Briefing on Interoperability and Communications Issues and FirstNet. April 2014

(1)

IAFF Briefing on Voice and Data Communications – December 2013 - Page 1

Briefing on Interoperability and Communications Issues and

FirstNet

April 2014

This briefing has been prepared for IAFF affiliate leadership and their members to provide information on the current status of voice radio communications in the American fire service. Information on changes to these systems planned for the future will also be provided.

• The ability of a fire fighter to communicate by radio with other fire fighters and fire officers is the most important type of communication that happens in the hazard zone on an emergency incident.

• The radio systems currently in place in most communities in the United States are not adequate to assure that fire fighters in the hazard zone can reliably communicate with other fire fighters.

• The fire service has been attempting to improve voice and data communications for public safety. FirstNet, a component of the Department of Commerce, has been touted as the solution to all public safety voice and data communications needs.

• Despite the hype - FirstNet will not likely play a meaningful role in emergency voice communications (mission critical voice) for the foreseeable future.

• The radio systems (sometimes referred to as legacy systems) in use by fire fighters now will likely continue to serve for an extended period of time – perhaps 20 years or more. These systems need to be maintained and upgraded to

assure their utility.

• Under the provisions of Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, eleven of the country’s post populace cities will be statutorily required to

relinquish their spectrum (T-Band) in 2023. The IAFF is working to reverse this mandate through legislation.

• The IAFF, through its national and regional leadership, will continue to monitor these issues and advocate for changes that improves the safety of our members. Local affiliate leadership and members, supported by the IAFF, should take an

(2)

active role in their communities to advocate for improved communications capabilities for their members.

Background:

A functional hand held radio is arguably a fire fighter’s most important piece of safety equipment. The ability of a fire fighter trapped in the basement of a burning building to push the button of his Land Mobile Radio (LMR) and ask for assistance is essential and must never be compromised.

The bed rock principle of the IAFF in dealing with ANY and ALL communications issues is that the top priority of the fire service should be ensuring that the quality of mission critical voice communications are maintained and improved upon – we should never lose ground.

The laudable goals of nationwide radio interoperability and better transmission of data to an incident scene must be secondary to protecting mission critical voice

communication.

History:

The level and quality of voice and data communications vary dramatically across the nation. For example, rural communities face various geographical and topography issues that impact their level of service. Rural communities are also challenged with budgetary restraints due to small tax bases and are generally dependent on

combination and or volunteer departments. These rural communities struggle to maintain communications systems that provide adequate operability much less interoperability.

Conversely, large urban areas are confronted with the challenge of ensuring that two- way radio communications can occur in larger buildings with basements/sub basements or that are constructed with materials that interfere with radio transmissions. These communities frequently struggle with diminishing tax revenue and other urban priorities which inhibit robust investment in improving or even maintaining existing

communications infrastructure.

The other driving factor in the quality of a jurisdiction or group of jurisdictions communications system is money. Building out and maintaining these complex systems is expensive, running into the tens of millions of dollars depending upon the size of a jurisdiction. Simply replacing the LMRs is an expensive and on-going proposition. The cost of a single radio can exceed $3,000. A February, 2012 GAO report cited these factors as a major impediment to improving communications and interoperability on a national or even regional level.

As a result, systems have been developed differently across the nation. Public safety agencies operate on multiple parts of the radio spectrum from low band, VHF, UHF, 700

(3)

megahertz, 800 megahertz and T-Band. These multiple frequencies and the associated hardware (LMRs) limit communications between various jurisdictions. To complicate matters even more, there are compatibility issues with the components of the

infrastructure. These include the portable radios, system transmitters/receivers,

software, microwave connections, and operator consoles. Simply stated, in many cases even adjacent communications systems are unable to communicate with each

other. This clearly impedes operations on large scale incidents.

This is the dilemma of interoperability. All parties agree that public safety agencies (fire, EMS, law enforcement, emergency management) within a region should be able to have seamless communications. They should have interoperability.

There have been several notable incidents that highlighted the problems associated with the lack of interoperability: the crash of a commercial airliner on the 14th Street bridge between Washington DC and Arlington, VA in 1982, Hurricane Katrina, and the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

In fact, the 9/11 Commission strongly recommended that a nationwide interoperable communications system be established for public safety providers.

A second major issue confronting public safety is the transmission of data. As

technology improves, the ability to deliver data has been greatly expanded. However, existing LMRs are not well equipped to take advantage of data

transmission. Obviously, being able to receive data transmission on EMS calls or determine whether a rail car or tractor-trailer is carrying a hazardous material or being able to retrieve pre-fires plans all would be valuable assets to first responders.

This issue has been a point of contention between the IAFF and other public safety organizations. The IAFF believes that data is important, but subordinate to mission critical voice.

For the last twenty years, organizations representing fire/EMS, law enforcement and communications personnel have joined forces to garner federal resources to improve communications.

Two NEW global objectives were identified by stakeholders:

• To improve interoperability on either a regional or national basis

• To access new technology to enhance data transmissions

Within the stakeholders there has been significant debate on prioritization and the allocation of resources. Some partners believe that data is more important than voice. As stated, we disagree.

(4)

Public safety stakeholders have attempted for many years to get a portion of the radio spectrum dedicated exclusively for public safety. A dedicated piece of spectrum could address the issue of data transmission and POSSIBLY provide a mechanism to

consolidate public safety into a set of frequencies which would increase efficiency and promote interoperability.

There were several proposals over the years to obtain dedicated spectrum and address these issues. In 2007, the Federal Communications Commission allocated a portion of spectrum in the upper 700 megahertz band (“C” Block) to public safety. The 700 band is prime spectrum real estate that can accommodate data transmission and POSSIBLY support mission critical voice.

As part of this action, the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) was created. PSST was established as a non-profit entity comprised of public safety organizations to manage the allocated spectrum. However, without any federal funding the “C” Block spectrum could not be developed and utilized.

Public Safety stakeholders also advocated the allocation of another contiguous band of spectrum (“D” Block). The FCC objected.

In 2008, the FCC attempted to auction “D” Block to private vendors under the provision that the spectrum would be shared by public safety and the successful private

bidder. No commercial carrier bid on the spectrum. The commercial vendors were hesitant to invest large sums of money into a venture in which the spectrum would be SHARED with public safety.

The public safety community continued to advocate for the FCC to allocate the “D” Block spectrum to public safety use without any encumbrances.

During this period, public safety successfully lobbied for various grants to assist states and local jurisdictions in procuring communications equipment and building new

systems. Grant programs were established and funded with Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, FEMA, NIST, Justice, Agriculture, Defense, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

NTIA’s much heralded Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) provided over $4 billion dollars to expand into broadband spectrum opportunities. This program allowed jurisdictions or geographic areas to improve their interoperability and voice/data capabilities. BTOP awarded 7 jurisdictions with funding. Bill D’Agostino, General

Manager of First Net, stated that “The BTOP’s will kind of close down-(although) those that come through, come through.” It is disappointing that the existing BTOP’s cannot continue to operate on the frequencies they were designed for and the equipment purchased for these projects are in place and unused in some cases.

Efforts apart from legislation to develop standards for interoperability and LMRs were aggressively pursued. The FCC established the Public Safety and Homeland Security

(5)

Bureau which through the Project 25 effort developed VOLUNTARY standards for

LMRs. The FCC also started the Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) in 2008 to develop technical requirements and procedures to help ensure an operable and interoperable nationwide network.

DHS instituted the SAFECOM program to bring first responders together to collaborate on communications issues. Additionally, agencies such as NIST, NTIA, and others actively provided research and intellectual assets to improve interoperability.

“D” Block Allocation:

In February of 2012, the President signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. (PL 112-96) As part of the legislation, Congress directed that the “D” Block

spectrum be allocated for public safety.

The original premise of the “D” Block is for data transmission, ONLY. Original discussions and lobbying efforts did not represent that this spectrum could support mission critical voice communications now or at any time in the short term or mid-term future.

“D” was envisioned as a supplemental communication network to augment existing communications systems that support mission critical voice. There are several key components of the legislation:

• The “D” Block, valued at nearly $4 billion, was allocated to public safety

• Congress provided $7 billion, with certain caveats, to build out a nationwide interoperable communications network

• The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) was established and charged with ensuring the establishment of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network

• The legislation requires that a band of spectrum that is currently in use by public safety agencies in a number of large communities (T-Band) be surrendered by public safety to be auctioned to assist in paying for this endeavor.

• The legislation allows, but does not mandate, FirstNet to partner with private commercial communications carriers for shared public/private access to this spectrum

The final two bullet points are a source of dispute and controversy and will be explored in depth within this document.

Members of the FirstNet Board are appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Commerce. Jeff Johnson, retired Fire Chief of Tualatin Valley Oregon, and former President of the IAFC, was appointed as the representative of the fire service.

(6)

Many of the members of the FirstNet board are retired telecommunications

executives. The IAFF, FOP, various elected officials, and other stakeholders have serious concerns about the composition of FirstNet’s board. We feel that decisions on the development and utilization of the spectrum may be tilted in favor of commercial wireless carriers and not for the benefit of the emergency response and public safety community. The tone of the FirstNet board was so troubling that a law enforcement member of the board, an elected Sheriff, very publicly expressed his dismay about the board’s actions; their lack of interaction with public safety providers; and, the secret manner in which business is conducted.

Chief Johnson and other members of the FirstNet board, including its Chairman, have spoken publically about the future of FirstNet. Their statements characterized FirstNet as a replacement for LMR’s where fire fighters might soon use devices like cell phones for communications in the hazard zone. More recent statements from FirstNet have backed off of that assertion. The FirstNet party line is now that our current LMR’s will be around for the foreseeable future.

The reason for the communications industry interest in FirstNet is simple: MONEY. The quality and volume of spectrum in “C” and “D” Blocks offer substantial opportunity for a single commercial carrier or coalition of carriers to make enormous profits.

The IAFF is steadfast that needs of public safety must be paramount.

FirstNet - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:

In the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, securing $4 billion dollars’ worth of spectrum and an additional $7 billion to build out the national interoperable network was a tremendous victory for public safety. The allocation of “D” and the accompanying money can provide a valuable asset for first responders.

Money

The first bit of bad news is that $7 billion dollars is woefully inadequate to construct a nationwide system. To put the number in perspective, Verizon and AT&T each spent over $50 billion to build their respective voice and data systems.

The Chair of the FirstNet Board, Sam Ginn, gave a sobering analysis of how inadequate the $7 billion is to fulfill the charge of building out a national interoperable

communications system

“Now, there’s a lot of debate at least in literature as to whether $7 billion is enough. And, if you look at the asset value of AT&T, its $50 billion and Verizon about the same thing. So, if you say, “Well if this is going to be the

equivalent of AT&T’s network, and they spent $50 billion, how in the world can you do it for $7 billion,” Ginn opined.

(7)

It is even more problematic when one considers that the commercial networks are designed for private and commercial use, not public safety. Building a network for public safety is inherently more expensive because it must be constructed so that it cannot fail. It must be “hardened” to ensure workability 24/7/365. The system must be reliable, secure, and have redundancy. For example, the towers must be reinforced to withstand all weather contingencies. A back up power source must be at each site to ensure that power outages will not shut down the system. The entire system must be constructed to reach ALL areas in each region. Unlike a commercial network, public safety cannot simply “red line” or exclude areas because it is not cost effective to build towers and the necessary infrastructure to serve a small population base. The public safety network must work everywhere. The method in which the rural and wilderness areas will be covered by FirstNet has not been finalized and is still under development. Finally, the system must be secure to protect confidential transmissions. The bottom line is that a public safety system must be better, more secure, and more reliable than commercial systems. Those factors greatly increase the cost.

The two most graphic examples of this disparity between commercial and public safety networks are Hurricane Sandy and the Boston Marathon Bombing. In both situations, the wireless commercial systems crashed, but the “hardened” public safety systems in both New York and Boston continued to function without interruption providing mission critical voice communications throughout the incident.

Recently, FirstNet’s consultant Televate issued a report on the cost aspects of constructing a public safety network. Their findings include the following:

• $7 billion can only build a system that covers 3.5% of the country’s land area and 50% of the expected user population. This represents the top 226 most

populated jurisdictions in the nation.

• Cost estimates to build a system that covers approximately 75% of the country’s land area and in excess of 85% of the country’s population would require

between $12.4 and $16.4 billion.

• Beyond the initial cost of building the system, the annual cost of operating and maintaining the system ranges from $1.49 to $3.37 billion depending on the land mass and population volume covered by the network.

• In EVERY SCENARIO the cost of operating the system is more than double the amount that public safety agencies currently pay (user fees, taxes, roaming charges, access fees, data fees, among others) to operate their existing systems. More than double.

So, the question becomes: ‘How does FirstNet pay for the initial construction and annual operational and maintenance costs.’

(8)

• More federal support. In the current climate, it is unlikely that the public safety community can count on additional federal assistance - certainly not an open checkbook to pay for all costs.

• More money from existing users---states, jurisdictions, law enforcement

agencies, fire service and EMS users, emergency management services. This means increased costs for access, use, and a myriad of other charges. With constricted state and municipal budgets, this is an unappealing prospect.

• Expand the customer base to other users: corrections, utilities, highways, parks and recreation, solid waste, transit, water works, hospitals.*

• Expand the customer base by allowing private citizens to contract with FirstNet for their private voice and data communications needs. Instead of being a Verizon customer, a citizen could contract with FirstNet*.

• Partner with commercial carriers to “share” the spectrum. Under this scenario, proponents of FirstNet imply that public safety would have priority and those commercial users would be “booted off” the system when there was a major incident that required more spectrum for public safety use.*

*There are a number of possible issues with the final three bullets. First, the network was envisioned as being exclusively for public safety and run by public safety. That was the original concept of the Public Safety Spectrum Trust in 2008. Expanding the network for other non-public safety users dilutes the value of the spectrum. Allowing private citizens to subscribe would turn FirstNet into just another communications network with a public safety component - a far cry from a dedicated public safety network.

The final bullet concerning a public/private partnership causes great alarm. Regardless of the rhetoric, how will commercial users be “booted off” the system in times of

increased public safety need? Who makes the call - the Governor, Emergency

Response Director, the Mayor or an official of FirstNet? Beyond the concern of public safety, commercial carriers have already demonstrated a reluctance to enter a

public/private enterprise when public safety was prioritized. Remember, no carrier bid on “D” Block in 2008 because of the priority encumbrances for public safety. So, will commercial carriers spend billions of dollars if they are subordinate to public safety? If they decline to enter into a public/private deal, how will the network be funded?

Will the FirstNet Board cut a deal that favors the commercial carriers? If so, the concept of a public safety network is totally thwarted.

The reason for ALL of these considerations is MONEY. Assuming the intentions of FirstNet are righteous, they MUST find another $6-8 billion to build out the network and another few billion a year for operational and maintenance costs. But, remember the composition of the FirstNet Board and the potential profits available. It is a matter of concern.

The bottom line is there are insufficient existing resources to build out and maintain the network.

(9)

Network Priorities

The IAFF continues to assert that protecting mission critical voice is the most important consideration in any decision concerning public safety communications and network design. Other stakeholders, including promotional materials by FirstNet put primacy on data transmissions.

There are two critical points to remember:

1. FirstNet/ “D” Block were originally promoted as a nationwide system for data NOT mission critical voice.*

2. FirstNet envisions utilizing a wireless communications system---the same as VERIZON and AT&T networks. This technology does NOT support mission critical voice communication.

*Mission critical voice means radio communication that is (1) instant push-to-talk communication, (2) reliable, (3)

redundant, (4) flexible, and (5) includes components for direct and talk around, group talk, talker identification, emergency alerting and high quality audio. In the past, “voice communications” were analogous to analog

technology, and “data” was used primarily with digital. Since voice communications can now be digitized and transmitted as voice traffic, the distinction is somewhat blurred.

However, what remains a constant are the mission critical voice needs of first responders regardless of whether they are provided through analog or digital technology.

Mission critical voice is currently supported by various systems---VHF, UHF, T-Band, 700, 800, narrowband, trunked , conventional, repeated, analog, digital among others---and delivered through LMRs.

Voice communications on a commercial wireless network is through an emerging, constantly changing technology, LTE or Long Term Evolution. There are NO standards on LTE for mission critical voice or to accommodate public safety needs. The definition of mission critical voice was submitted by NPSTC in August 2011. The technical

standards are still under development and will have to be submitted and agreed upon by the global LTE/3GPP standards committee.

Presently, there is NO capability of FirstNet to support mission critical voice. While the mission critical voice capability will be part of the public safety broadband system, its effectiveness will depend on the level of coverage and reliability provided by

FirstNet. Estimates on timeframes when mission critical voice MAY be supported by “D” block range from 10-20 years. Again the effectiveness of mission critical voice will be dependent on the capacity, coverage, and reliability of FirstNet.

(10)

Consequently, jurisdictions must be mindful to support their EXISTING mission critical voice systems before migrating to FirstNet. This includes systems that have reached the end of their service life and cannot wait for the “holy grail” of FirstNet to arrive.

FirstNet: Truth in Advertising

If FirstNet is constructed as a data network, it may be a useful asset and adjunct to support existing mission critical voice systems. It may have real value.

However, FirstNet is a business. To succeed, they must generate customers. Their services must compete against other carriers to sell their products and services. So, FirstNet is operating as a business, NOT AS AN ADVOCATE FOR PUBLIC

SAFETY. They can secure more customers promising both voice and data, than data alone. That’s fine, but everyone must recognize FirstNet’s role and objective.

We are concerned the FirstNet’s marketing is less than accurate.

At a February 23, 2013 meeting of the National Governor’s Association, Chairman Ginn stated:

“This is the largest telecommunications project in the history of the United States. It’s going to cover every square meter in the United States. It’s going to penetrate the basements of Manhattan and cover the forest fires in the Sierra

Nevada.”

Remember, FirstNet cannot support mission critical voice for many years. So, the statement is little premature and presumptuous.

Let the buyer beware. Make sure you understand that FIRST NET is selling a service, not providing objective analyses.

Many fire chiefs and IAFF leaders mistakenly believe that they must participate in or subscribe to FirstNet and its services. We are not suggesting that FirstNet or its agents are claiming that all public safety agencies must participate with FirstNet. But, it is abundantly clear that they are NOT emphasizing that their potential future services are voluntary and that jurisdictions are free to shop for other options in both voice and data communications. FirstNet is an option, not an obligation.

It should be noted that state governments may enter into agreements with FirstNet that may limit options for local subdivisions and make FirstNet almost a default choice. Finally, under FirstNet is an advisory committee, the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC), comprised of representatives from stakeholder groups. The advisory group has been largely ignored and kept ill-informed by the FirstNet Board. Captain Mike

(11)

Worrell from Phoenix Local 493 represents the IAFF on the PSAC and will continue to advocate for the needs of fire fighters.

From reports received by multiple members of the PSAC, the FirstNet Board has largely ignored the PSAC. The interaction between the PSAC and FirstNet Board has been minimal. This is obviously troubling to the IAFF and other stakeholders.

Once again, understand the issue, the service and product. FirstNet may be a great supplement to your communications network or it may not.

T-Band: An Unacceptable Unintended Consequence

One of the provisions of the law that created FirstNet (PL 112-96) was the stipulation that a section of spectrum known as T-Band must be vacated by public safety by 2023. This is a band width that is shared and utilized by television networks and 11 major metropolitan jurisdictions for public safety communications.

Congress believes that when the T-Band frequencies are vacated, they can be auctioned. The proceeds of the auction can offset some of the costs associated with FirstNet and pay for the entire transition of T-Band cities to other bands of spectrum. There are several problematic issues. The most important consideration and area of concern is ensuring public safety. The 11 cities utilizing T-Band represent the nation’s largest metropolitan areas. These cities have large population density; are areas of trade, government and commerce; are high risk, high profile terrorist targets and are high volume consumers of fire, EMS and law enforcement services. Simply put, essential mission critical communications CANNOT be interrupted in these

jurisdictions. These cities have effective and proven communications systems. Forcing them to relocate to other spectrum is clearly a fool’s errand.

The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) issued a report stating that relocating jurisdictions off of T-Band serves “no useful public purpose” and Congress should reconsider the requirement and allow the jurisdictions to utilize T-Band.

Beyond the potential interruption of mission critical communications, there is an enormous cost associated with transitioning cities from T-Band. It is estimated that direct costs will exceed $5.9 billion.

The following are the projected costs of transitioning the respective cities from T-Band: 1. New York City $1.4 billion

2. Philadelphia $1.1 billion 3. Los Angeles $857 million 4. Boston $831 million 5. Chicago $759 million

(12)

6. San Francisco $355 million 7. Washington, DC $210 million 8. Pittsburgh $203 million 9. Dallas $83 million 10. Miami $49 million 11. Houston $11 million

Additionally, if relocated off of T-Band each of these jurisdictions would face enormous indirect costs in replacing their LMRs, repeaters, base stations, and other

equipment. The negative impact to the budgets of cash strapped jurisdictions would be catastrophic.

The prospect of the proposed auction generating sufficient revenue to even pay for the transition costs is dubious because the television networks would still occupy a portion of the T-Band spectrum so potential bidders would have restricted usage of this

spectrum. This contingency obviously makes the spectrum less valuable and potential investors less likely to bid.

Finally, even if resources existed and could pay for the direct and indirect costs of transition, five of the jurisdictions DO NOT have available spectrum in other bands to accommodate the needs of public safety. Those jurisdictions are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston.

This unintended consequence must be remedied.

IAFF and Affiliate Action Items:

• Affiliates should determine which agency and/or official in their state is the

designated representative to interface with FirstNet and determine whether or not the state will embrace the FirstNet concept, its service and products.

• Affiliates should meet with the designated agency or official to determine their state’s plan for an interoperability system.

• Affiliates should attempt to educate key elected officials and other decision makers on the advantages and disadvantages of FirstNet.

• Affiliates should ensure that their affiliate leadership is educated on both FirstNet and whether or not their state plans on opting into FirstNet.

• Affiliates should determine the position of other key stake holders in their state - law enforcement groups, fire and police management, sheriffs’ organizations, individual cities, townships and counties and the umbrella associations

representing those stakeholders.

• The IAFF will continue to coordinate with other stakeholders and elected officials to address the problems associated with FirstNet and work toward providing clarity and focus on these issues.

• The IAFF will coordinate with the affiliates of the 11 T-Band cities, the respective administrations and fire service leadership in those cities and the League of Cities and US Conference of Mayors to address T-Band issues.

(13)

Legislative and/or Regulatory Issues

• The IAFF will lobby to ensure that existing communication and interoperability grant programs are maintained and their funding is not diverted to subsidize FirstNet.

• The IAFF will advocate that mission critical LTE capabilities and protocols exist before FirstNet promotes voice communications in addition to data.

• The IAFF will advocate that FirstNet employ a truth in advertising approach in which they are clear that jurisdictions are not obligated to utilize FirstNet and disclose that it is a commercial enterprise controlled by a Board of Directors and not a coalition of public safety organizations.

• The IAFF will lobby to repeal the portion of PL 112-96 that mandates that T-Band must be vacated and surrendered by public safety by 2023.

Additional Information:

The United States Fire Administration has prepared a fire service communications guide entitled “Voice Radio Communications Guide for the Fire Service”. The guide is

available for free at:

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/Voice_Radio_Communications_G uide_for_the_Fire_Service.pdf

More information on FirstNet is available at their web site – http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/about-firstnet