NPSTC Discusses Current Events in the Public Safety Community

1. NPSTC DiscussesCurrent Events in the Public Safety Community IWCE 2011 Wednesday – March 9, 2011 – 11:00 AM Moderators – Ralph Haller Panelists – Marilyn Ward, David Buchanan, Harlin McEwen, Andy Thiessen, and Joe Ross

2. WelcomeRalph Haller, NPSTC Chairman

3. NPSTC Mission Statement NPSTC is a federation of organizations whose mission is to improve public safety communications and interoperability through collaborative leadership.

4. NPSTC Member Organizations Member Organizations: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials American Radio Relay League Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials – International Forestry Conservation Communications Association International Association of Chiefs of Police International Association of Emergency Managers International Association of Fire Chiefs International Municipal Signal Association National Association of State Chief Information Officers National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Officials National Association of State Foresters National Association of State Telecommunications Directors National Emergency Number Association National Sheriffs’ Association • Associate Members: • Canadian Interoperability Technology Interest Group • National Council of State Wide Interoperability Coordinators • Telecommunications Industry Association • Utilities Telecom Council • Liaison Organizations: • Federal Communications Commission • Federal Emergency Management Agency • Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications • National Telecommunications and Information Administration • Office of Emergency Communications • Office of Interoperability & Compatibility • SAFECOM • U.S. Department of Interior • Department of Justice • NIJ COMMTECH

5. How is NPSTC organized? NPSTC Governing Board Representatives from each of its member organizations Executive Committee The Executive Committee comprises a Chair, Vice Chair, and the four Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs Four Operational Committees Interoperability Committee Outreach Committee Spectrum Management Committee Technology Committee

6. Our Goals Create vision for the future of public safety communications Develop common policy perspectives through collaborative forums of leadership in public safety Educate appropriate governmental bodies regarding public safety communications issues, policies and priorities Educate public safety practitioners and leaders on communications issues Influence future technologies, providers and standard making bodies to ensure public safety interests are appropriately represented Advocate the interests of public safety communications Facilitate coordination, dispute resolution and the exchange of effective practices, tools and information

7. NPSTC Discusses Intrinsically Safe RadiosMarilyn Ward, Executive Director

8. Intrinsically Safe Radio Certification • What is IS Radio and the issue? • FM Approvals • UL and CSA • Changes that will be needed when new standard is implemented in 2012 • More tower sites • Batteries not interoperable • The financial impact on Government Budgets • Pinellas County • Houston • NPSTC position paper

9. Intrinsically Safe Radio Certification • ISA meeting in San Diego • NPSTC representative • Request for new standard for public safety • Request to delay 2012 implementation • What can we do? • Notify your radio managers • Work with your radio shop to prepare a plan and budget • Monitor the NPSTC home page for updates and respond when we call for action if it is needed

10. Intrinsically Safe Radio Certification • Join the IS Radio public safety working group and list serve for information • Share the impact on your system with us for publication like Pinellas and Houston has done • Be prepared to answer hard questions at home like • Why did we spend so much money on equipment during rebanding when it is no good after 2012? • Is our radio equipment no longer safe? • Why didn’t we know about this 2 years ago?

11. NPSTC Discusses Current Spectrum Issues and Narrowbanding David Buchanan

12. NPSTC Spectrum Issues • LEGACYANALOG TV CHANNELS IN 700 MHZ SPECTRUM (#SM-093-20101112) • Docket #07-100 on 4.9 GHz coordination adopted 4/7/09 NPRN Requires further FCC action • NEW TECHNICAL STANDARDS / DTV OPERATION FOR UHF TV SHARING BAND(#SM-045-20080212) • AUCTION OVERLAY IN THE TV SPECTRUM (#SM-086-20100813) • NOI on Dynamic Spectrum Access with a separate NPRM on voluntary auctions in the TV spectrum

13. NPSTC Spectrum Issues • FCC PUBLIC NOTICE REQUESTING INPUT ON POTENTIAL USE OF 700 MHZ NARROWBAND AND GUARDBAND BLOCKS FOR BROADBAND OPERATION. (ACTION ITEM # SM-089-20101008) • Petition to use certain 700 MHz narrowband channels for air to ground use

14. NPSTC Questionnaire • NPSTC conducted a questionnaire to develop a snapshot of the current status of narrowbanding. • Generally, nine questions were examined. • Over 600 responses have been submitted to date.

15. Is Your System Capable of NB? • Many jurisdictions are NB capable, but still in WB • Repeaters and Base Stations pose a big problem, even if mobiles and portables are ready • Few have totally converted and most still need equipment • Troubling comments • How would I know? • County Commissioners not yet on board

16. Migrating to 700/800 MHz? • Most responders said “no” • Propagation Issues with 700/800 MHz • Interoperability with Neighbors • Cost

17. Do you have a Timetable? • Most have a timetable • Many see funding as an obstacle to meeting the timetable

18. Determine Cost to Narrowband? • Range from a few thousand to millions of dollars • Constant theme, “Where is the money going to come from?”

19. Planning to File a Waiver? • 50/50 – yes/no • Many undecided at this time

20. Currently NB Capable? • Range from “no equipment is narrowband capable” to “all equipment is narrowband” • Most have some percentage of equipment NB capable

21. Need to Purchase New Equip? • Most will need some additional equipment before 2013

22. Funding Identified? • Many looking for grants • Some have partial funding in place • Volunteer Fire Departments need donations • Funding is the biggest obstacle to meeting the deadline

23. Narrowbanding Affect Interop? • Generally, Yes • Interoperability suffers if not all users are narrowband • Communications range may be reduced

24. NPSTC Reviews Current Activities of the PSST including D BlockHarlin McEwen

25. Chief Harlin R. McEwen Chief of Police (Ret) City of Ithaca, NYFBI Deputy Assistant Director (Ret) Washington, DC Chairman Communications & Technology Committee International Association of Chiefs of Police Public Safety Spectrum Trust Chairman Public Safety Spectrum Trust

26. Nationwide Public SafetyInteroperable Wireless Broadband Network June 6, 2007 - The Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) was created as a not-for-profit Corporation. It was formed by the Association of Public-Safety Officials-International (APCO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), and the International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA). The intent was to apply for the proposed single nationwide Public Safety Broadband License August 10, 2007 – FCC issued the Second Report & Order that set forth a process for selection of a nationwide public safety broadband license including rigorous requirements for eligibility for the nationwide license. The R&O included unprecedented requirements for a license holder including specific language to be included in the By-Laws of the organization holding the public safety license. November 19, 2007 - FCC named the PSST as the nationwide Public Safety Broadband Licensee (PSBL) and issued a 10 year license. PSBT Proposal 30 MHz

27. The Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) is currently governed by a voting board of fifteen members – one representative from each of the following organizations: 1. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2. American Hospital Association (AHA) 3. Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO) 4. Forestry Conservation Communications Association (FCCA) 5. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 6. International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) 7. International City/County Management Association (ICMA) 8. International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) 9. National Assn. of State Emergency Medical Services Officials (NASEMSO) 10. National Assn. of State 9-1-1 Administrators (NASNA) 11. National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) 12. National Emergency Number Association (NENA) 13. National Fraternal Order of Police (NFOP) 14. National Governors Association (NGA) 15. National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA)

28. Nationwide Public SafetyInteroperable Wireless Broadband Network ADEQUATE SPECTRUM IS IMPORTANT TO PUBLIC SAFETY PSBT Proposal 30 MHz

29. New Upper 700 MHz Band Plan - Adopted by FCC on July 31, 2007 Base Transmit (Downlink) Mobile Transmit (Uplink) 746 763 768 769 772 775 776 793 798 799 802 805 806 C 11 A 1 D 5 PS BB 5 G B 1 PS NB 6 B 1 C 11 A 1 D 5 PS BB 5 G B 1 PS NB 6 B 1 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Single Nationwide Public Safety Broadband License (PSBL) (Licensed to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust) Spectrum To Be Auctioned With Public Safety Requirements or Allocated to the Nationwide PSBL By Congressional Action

30. D Block Allocation to Public Safety • “Win the Future through the Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure” initiative of the White House. Notably, the plan calls for the reallocation of the D-Block for public safety as well as significant investments to support the build out of the network. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/10/president-obama-details-plan-win-future-through-expanded-wireless-access • S. 28 (Rockefeller) • HR 607 (King-Thompson)

31. National Broadband Network Conceptual Designs March 1, 2011 San Antonio, Texas

32. Network-of-Networks Concept • Multiple IDs (PLMNs), one for each Public Safety Network • Forces roaming between public safety networks, and all associated engineering and business expenses for roaming replicated between each network • May not be possible to get many IDs from ATIS IOC • Inconsistent user subscription fees for each network and roaming fees between PS networks (TBD) • Duplication & Overbuild = unnecessary expenses • Upgrades inconsistent across Public Safety networks • Public safety roaming also required onto commercial networks • One agreement between each Public Safety Network, and each supported commercial network, or • An agreement between each Public Safety Network and a Clearing House & Roaming Hub.

33. Option 1: Network-of-Networks With Clearing House Concept NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC NOC Clearing House & Roaming Hub NOC NOC Commercial Networks(s) Network Core

34. One Nationwide Network Concept • No public safety roaming on a nationwide network that deploys a single Network ID (PLMN) • Consistent user subscription fee regardless of user location based on nationwide agreement (TBD) • Upgrades nationally consistent • Public safety roaming only required onto commercial network(s) • A single agreement with a clearing house can be used versus multiple agreements in a network-of- networks approach

35. Option 2: One Nationwide Network Concept Commercial Network(s) Clearing House & Roaming Hub Distributed Network Core

36. Network Management The recurring costs to manage and refresh a network, over the long term, will be the largest cost component regardless of configuration. One Nationwide Network would be a much simpler configuration and will cost the least amount to manage, maintain, upgrade, etc. In a network of networks approach, release upgrades would need to be coordinated and consistent funding among all the network operators to keep every LTE component at the same release level. This would slow the overall evolution of the nationwide network to match the slowest of the multiple network operators or if uncoordinated upgrades are made the features available will not be uniform across the nation and could cause operability and interoperability problems.

37. Priority on the network • Must not forget that local officials are primarily concerned about priority access and Quality of Service (QOS) so they can manage local incidents • A process to manage priority levels for local incident management will need to be developed • This process does not depend on the number of operators to meet local needs • The greater the number of system operators the more this will look like the current Land Mobile Radio (LMR) voice systems with the obstacles to interoperability that we have in the LMR environment today

38. Nationwide Public SafetyInteroperable Wireless Broadband Network A DIFFERENT FUNDING MODEL IS ESSENTIAL A nationwide funding model will be essential to gain a nationwide public safety interoperable network. Federal funds to build, manage and refresh a nationwide network must be based on a new and unified funding approach that funds local, state, and national elements of a nationwide network as opposed to a grant program that disparately funds only selected localities such as the BTOP Program. Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) Public Safety Grants City of Charlotte (NC) $ 16.7M State of New Mexico (NM) $ 38.7M Bay Area [Motorola] (CA) $ 50.0M State of Mississippi (MS) $ 70.0M State of New Jersey (NJ) $ 39.6M Los Angeles RICS (CA) $154.6M Adams County (CO) $ 12.1M PSBT Proposal 30 MHz

39. Nationwide Public Safety Interoperable Wireless Broadband Network ADEQUATE SPECTRUM IS IMPORTANT TO PUBLIC SAFETY Support S. 28 & H.R. 607 www.psafirst.org

40. NPSTC Broadband RequirementsTechnology Committee Vice ChairBroadband Working Group ChairAndrew Thiessen

41. NPSTC Broadband Working Group Recap The NPSTC Broadband Working Group has been active in development user requirements from the beginning of the 700MHz broadband process for public safety: • In November 2007, NPSTC published the first version (0.6) of the 700MHz Broadband Public Safety Statement of Requirements • At the time, the D block auction had not occurred • Public safety had not selected a technology • In August of 2009. NPSTC published the Broadband Task Force Report detailing a first cut at interoperability requirements given LTE as the technology of choice • Waivers had not yet been granted to PS organizations • Roaming amongst potentially separate PS LTE networks was not heavily considered

42. NPSTC Broadband Working Group Current Efforts Given the tremendous amount of activity in the last year or so in 700MHz broadband, NPSTC felt it was time to reconstitute the Broadband Working Group to begin to address current issues: • Public safety has often referred to mission critical voice requirements but no documentation existed on what this specifically was • NPSTC has a document out for comment that is the first high level definition for what mission critical voice means • This information will be used in the development of a voice capability for public safety over 700MHz LTE and other technologies and spectrum as needed • Given that the Public Safety community has elected to leverage a commercial technology for its broadband needs, a careful gap analysis needs to be performed to determine what changes, if any, need to be made to the technology to meet PS needs • The first step in a gap analysis if knowing what the requirements are, thus an update to the 700MHz Broadband SoR is underway • Currently need volunteers from all stakeholders

43. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH(PSCR) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE – BOULDER LABSANDREW THIESSEN – STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS LEAD

44. Public Safety Communications Research Program Located at the Department of Commerce Boulder Labs in Colorado The PSCR Program is a joint effort between: NIST’s Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) and NTIA’s Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS)

45. Public Safety Public Safety A B C D E A B C C D C D G G PSBB B A B B B 757 763 768 769 775 787 793 798 799 805 Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch Ch 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 698 704 710 716 722 728 734 740 746 752 758 764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806 700 MHz Spectrum Public Safety Broadband PS Narrowband D Block D Block BC12 BC12 3GPP LTE Bandclass BC13 BC17 BC17 BC13 BC14 BC14 Ch 51 PSBB PSNB PSNB A Mobile TX Mobile TX Base TX Base TX Base TX Mobile TX Base TX Base TX Base TX Base TX Mobile TX Mobile TX Mobile TX Mobile TX TV CH MHz Upper 700Band Lower 700 Band State/Local Public Safety Agencies (Narrowband LMR) ? ? State/Local Public Safety Agencies (Narrowband LMR) Guard Band B Block (Guard Band) Guard Band B Block (Guard Band) Current License Holders (not full list) Cavalier Wireless Cavalier Wireless

46. PSCR’s 700MHz Public Safety Broadband Demonstration Network The only government or independent lab facility located in the United States to test and demonstrate public safety 700 MHz broadband networks and applications, the Demonstration Network provides: A place for manufacturers and carriers to deploy their systems to test them in a multi‐vendor environment. This provides integration opportunities. A place for public safety to see how these systems will function, specific to their unique needs. Interested agencies can visit the network and get hands‐on experience with these systems, as well as run public safety specific test cases that relate directly to their operational environments. A place where early builders can ensure that the systems they might procure will in fact work in the eventual nationwide network, assisting agencies in their procurement process.

47. Generate interest from broadband vendors to develop a 700 MHz broadband equipment ecosystem Band Class 14 (D Block & Public Safety Block), Long Term Evolution (LTE) Stimulate early development for public safety systems (e.g. Waiver Orders) Support the commercial standards and testing process with public safety requirements e.g. PSCR Demo Network Project Plan

48. Demonstration Network Outcomes • Stakeholders will be able to deploy their equipment in a neutral host network. • Inform public safety on how this new technology can meet their requirements. • Allow public safety to access the cost savings and innovation of the larger commercial market • They do not have to potentially waste capital expenditures for evaluating a network technology. • Information & test results gleaned can inform all stakeholders

49. Demonstration Network Outcomes (cont.) • Help create nationwide interoperability through a unified approach to network design and implementation • Requirements definition & standards development • Testing (conformance, performance and evaluation) • Planning – Network architecture, RF, IP, PLMN, IMSI, eNUM, Security, Application…etc. NOTE: Information published will be non-attributable

50. Demo Project Stakeholders NOTE: This is a partial stakeholder list