Free Newsletter
Seybold's take: It's time for public safety to present a unified plan
Free newsletter via e-mail
Tools
While the new administration was being formed, including the new FCC, it may have appeared that not much was happening in Washington, D.C., with public-safety communications. But in reality a lot of positive things were taking place within the public-safety community and with commercial network operators.
To start, almost all of the public-safety community is supporting a move to turn the D Block (the 700 MHz spectrum that was not won at auction) over to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) to add to its existing 5X5 public-safety license. This would give the PSST 10X10, which is not only enough spectrum for major metro areas and to be used by public safety, it is enough for rural delivery of broadband education, health and other services as well. In the commercial world, AT&T, Verizon and probably others would back this proposal and both AT&T and Verizon have offered up their 5-9s back-end services. This means that the only thing the public-safety community would have to buy is the radio equipment for the new network.
Most of the public-safety organizations have come out in favor of LTE for use on the public-safety 700 MHz band, and the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) has begun working on network requirements for regional networks that would need to be built. Yes, "regional" because this system is no longer viewed as a nationwide network. Rather, it will be a series of regional networks tied together using an IP back-end. The result will be much the same as if the system had started out as a single nationwide network, and the PSST will still have control over a central license for the spectrum.
While all of this great work has been going on, Washington has been preoccupied with other things since Jan. 20 and no one has picked up the public-safety ball and moved it down the field. What will happen next? I believe the PSST and the other public-safety organizations should be ready to go to Washington as soon as the summer recess is over. Their first stop should be at the office of the president's new CTO, and other stops should include the NTIA chief and the FCC, and both houses of Congress, or at least at the offices of those on the various committees that will have a say in what happens now.
They need to let these people know that the public-safety community has developed a plan to build a nationwide public-safety system in a reasonable amount of time, for a reasonable amount of money, with commercial operators helping out, and with a common technology (LTE). Only two things are missing: the money to fund the PSST and the network buildout, and the government's blessing for turning the D Block over to the PSST. The public-safety community is ready to go to work to make this network a reality, but needs to enlist some assistance from all of the branches of the government I have mentioned, and perhaps a few more. It would not hurt for the City of New York and others to weigh in on this. The most important thing now is that the Beltway hears a common set of goals and solutions coming from the public-safety and commercial wireless communities.
Important advancements have been made while the feds were busy with other projects. Now it is time to let them all know that this work has, and is being, done, and to convince them to help move this network of networks along. How much funding is necessary will be open to debate, I am sure. Based on the following assumptions: (1) backhaul will be provided by major commercial network operators for a monthly fee; (2) the regional networks will be partially funded by local, city and state funding as well as Department of Homeland Security funding; (3) in rural America, funds will be made available from federal sources already involved in funding rural America services; and (4) the networks will not generate revenue during the first three years of buildout, my back-of-the-envelope figures indicate we should ask for $10 billion spread out over the three-year period.
To make sure we don't waste momentum, it is time for the public safety community to present its plan to those inside the Beltway in one loud and unified voice.
Andrew Seybold is an authority on technology and trends shaping the world of wireless mobility. A respected analyst, consultant, commentator, author and active participant in industry trade organizations, his views have influenced strategies and shaped initiatives for telecom, mobile computing and wireless industry leaders worldwide. www.andrewseybold.com
Comments
Posted by Old radio guy | July 30, 2009 - 4:25pm
Wait a sec, Andy. Where are the public safety agencies going to get the money to buy the radio equipment? Most state budgets are running very crimson, and lots of public safety agencies are laying off officers necause of budget problems.
The whole idea of the private carrier-public safety partnership was to take all the financial load off the public safety agencies. Just because public safety gets the spectrum doesn't mean they've got ANY money to build something and then pay backhaul fees.
And asking Congress for only $10 billion may seem like a drop in the bucket compared to the bailouts, but will it go through? I kinda doubt it...
Or am I to assume that these regional networks will compete with the carriers for private customers. Building a strictly public safety system is one thing, helping to build your direct competition is quite another thing.
Posted by Andrew Seybold | July 30, 2009 - 8:02pm
Old Radio Guy (that makes two of us), I understand your concerns but the public safety entities are going to have to spend money on communications equipment in any event, either because of the narrow-banding requirements or becuase their equipment is 20 or so years old, and so buying some base radios is not a big deal if the end result is to be able to purchase radios for the Public Safety officers at $500 each instead of $2500 each--and I think that once it is clear to Congress and the executive branch that the Police Chiefs and others are pushing for this, they won't be able to say no--kind of reminds me of a Fire Chief I once knew who put new fire stations in his budget each year but never money for any new fire trucks--when I asked him why his response was: Have you ever seen a fire station without equipment in it?
Andy
Posted by Old radio guy | July 31, 2009 - 3:24pm
You bring up another point that needs discussion. My understanding was that the original broadband system would supplement the normal public safety comm systems, giving cops all the bells and whistles that current cell phones (iPhones maybe?) have, but NOT replacing their existing radios. Now it sounds like you are saying replace all those land mobile systems with the broadband stuff.
Ever try to coordinate a car chase with a cell phone? Cops depend on the one-to-all communications their present radios give them. It's not at all unusual to see police cars cruising over to areas where something is going on "just in case" they're needed. Those agencies considering going to a broadband system better give that aspect a LOT of thought. There have been a few experiments where cops were given phones as their primary communications, and from what I've read, the cops were not happy campers.
Posted by Stacy | July 31, 2009 - 6:31pm
Andy, do you have a magic wand to make all of this happen? As usual you throw a bucket of water into a crowded room and tell everyone that they can't get wet. Then after many are wet you cannot understand why.
Posted by Andy Seybold | July 31, 2009 - 9:19pm
Old Radio guy--I am NOT suggesting that LTE will replace voice--it just plain will NOT, however, it will handle data pretty well in the next few years and voice (VoIP) in the future, but is does not do tactical channels, the life blood of public safety--peer-to-multi-peer for all of your Internet folks out there--No I am NOT suggesting commercial systems replace todays systems, just that we aguement them with data interoperability as step one.
Stacy--"As usual you thros a bucket of water into a crowded rooma nd tell everyone they can't get wet" I a not sure what you are saying, and I don't think that I did anything but layout a logical approach to winning the war in DC which is what we need to do--and the sad part, to me is that Clearwire, Intel and others appear to have more clout than the Public Safety community--and it would be a real shame if they had enough clout to negate all of the great work done recently by the First Responder community.
Posted by Old radio guy | August 3, 2009 - 8:22am
Andy, what am I missing here?
Did you not write in your reply "I understand your concerns but the public safety entities are going to have to spend money on communications equipment in any event, either because of the narrow-banding requirements or becuase their equipment is 20 or so years old, and so buying some base radios is not a big deal if the end result is to be able to purchase radios for the Public Safety officers at $500 each instead of $2500 each."
Sure sounds like you're saying the broadband stuff will replace the land mobile stuff. Or is the broadband stuff somehow magically going to reduce the price of a 800 MHz trunking radio (today typically in the $2-$3K price range)?
FWIW, I don't get the bucket of water thing either...
Posted by Eaton Beaver | August 4, 2009 - 6:09pm
As usual you throw a bucket of water into a crowded room and tell everyone that they can't get wet. Then after many are wet you cannot understand why.
Andy - I think what that means is you have grandious ideas that will never come to fruition and then act all surprised and shocked when they don't happen.
-Eaton
Comments (7) | Post a comment