interrelation between the types of applications that

11   are supported on the network and the types of features

12   and functionality that are in the network, costs,

13   operational profiles it's all interrelated and needs

14   to be considered at the same time.

15               I just want to take a brief walk through a

16   view of what's happening in 3GPP standards.       This is

17   the standards body that has standardized LTE and other

18   related technologies.    You see this steady evolution

19   of functionality, starting with the walk before you

20   run.   The first release coming out of the LT standards

21   we've heard called Release 8.    This is primarily

22   providing broadband data access and the market driver

23   there is commercial providers have voice networks and

24   now they want to put high-speed data for the smart

25   phones and tablets that are out there.    This drive for

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   higher capacity, being able to carry more and more

 2   data in a cell site.     That was the primary driver for

 3   the development of Release 8 and a lot of the radio

 4   functionality that's in LTE that makes it so spectral

 5   efficient and makes it so high speed come in Release

 6   8.   Follow onto that is Release 9.   Release 9 is

 7   building off of that initial base of functionality.

 8   It's building on the existing network elements that

 9   have been defined in Release 8 and adding some

10   additional functionality.

11              So support for emergency calls, LTE location

12   services it's multimedia broadcast/multicast service

13   that core network elements of that support were there,

14   priority services, commercial mobile alerting service,

15   also some self-organized network features.

16              Release 10 is what's being standardized

17   currently and the primary driver there is to get even

18   higher and higher data rates up to a gigabyte per

19   second down, 500 meg up.    And in that release we're

20   introducing a lot of advanced techniques to basically

21   increase capacity.

22              MR. MCEWEN:    Ken?

23              MR. BUDKA:    Yes, sir.

24              MR. MCEWEN:    What is the timeframe?

25              MR. BUDKA:    Release 8 and Release 9 are

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   done.    Release 10 I think will be ratified -- Roger,

 2   do you remember?

 3               MR. KAHADUNE:    June.

 4               MR. BUDKA:    June?    Thanks Ajit.   It's June.

 5               I'll also mention these dates shift in time

 6   and it's largely driven by the underlying work.

 7   There's a lot of stuff under the hood when you say a

 8   certain feature.    R&D that has to be done, also

 9   different interfaces that have to be specified.        There

10   is a lot of coupling.     So sometimes these dates

11   actually shift.    I think the Release 10 date has

12   probably shifted four or five times since it was

13   originally allocated.     But it's again driven by market

14   dynamics and market needs.        So 10 will be ratified.

15               MR. MCEWEN:    Mr. Chairman, can I ask another

16   question?

17               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:      Please.

18               MR. MCEWEN:    So one other question, Ken.

19   For those of us, particularly somebody like Bill

20   Schrier or others that are participating being early

21   builders and haven't built anything yet the whole

22   questions because we've been talking about this and

23   talking about it, and like you say these shift in

24   dates.   So if I were building a network and I hadn't

25   build it yet, why would I build to 8 when 9 is already

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   done?   I mean it's a logical question.

 2              MR. BUDKA:    I think you are a straight man

 3   maybe for my next slide.

 4              MR. MCEWEN:    Okay.    I'll wait.

 5              MR. BUDKA:    An important thing to

 6   internalize here is that evolution of LT standards are

 7   driven by the commercial wireless market.       And in

 8   order to get benefit of all of that testing, all that

 9   development, the user devices, the economies of scale

10   you want to lag behind what service providers are

11   putting out in the field.     So right now service

12   providers the systems that they're putting in are

13   largely Release 8 compliant systems.

14              There may be some service providers that are

15    picking and choosing some elements of some Release 9

16   functionality and including them in their deployments.

17    So that's the other thing.       It's not black and white

18   Release 8, Release 9, Release 10.      It's based on the

19   state of the standards, based on the state of devices.

20    Each carrier makes their own decisions about what

21   functionality actually goes in there.       So it's

22   important for Public Safety to be aware of what's

23   actually happening in the commercial market.

24              Release 9 a lot of those services are being

25   deployed right now and will be over the next year or

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   two.    Our recommendation is to lag, to be not

 2   necessarily on the leading edge.

 3               MR. MCEWEN:    I heard you Jeff and I

 4   understand.    I just wanted a little bit more

 5   explanation.

 6               MR. BUDKA:    Thank you, Harlin.    Yes, Robert?

 7               MR. QUAYLE:    If I could just add a bit more

 8   color to that.    Once a new release is out like

 9   Release 9 was out last year, some of the technology

10   companies and vendors were active in promoting certain

11   features, starting the development while the standards

12   are still in progress, but then others wait until

13   after the standard is published.         So it can actually

14   be two or three years before the vendor community

15   actually supports a new release in product.        And then,

16   particularly with the user equipment you then have to

17   go through the certification process again, or at

18   least part of the certification process.        So it means

19   that, particularly for Public Safety where you don't

20   want to take risk there is a fairly severe risk in

21   moving too earlier with a new release.

22               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Good.    Thank you.

23               MR. BUDKA:    Another point to make, another

24   way to view the release process is it's a plan for a

25   plan.   A lot of the standardization of features gets

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   decided well in advance of the work to design and

 2   develop the features.       When it actually comes down to

 3   implementation decisions, some features that might be

 4   part of the Release 8 standard or the Release 9

 5   standard or Release 10 standard may not actually see

 6   the light of day.

 7                So that's another important part of network

 8   evolution is public safety as being part of the LT

 9   ecosystem.    Evolution decisions have to be based on

10   what's actually happening in the market.      That's a

11   risk area, to look at what functionality is actually

12   being adopted and when and time introduction based on

13   what's happening in the broader marketplace.

14                Yes, Bill?

15                MR. SCHRIER:    I just wanted to mention in

16   response partially to what Harlin had to say I'm

17   actually kind of glad that we're not an earlier

18   builder and implementing right now for all the reasons

19   you talk about.    Although we do have a waiver and we'd

20   like to build out, we're still trying to put together

21   the funding package.

22                However, I just wanted to point out that

23   Charlotte, which has VTOP funding, issued an RFP,

24   which is on the street now and specified Release 9 as

25   part of their RFP.    I thought it was interesting.        I

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   don't know whether it was Dennis or Ajit who mentioned

 2   earlier today that no commercial carrier has yet

 3   deployed Release 9, which I think is interesting.

 4              MR. BUDKA:    This also came up, and it will

 5   come up in our discussion about evolution is it's also

 6   the benefit in really coalescing some of these

 7   decisions because you have your most power in the

 8   market when you are united.    If there is fragmented

 9   decision making and fragmented requirements that ends

10   up not necessarily driving the market as effectively

11   as when there is a unified front.

12              MR. MCEWEN:    So I think you raise a good

13   point Bill and that is that these early builders like

14   Charlotte are making decisions maybe in less than an

15   enlightened fashion, and I'm not being critical of

16   them.   But I'm merely saying that I'd heard this

17   before and I was just trying to get you to say it

18   again for everybody benefit because the question goes

19   right down to if you're at the rubber meets the road

20   place like Charlotte and they're making that decision

21   today they need the benefit of this kind of a

22   discussion.   It isn't happening as much as it ought

23   to.

24              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    And to emphasize why

25   that's important is even though we know that the

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   waiver communities, the waiver jurisdictions were

 2   issued the waiver with one of the expressed reasons

 3   for doing so were to be test beds.     Test beds by their

 4   very nature means some work; some don't.    Some work

 5   better than others.    But I guarantee you just up the

 6   street here will not be interpreted as a test bed when

 7   one doesn't work.     It'll be used as an exhibit.

 8             MR. MARTINEZ:    I think that we have to

 9   underscore that issue, which is that they're going to

10   set first impressions for the industry, the Public

11   Safety community, for policymakers and it is important

12   that they be educated, all be educated on the risks.

13   I really commend the group here for their discussions

14   on this topic.    The risk of moving too quickly in

15   advance of commercial deployable standards.     That is

16   very, very risky.    Thank you, Ken.

17             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Yes, it's not like buying

18   the latest processor on your computer and hoping it'll

19   last longer.    This is actually detrimental to getting

20   ahead of the commercial network.

21             MR. BUDKA:    We had a nice comment from the

22   Security and Authentication Group about really the

23   benefits of an evolution plan.     So one thing it's a

24   plan and everybody knows where we're going.     But it

25   really has an important role in aligning the LTE

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   ecosystem.    If service providers, manufacturers of

 2   hardware/software know what's coming that helps reduce

 3   the R&D risk that is faced.    It also helps stage

 4   things so that things are done in a way that makes

 5   sense for the broader market.

 6                So network evolution is multifaceted.   We

 7   just wanted to tee up some of the facets that need to

 8   be considered.    So one thing we've talked about

 9   already over this last little bit is the benefit of

10   lagging commercial deployments and also looking at the

11   suite of functionality that is provided and is being

12   used in commercial networks and choosing the

13   functionality which is useful to public safety that's

14   also being used by commercial service providers.

15                And when there is deviation, when there's

16   need for special security services and security

17   functionality, do that in a way that is harmony with

18   the development of the commercial standards, but

19   provides that level of customization that's needed for

20   public safety.

21                Compatibility another word for

22   interoperability.    If you look at the testing and the

23   level of planning that's required for network

24   evolution and evolving a network in a way that is

25   going to maintain backward compatibility and

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   interoperability there are multiple facets of

 2   compatibility and interoperability between

 3   applications, between the device and the network,

 4   between network elements and also between networks.

 5   And that last element is particularly important when

 6   we talk about roaming and roaming onto different

 7   networks.

 8               Another important part of evolution is

 9   coverage and the evolution of coverage, both in the

10   geographic footprint as the network starts to grow and

11   different regions start to -- their RF boundaries

12   start to overlap that's something that needs to be

13   planned into the evolution and also the enhancement of

14   coverage over time needs to be planned in over time.

15               Capacity, it you look at the amount of

16   capacity, the amount of data that can be carried per

17   cell site we expect that to grow over time as Public

18   Safety begins to experiment and use more and more

19   applications and see the value of broadband data to

20   their operations.   Over time we expect capacity needs

21   to grow and evolution needs to cope with that steady

22   growth of bearing and signaling.

23               Network resiliency is also something built

24   in over time and security is another one of those

25   races without a finish line in both development of

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   supplemental and improved practices over time to

 2   respond to threats as well as adoption of network-wide

 3   security best practices.     We think that's an essential

 4   element of network evolution.

 5               So I think at this point are there any other

 6   questions or comments?     Dick?

 7               MR. MIRGON:    I was sitting here wondering

 8   how much parallel there is between software and

 9   hardware?   I saw there are some phone switches and

10   other stuff that I bought over the years that they

11   talk about evergreen technology and you hit a point in

12   software where the hardware can't support some of the

13   software changes.   So as you go through this evolution

14   I mean how do make sure they stay in sync so you have

15   that backward compatibility, but yet you can still

16   move forward.   Because I imagine there's a point in

17   time that a chip set doesn't work with a software rev.

18               MR. BUDKA:    That's an important element of a

19   network evolution plan.     That's one of the risks that

20   are faced in evolving a network forward.      There are

21   ways that the network can be designed and architected

22   to minimize those risks and separate those issues so

23   that you have as little conflict as possible.

24               Dennis, do you want to comment?    Go ahead.

25               MR. SCHRIER:   Please finish.

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1             MR. BUDKA:     I mean it's a hard question

 2   because really it's one of those areas where you use

 3   design and architecture to mitigate some of the risks

 4   that are inherent in not knowing two or three years

 5   from now what a device is going to look like.      What's

 6   the device architecture going to look like you're not

 7   sure, but by designing the network in a way that some

 8   of that doesn't matter, or if it does matter it only

 9   affects a small subset of component.      That's kind of

10   the art of the design.

11             MR. MARTINEZ:       That is a great question.

12   And this is an example of be careful what you ask for

13   because you might get it.

14             In Public Safety the expectation is are my

15   radios going to last 10 or 15 years.      That is an

16   expectation.    That is not an expectation to have in

17   this environment.    Right?    Part of evolution is going

18   to be to educate the community that there's going to

19   have to be a turn rate that's different than what

20   you're used to.    But the good news is hopefully the

21   devices are not as expensive, but you're going to have

22   to turn them a lot faster than you have been.

23             MR. MIRGON:     Just as a follow up, I don't

24   get overly concerned about the devices because I think

25   if we stay in sync with the commercial networks pretty

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   much as I manage 300 cell phones I sell them somewhat

 2   disposable for the price they were.   When you consider

 3   the price of public safety, I get more concerned about

 4   he NOBs, the backbone, the things that are 20 and

 5   $30,000 components.

 6              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   I think this point cannot

 7   be overstated that Public Safety has to change our

 8   context around this issue, specifically   in this

 9   regard.   When we're on the Hill we will often talk

10   about capturing the advantages of using

11   commercially-available technology in ruggedized public

12   safety devices that are mission critical.     That is

13   absolutely true on a per device basis.

14              But the churn rate to keep up is going to

15   mean we don't have this radio for ten years.     We may

16   have it for two or three years, so we may drop the

17   price from $4,000, but we may buy three or four of

18   them over the same life cycle.   But in terms of how

19   quickly you have to swap out your equipment, but the

20   productivity or the effectiveness or the efficiency of

21   that is going to completely leave anything we've

22   imagined before.

23              MR. BUDKA:   This also has a huge implication

24   on the way these networks are funded.    So evolution is

25   a continuous process.   In order to stay current, in

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   order to keep updating you are from day one buying

 2   into a model where you will be replacing.      You will be

 3   updating.   And if the funding profile is not there to

 4   support that type of evolution, we're in trouble.

 5               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Dorothy?

 6               MS. SPEARS-DEAN:    Thank you.

 7               To the comment about funding, it's

 8   absolutely critical because when you look at the

 9   procurement of local and state governments that a

10   sustainability model.     There are two parts of it.     I

11   would imagine that there will be some eventual federal

12   dollars coming in that will help to act as seed money

13   to help establish LTE systems.     But the bigger burden

14   will fall to local and state governments in terms of

15   being able to fund this.     That's sustainability model.

16               So the education process is not just about

17   the technology.   It's not just about the new

18   procurement cycle.   It's about developing a funding

19   model on the local and state government level that

20   will sustain this moving forward because that's the

21   other shoe that has to fall.      And if that's not in

22   place, then the progress will come to a screeching

23   halt.

24               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Right.   Leonard?

25               MR. EDLING:   Also, going back to talking

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   about the network evolution and public safety, staying

 2   one realm behind, the RFP that's gone out looking at

 3   Release 9 one of the things we've also got to factor

 4   in here is typically a commercial cycle moves through

 5   the hoops rather more quickly than does a Public

 6   Safety entity.    I would guess, at least speaking from

 7   knowing a lot of the larger agencies from RFP to

 8   contract is anywhere from 12 to 24 months, then your

 9   build starts.

10                So maybe that RFP going out at 9 isn't a bad

11   thing because 10 will already be implemented prior to

12   the build being complete.     So part of the education is

13   understanding the commercial time line associated with

14   those releases and that's got to be then broken down

15   into the Public Safety timeframes of this release will

16   probably see commercial carriers and devices in this

17   timeframe.

18                And if we're putting on an RFP now, were

19   does our time cycle go and where do we fall into that

20   overall picture and that's where we have to aim maybe

21   on the Public Safety end, moving forward as well,

22   understanding that there's much different procurement

23   cycles and build cycles form commercial to public

24   safety.

25                MR. KAHADUNE:   In think in general, for

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   network evolution from the report was very good in

 2   laying out the considerations.   When we look at the

 3   Public Safety network now going to LT of a kind of a

 4   planned obsolescence plan has to be part of the mix

 5   because even today we're talking about Release 8 as a

 6   baseline and we already have Release 10 will be

 7   completed in June when a Public Safety entity may --

 8   even though we talked about starting from Release 8,

 9   from an RFP environment you'd want to put in hardware

10   functionality support for future releases because you

11   do have a plan to migrate.

12               The governance of the network has to have a

13   plan in general when we want to roll out a feature or

14   a release what's our baseline for the nation and when

15   do we want to achieve that, right?    And there has to

16   be a longer term plan is what Ken was saying, so that

17   it's very clear to everyone because that also drives

18   your capital cycle and off -- cycles that need to be

19   there.

20               Devices themselves I mean new features can

21   come.    It doesn't mean the old devices stop working.

22   They were just capped at where they are.   Maybe some

23   new requirements.   To give a good example, on a

24   location service if you didn't have GPS a few years

25   ago, then GPS came, so we can only do location to a

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   certain extent.   If you have GPS, we can do a much

 2   finer location spot on you.    So the richness of the

 3   functionalities will be capped on the older devices.

 4   New devices will have more.    In terms of network

 5   elements, it's more about ensuring from a hardware

 6   point of view the requirements that are put in place

 7   have enough forward-looking aspects so that additional

 8   software features that come or maybe even have

 9   hardware impacts are accounted for, but that has to be

10   in this master plan for the network.

11              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Harlin?

12              MR. MCEWEN:    On the funding issue, Dorothy,

13   you're absolutely right.    I mean this is critical

14   because probably the user devices for the most part

15   will be bought locally.    I mean we're hoping to

16   subsidize that, depending on the money that's

17   available and all that, but to some extent that will

18   happen.   But this goes back to what I've been saying

19   for quite some time and that is I'm encouraged by the

20   current Senate draft of a governance model that

21   includes both the authority of the governing entity to

22   make a lot of these major decisions that are important

23   nationwide, but also to manage the funds.     Because if

24   the funds aren't managed by the same people that are

25   trying to build the network and they're done

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   politically like we've always done before where people

 2   dole out some to this state and not to this state and

 3   this city.    I keep preaching this because I'm not yet

 4   sure that most of the politicians, most of the people

 5   on the Hill get that.      They haven't really caught up

 6   with our talk about that.      But that particular piece

 7   of legislation, that draft does give that proposed new

 8   governing entity considerable control over not only

 9   making the major decisions, but the funding.     And I

10   think that is critical.

11                MR. HOOPER:   Just to follow up just a little

12   bit on what Dorothy was saying, planning the life

13   cycle you need to release the organizations around

14   this table.    I know on the computer side and the

15   network side they've been planning life cycles for a

16   while.   But when you get to the land mobile side where

17   the firefighters and the officers on the street, the

18   chief officers of the smaller departments, which

19   granted a lot of the officers in the country are out

20   of smaller departments and not just the large

21   departments.    We need the educational factor from the

22   associations down to the users that the life cycles

23   have changed.    They are much shorter.   You don't get

24   30 years out of a network like you did in the past and

25   that's one of the biggest things that I've seen over

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   the past five years, trying to educate the departments

 2   and the users is we have a much shorter life cycle.

 3   So please get that word out through the organizations.

 4               MR. QUAYLE:   Just a comment on backward and

 5   forward compatibility.    I often hear concern in the

 6   Public Safety community about backward compatibility,

 7   but by adopting LTE backward compatibility is

 8   something that you inherently get.    I mean over a very

 9   long term it's probably not 100 percent.    You may not

10   back compatible 20 years.    So to a large extent, the

11   backward compatibility is not an issue that we have to

12   worry about significantly.

13               In terms of forward compatibility, if you

14   look at the ENOB, it's probably fair to say that most

15   ENOBs are software ungradable to support features of

16   Release 9, Release 10, Release 11 and onwards.

17   However, where there are features say in Release 10 or

18   Release 11 that are aimed at increasing throughput

19   such as 4x4 -- those will typically require additional

20   hardware.   But the key point there is you only need to

21   implement those features from those later releases and

22   pay for new hardware if you actually need that

23   capacity.   So it's something that can be done

24   differentially between different parts of the country

25   based on how much traffic they have on the systems.

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   And of course, getting the D block gives you a good

 2   head start on capacity anyway.

 3             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Excellent.   Go ahead,

 4   Doctor.

 5             MR. BUDKA:     I'd just like to recognize Paul

 6   Steinberg, vice chair.    And Paul, did I miss anything

 7   or is there any other commentary to add?

 8             MR. STEINBERG:     No, you did a nice job, Ken.

 9    And I think this last debate is really key.    I think

10   you all in the room get it, but it's a really big

11   paradigm shift.    Ken you said it well earlier.   What

12   you're buying into is a very powerful thing where you

13   have to buy all the way in or you're going to be in a

14   bad spot in a few years if you can't see it through.

15             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    I think for our Public

16   Safety folks to a message to me, right, we have to

17   think different.    If you think your IT budget isn't

18   going to go up in the next five years, I think you're

19   missing the point.    The point is if my IT budget goes

20   up a million and I save $7 million because I now know

21   where my resources are and can deploy them dynamically

22   rather than statically, and increase my reliability

23   and my response times through the use of technology

24   and no longer do I have to build my own radio network,

25   but I've got a slice -- you know, I have a slice of

                 Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         (202) 628-4888

 1   one that's every bit as reliable and that's cheaper

 2   for me.    I mean we have to change our paradigm in

 3   Public Safety.    We can no longer think we get to have

 4   everything the way it is on the bricks and mortar and

 5   red lights and bullet side of the business and embrace

 6   technology as a layer.    It really doesn't get better

 7   until we use the technology to change how we do our

 8   job.

 9               And I think those of us in public safety are

10   going to have work hard, as someone said, to get the

11   word out through our associations to make sure that

12   we're   talking about a different way of doing business

13   because the functionality brings some of that.     My

14   small state 48 separate, independent, land mobile

15   radio networks.    At places they are 11 deep rather

16   than 1 deep.    That's a lot of money being wasted.

17   Dorothy?

18               MS. SPEARS-DEAN:   Just a comment to go ahead

19   and tie together something that Lynn said in terms of

20   procurement, with what Ajit had said regarding a

21   baseline.   One thing that we have to do in Public

22   Safety that will tie us back to the whole funding

23   issue what is our baseline?    What is the state

24   baseline?   What is the local government baseline in

25   terms of functionality because as many people have so

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   eloquently said, the functionality will be there.       Our

 2   ability to buy into that functionality will have to be

 3   established by state and local governments and that

 4   baseline is predicated by available funding.        So it's

 5   one continual cycle to make sure that we're addressing

 6   the baseline needs, the procurement needs to make sure

 7   there is funding for not just purchase, but

 8   sustainability as well.

 9                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Very good.

10                Further comments before we move to action on

11   this item?

12                (No response.)

13                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   The chair would entertain

14   a motion.

15                MR. MIRGON:   So moved.

16                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Dick Mirgon made the

17   motion, do we have a second.

18                MR. EDLING:   Second.

19                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Second by Leonard Edling.

20    Discussion on the motion, and I assume that that is a

21   motion to approve the report of the working group on

22   network evolution as submitted.        I think that's what

23   he said.    Discussion on that motion?

24                (No response.)

25                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   From the phone bridge, do

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   we have any discussion on the motion?

 2             (No response.)

 3             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Hearing none, all those

 4   in person if you're in favor of the motion signify by

 5   saying aye.

 6             (Chorus of ayes.)

 7             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    If you're opposed, say

 8   nay.

 9             (No response.)

10             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    On the phone bridge, if

11   you're opposed to the motion say nay.

12             (No response.)

13             CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    The motion passes

14   unanimously.    Nice work ladies and gentlemen.    Nice

15   work.

16             I hope chairs that for those people that

17   were not here that you have an opportunity to share

18   with them the regards of the Commissioner and the FCC

19   and this entire group for your work.

20             Are there any other items of business to

21   come before this body before we move towards

22   adjournment, recognizing that we will reconvene in

23   late, late summer, Septemberish or early, early fall.

24    I do have to consider the issue of governance.      I do

25   have an assignment for the committee chairs, which

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   will be far less onerous than the last one.

 2              When we were chartered, we were given

 3   short-term goals and long-term goals.      You just beat

 4   the heck out of the short-term goals, so let's talk

 5   about our long-term goals.     I think each of you should

 6   have in front of you a sheet of paper that looks

 7   something like this and it is titled Long-Term

 8   Questions, PSAC Working Group.     One page, four topics

 9   of interoperability, applications and users, security

10   authentication.

11              MR. HURLEY:    Jeff, we didn't distribute that

12   to them.   I apologize.

13              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    No, that's okay.     Brian,

14   can we email this to everybody after today?

15              MR. HURLEY:    Certainly.   We'll email it out

16   to them.

17              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Just as a reminder, here

18   are our long-term questions.     Interoperability:    Are

19   there best practices that should be established to

20   enable interoperability?    Under Applications and User

21   Requirements:   Is there an approach to ensure that

22   over time the regulations governing the public safety

23   broadband networks stay current to meet user

24   requirements?

25              Under Security and Authentication:      What

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   best practices can be adopted to ensure increased

 2   security on the Public Safety broadband network?    And

 3   then last under Network Evolution:     How to establish

 4   network requirements that will ensure evolution?

 5              And I think we should probably add to this.

 6    Brian and Gene, we should probably build into this

 7   one, way or another, some of the recommendations for

 8   further study and re-spit that back out so we have

 9   that in front of us.

10              But I think the only thing I think I would

11   like is for each committee chair before late September

12   you take those elements of the requirements for

13   further study, plus our long-term goals and put that

14   into a work plan for your committee.     Build that at a

15   pace that you think is manageable until we have a

16   harder date, but I would say take a look at those two

17   things, put them together, decision how your committee

18   will evolve through those in the midterm and we'll

19   bring greater clarity to that.

20              Now that we've put out the fire, and this

21   was a fire drill.     Now that we've put out the fire, we

22   can contemplate how we go about dealing with the next

23   iteration and I think that's really what we're talking

24   about.   Yes?

25              MR. MIRGON:    Kind of a public comment, if I

                     Heritage Reporting Corporation
                             (202) 628-4888

 1   may.   And this was APCO's point of view on ERIC

 2   itself.   I've heard some discussion about with this

 3   bill S28 or S911 goes through and you create this

 4   governing body does ERIC have a role?

 5               Our point of view is absolutely yes.   That

 6   just because there is a governing body out there

 7   building a network and they may have control over many

 8   issues surrounding that network it doesn't preclude

 9   the fact that when you get down to some of the core

10   technology issues that the FCC has regulatory

11   authority over that there isn't value to this group.

12               Additionally, not only in discussions we

13   would have as far as providing information to the FCC,

14   this is one of the places to be able to go on the

15   record to have these kinds of discussions between the

16   community that builds and designs these type of

17   devices and Public Safety.   And I believe that

18   broadband and LT is just the beginning, not the end

19   point.    And so as you think about the questions just

20   posed, and what you see as the future I believe there

21   is significant value in what we do here, what the FCC

22   has asked us to do, and the opportunity we have in

23   front of us to keep from making those mistakes we've

24   made in the past and to be able to provide guidance

25   and leadership on this new evolution of Public Safety

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   technology, which is going to change the way the

 2   Public Safety world does business.    Thanks.

 3               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Thank you.   Ken Boley

 4   welcome.    I hope you had a great time in Austin.

 5               MR. BOLEY:   Yes, I was on the phone during

 6   the layover for almost all of this and walked in at

 7   the end, so I heard almost all of it and I reviewed

 8   the documents.

 9               And what I heard there seems to be fairly

10   unanimous viewpoint about suggesting that drawing a

11   line as to where the FCC should hold off until this is

12   a national, nationwide governance entity.      The

13   nationwide governance entity will pass judgment on

14   various requirements and make recommendations to the

15   Commission if it deems necessary for the Commission to

16   regulate.

17               And then actually in Dick's statement just

18   now regarding the role of ERIC after the existence of

19   the governance entity, but I think that begs the

20   question about what do we do with regard to governance

21   prior to the existence of the governance entity,

22   particularly recognizing that there are people

23   building now and there will be more building before

24   the governance entity begins, stands up, and hires its

25   people and does its analyses and decides what action

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   to take.

 2               So rather than stating my view and what I

 3   think is the view of CIOs around the country, I would

 4   just lay that out there to see what the group here

 5   thinks with regard to trying to ensure that the waiver

 6   recipients, the early builders build in a way that

 7   furthers the interoperability goals.     I'll just leave

 8   it at that and see what folks think.

 9               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Excellent.   Harlin?

10               MR. MCEWEN:    I think it's a good question.

11   And you and I have discussed this a little bit in the

12   past.    The PSST exist today and holds a license.

13   There is a question as to what its authority is

14   because of the change in the rules or anticipated

15   change in the rules.      But we have been working closely

16   with Bill Scarier, and as the chairman of the wavier

17   group and with the FCC.     We talk with the FCC

18   regularly and I think we're doing the best we can in

19   that interim period until there is some either

20   legislated decision or some other action taken by the

21   FCC.

22               So I think there is no good answer to your

23   question, Ken, other than the fact that it is what it

24   is.    The PSST holds the license.   We have done what we

25   believe is the best we could do under the

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   circumstances and hope that we can continue to have

 2   considerable dialogue.

 3                Bill knows.    He conducts a weekly exchange

 4   of the waiver recipients.      Some of you participate in

 5   those calls.    I think they're very constructive, very

 6   good.   It's about as good as we can do without any

 7   further funding and legislated remedies I think.

 8                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Further thoughts or

 9   comments?    Bill?

10                MR. SCARIER:    Thanks Harlin for noting that

11   about the wavier jurisdictions.      And also there's a

12   separate call that the BTOP receiving jurisdictions.

13   Those seven jurisdictions that receive BTOP funds to

14   build out and have a waiver also conduct separate from

15   the weekly call for the PSST Operator Advisory

16   Committee.

17                We trying to coordinate that.    And the

18   Department of Homeland Security, the Office of

19   Emergency Communications has been supportive of this

20   effort in terms of staffing both those calls with the

21   phone bridge and staffing with materials, taking notes

22   and that sort of thing.      However, almost everybody at

23   this table represents an entity that has made comments

24   on the further notice of proposed rulemaking that the

25   FCC published in January and I think those comments

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   were fairly unanimous in saying fewer rules are better

 2   at this point and we do need nationwide governance.

 3   So I would tend to agree with what Ken said that -- I

 4   don't know whether this group wants to take any action

 5   or wants to further discuss it, but certainly that

 6   seems to be the semblance of the organizations around

 7   the table.

 8                And in making this last set of comments, I

 9   would emphasize again I represent the mayor and the

10   people of Seattle, not the waiver recipient working

11   group or the BTOP receiving jurisdictions.

12                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    You must have a bunch of

13   mean people in your working group to be this jumpy.

14                (Laughter.)

15                MR. SCHRIER:    Just trying to comply with all

16   the rules here.

17                CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Yes, Ken.

18                MR. BOLEY:    Ken Boley.   To put a slightly

19   finer point on it, there is a further notice of

20   proposed rulemaking pending in which the FCC asks a

21   lot of questions about whether it should regulate

22   this, that, or the next thing with some great

23   specificity.    And I guess to make it a sharper

24   question what does the group feel about the FCC being

25   the governance entity, pending the creation of the

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   nationwide entity because that's essentially what will

 2   happen if the FCC orders many of the things -- makes

 3   the decisions that its proposing to make in the

 4   notice.   Does the group feel that that's appropriate?

 5              Now I'm going to go one step further and

 6   suggest what I think the answer ought to be, which is

 7   essentially what's going on now, as Harlin put it.

 8   The waiver recipients are talking with each other and

 9   admittedly, with a lack of resources.      But they are

10   attempting to develop interoperable configurations and

11   practices while they juggle the 6,000 forms they have

12   to file for BTOP and everything else.      But it is at

13   least being generated, the guidance is developing at

14   essentially the grassroots level.    The people who are

15   actually building this stuff are actually in the

16   process of trying to do that.    And I would suggest

17   that that's probably how it should continue.      But

18   again, I'm curious to see what the group thinks and

19   whether the groups want to make a statement to that

20   affect or another affect.

21              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Anybody.

22              MR. MCEWEN:   We're going to have a meeting

23   in September about that.

24              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    But I get the sense that

25   Ken's worried about the interim between today and

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   September.

 2                MR. BOLEY:    September is about, if I get it

 3   right, September is about standing up a subcommittee

 4   that will talk about what the governance entity ought

 5   to be, to talk about the governance entity.      This

 6   isn't talking about what the governance ought to be.

 7   This is about what is the governance entity now and

 8   whether this group wants to says something about what

 9   ought to be the governance entity now until the

10   permanent entity exists?

11                MR. MIRGON:    I think I can go there.   I

12   think the governance entity now is the PSST and the

13   sublease holders.    That they have the authority from

14   the FCC.   And that absent any other direction from any

15   other legal entity it can't be anything other than

16   that.   To try and second guess maybe what could,

17   should, or will happen I think is counterproductive

18   and that simply that -- and Ken you know having come

19   from emergency management department that you operate

20   on the best available information you have and you

21   keep going forward.       And the information we have today

22   is why we're going forward and we need to continue

23   forward because just as important as everything else

24   going around it and that is the deployment of those

25   systems, even though some of them may in theory may be

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   failures, they are still the test beds.      Somebody has

 2   got to lead.    Somebody has got to be first and I don't

 3   see any other option other than continuing what we're

 4   doing because we're operating under the best

 5   information.

 6              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Further?

 7              MR. MARTINEZ:   Is there a suggestion that

 8   there be this interim governance entity comprised of

 9   the PSST and the current waiver holders, is that the

10   suggestion?

11              MR. BOLEY:   I think what we're doing is

12   stating what is occurring today.    There's no suggested

13   changes.   That is just an observation of what we know

14   it is today.

15              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Ken, please?

16              MR. BOLEY:   So the only action that I'm

17   thinking about would be that this group could make a

18   statement, if it's the group's feeling, that the

19   Commission should refrain from imposing the

20   requirements proposed in the notice.      One, I think

21   we're already agreed on until after there's a

22   national, nationwide permanent entity.      But also in

23   the meantime that they refrain and defer to basically

24   the existing structure that's doing that today.

25              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Harlin?

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1               MR. MCEWEN:    I don't object necessarily to

 2   possibly doing that.      But to be very honest with you,

 3   the Commission has the rulemaking in place.        They have

 4   a further notice of proposed rulemaking.         Like was

 5   said, almost everybody in this room -- probably

 6   everybody in this room and many others have given the

 7   Commission their comments and reply comments.        We are

 8   now giving them some additional comments for them to

 9   consider.

10               It would seem to me that it would be unlike

11   that the Commission -- I mean most of those comments

12   actually suggest what you're saying.      So in other

13   words, to use caution about moving forward until we

14   have a better sense of some of these issues.         So I

15   don't   know that it's necessary to do that because I

16   think the weight of evidence, the weight of comments

17   to the Commission are fairly significant.        It would be

18   strange, in my view, for them to not take those

19   comments into account.      But I don't object to this

20   group doing it.   But I'm just saying I don't know that

21   it's necessary.

22               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Mr. Engelman.

23               MR. ENGLEMAN:    Yes.   Thank you.

24               I agree.   The one thing I would point out,

25   though, is we spent the last and/or two coming up with

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1   recommendations and I know within the Interoperability

 2   working group and today I heard also in the Network

 3   Security working group there are a number of

 4   recommendations where we are asking the FCC to stay

 5   involved in.    We could spend an awful lot of time

 6   rewriting those working group recommendations in the

 7   big group here to say you can act here, but don't act

 8   there.   I think we've already set the groundwork

 9   there.

10              So from my perspective I agree with Harlin.

11    I think that the Commission will hear the comments

12   and read the comments and listen to the recommendation

13   of this advisory committee and hopefully take the

14   appropriate action.

15              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Further?   Dick?

16              MR. MIRGON:   I completely agree with Harlin

17   and what's been said here.     My concern about making

18   any additional comments, other than what we've

19   approved today would be that, especially as it relates

20   to any kind of governance-type issues God only knows

21   how it would be interpreted over on the Hill by many

22   factions that are debating the issue of governance

23   today.   And that any action along those lines could

24   cloud that endeavor and it's pretty cloudy already and

25   I'd hate to make it any worse.

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Anything further?   Ken?

 2               MR. BOLEY:    It came to me as a gap in the

 3   reports that we acknowledge the existence of current

 4   building, but we didn't really say -- most of our

 5   comments essentially were about the permanent

 6   governance entity and the FCC should wait and consult

 7   with the permanent governance entity and defer to that

 8   entity.   And I think we didn't address the question.

 9   It seems as though the group is inclined to leave that

10   be and that's okay by me.

11               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Yes, sir.

12               MR. SHARKEY:    Maybe one thing that we could

13   do in the preamble to the report because we do leave

14   the governance issues to further study, but just note

15   that these systems are being done in a vacuum.       That

16   there are some interim mechanisms in place where

17   there's coordination for the systems that are being

18   deployed or discussed and just recognize that that

19   does exist.

20               MR. EDLING:    With that same preamble, maybe

21   that also stress that these are pilots.      These systems

22   are pilots and looking at different functionality and

23   different pieces of the puzzle.

24               CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    Certainly, a good

25   reminder.   All right, thank you.

                   Heritage Reporting Corporation
                           (202) 628-4888

 1              Any other items to come before this group

 2   before I turn it over to our designated federal

 3   officer?

 4              MR. EDLING:    One question.   Moving forward

 5   with these reports being approved by the body and all,

 6   what are we able to go back to our agencies and

 7   organizations to brief on in regard to that and what

 8   materials can be used.

 9              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:    It's as if you read my

10   mind.   Let me introduce Gene Fullano who will talk

11   about when these documents become public and when

12   we're able to start socializing these in a circle

13   broader than this.   Gene?

14              MR. FULLANO:    Thank you, Chief Johnson.

15              What you have in front of you are, and I

16   think they're listed, the reports that aren't final.

17   Today you finalized the reports, but for the fact that

18   certain of the reports need to be amended to reflect

19   changes that were deliberated and agreed upon today.

20   That will take time.     The working group heads need to

21   go back, put the changes in.     We'll run them against

22   the transcript to make sure everything was caught and

23   make sure that the representative document from the

24   committee -- that the document, in fact, is a

25   representative document.     Again, that will take a

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888

 1   couple of days.    I know you took copious notes while

 2   you were sitting here of the deliberations so you

 3   could go back and at least outline generally what was

 4   done today.

 5                I would be hesitant to -- and I'm saying

 6   just personally I would be hesitant to share reports

 7   that aren't final because that could lead the

 8   uninformed to believe that they are the final reports,

 9   notwithstanding the fact that they're marked not final

10   and cause confusion.     So hopefully, you could bear

11   with us, "us" meaning both Brian and myself as well as

12   the working group chairs to get these documents

13   finalized.

14                What will happen is the chair will submit

15   the reports to us under a cover letter.     The chair can

16   note or will note that they were subject to

17   deliberation.    They reflected the majority of the

18   membership.    The reports will be put on the new

19   website that was launched on Wednesday and we'll also

20   send them around to everybody in the group once

21   they're finalized so everybody knows that, in fact,

22   they're done.    Okay?

23                I don't have any other housekeeping matter,

24   except for that.    It'll be a few more days.   And a few

25   more days in federal time often is -- not the end of

                    Heritage Reporting Corporation
                            (202) 628-4888

 1   June.   We'll get them done as quickly as we can.

 2              CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:   Thank you, Gene.

 3              The folks on the phone bridge, those of us

 4   here in person are jealous.    We know you've been doing

 5   your email while you've been listening to this and we

 6   need to get ours caught up on when we're out of here.

 7              On behalf of Chief Reyes and I, thank you.

 8   If this were our private corporation, we'd make sure

 9   we sent you all to Europe for a week with your

10   families for this last lift.   Those are the kind of

11   nice people we are.

12              We look forward to seeing and hearing from

13   you in September.   This was a great lift, but it is

14   just a start.   Like I said, I think this was the fire

15   drill and I think our work will get a little more

16   manageable in terms of our timelines from here

17   forward.

18              So with that, safe travels to each of you

19   and look forward to seeing you soon.

20              (Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., the above-entitled

21   meeting was concluded.)

22   //

23   //

24   //

25   //

                  Heritage Reporting Corporation
                          (202) 628-4888


TITLE:    Public Safety Advisory Committee Meeting

DATE:     May 24, 2011

LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

          I hereby certify that the proceedings and

evidence are contained fully and accurately on the

tapes and notes reported by me at the meeting in the

above case before the United States Federal

Communications Commission.

                         Date: May 24, 2011

                         Chris Mazzochi
                         Official Reporter
                         Heritage Reporting Corporation
                         Suite 600
                         1220 L Street, N.W.
                         Washington, D.C. 20005-4018

            Heritage Reporting Corporation

                    (202) 628-4888

To top