FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,620
viii, 4843-5761 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Commission specify to facilitate monitoring the success of any potential course of action?
A. Continuity of Service
15. Overview. It is critical that our Nation have access to reliable and resilient
communications networks, especially during times of major emergencies, such as large-scale natural and
man-made disasters. As noted above, various reports and comments we have received in other
proceedings have raised concerns that commercial communications networks may not be sufficiently
reliable in such circumstances.30
16. In light of these concerns, we seek detailed information regarding any factors that
significantly contribute to disruptions in communications service during major emergencies. We also
seek comment on existing industry standards or practices that address these matters. We seek information
on what preparatory or preventive measures are presently, or should be, taken by communications service
providers to ensure that communications are maintained during major emergencies. We invite comment
on the benefits and disadvantages of potential solutions to ensure continuity of service. We also seek
comment on how the benefits of any regulatory requirements might be quantified, as well as on the cost
of implementing such solutions, who would bear the cost, and how. Our objective is to evaluate existing
industry standards and practices and to determine what actions, if any, the Commission should take to
ensure that the public continues to have access to communications during major emergencies.
17. Discussion We recognize that the ability of communications providers to continue
operation during major emergencies is affected by many complex considerations. Lack of backup power
and inadequate backhaul redundancy have already been identified as two leading factors. We address
these two concerns in greater detail below. However, to consider the entire ecosystem of relevant factors,
we begin with a more general inquiry. Specifically, we ask commenters to provide detailed information
about any other factors the Commission should consider in this proceeding in addition to the concerns just
mentioned. What is the precise nature of these other factors? Under what circumstances do they arise?
What approaches does industry follow to avoid or mitigate them?
18. For example, the Katrina Panel Report found that lack of access to carrier sites located
within disaster areas was a major issue impacting the ability of carriers to restore communications
following Hurricane Katrina." Since then, the Federal government and various states, particularly in the
Gulf region, have taken steps to address this issue.32 We seek comment on whether communications
service providers have seen improvement in their ability to restore communications during recent
hurricanes and other events. If not, what approaches could be taken to alleviate such problems in the
future?
30 See id. See also DOE Smart Grid Report, supra n. 2; Katrina Panel Report at 5. et seq.
31 This was particularly problematic during the recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina and severely limited access
to affected sites. See Katrina Panel Report, supra note 8, at 15-17.
32 For example, the Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau has worked with the Department
of Homeland Security and the Gulf States on this issue as instructed by the Commission in the Katrina Panel
proceeding, and it is our understanding that some states now have written plans in place to allow access to carrier
sites during and after emergencies. We fitrther note that the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006
("Safe Port Act) includes a section amending the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
("Stafford Act") (42 U.S.C. 5170) by adding to the end of the Stafford Act provisions designed to promote greater
access to disaster sites by an "essential service provider," which is defined as an entity that provides
telecommunications service (or other utilities such as electric, water, sewer, and natural gas). See Safe Port Act,
Pub. L. 109-347, Title VI, 607, 120 Stat 1884, 1941-1942.5620
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 11-55
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/792/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.