Subject: [NEXTEL-1] SAFETY OVER SPECTRUM: A PLAN FOR FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:19:21 -0400

SAFETY OVER SPECTRUM: A PLAN FOR FIRST RESPONDER COMMUNICATIONS

A New Threat

In the post-September 11th world, threats to security and public safety
in American communities are great. These dangerous times have
highlighted the urgent need for state-of-the-art technologies, none more
critical than reliable communications systems, to be readily available
to our nation’s first responders. Today, and unfortunately evident on
September 11th, the communications systems of public safety departments
are not interoperable. It is difficult, if not impossible, for different
departments from different (or sometimes the same) jurisdictions to
communicate because their systems and equipment cannot interact.
Resolution of this crisis must be swift, or the danger to our first
responders and all Americans will continue to skyrocket.

Interoperable communications systems could have saved lives on September
11th. As emergency
personnel entered the World Trade Center towers, communications between
police, fire, and
rescue units were not coordinated. When it became evident that the
towers would collapse, the
evacuation order reached police radios, but not fire and rescue systems.

According to a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, “The
fundamental barrier to
successfully addressing these [interoperability] challenges has been the
lack of effective,
collaborative, interdisciplinary and intergovernmental planning. No one
first responder group or
governmental agency can successfully ‘fix’ the interoperability problems
that face our nation. It
will require the partnership, leadership, and coordinated planning of
everyone involved.”2
As urgent and complicated as this problem is, the situation is
exacerbated by the actions of
Nextel Communications. Guised as an effort to help public safety
departments eliminate
interference problems in their communications systems, Nextel is waging
a multi-million dollar
campaign which is diverting attention and possible resources away from
the real issue of
communications interoperability.

Currently, public safety communications systems and Nextel’s wireless
services operate in the
same bands of spectrum. This overlap causes public safety radios to
encounter “dead spots” near
Nextel cellular towers, rendering the radios useless to emergency
personnel. To address this
problem, which Nextel has the legal responsibility to fix3, the company
proposed the so-called
“Consensus Plan” to move its operations out of the radio frequencies in
the 800 MHz band used
by public safety departments. Nextel claims its departure from this
spectrum will help eliminate
interference, by allowing the communications systems of first responders
to operate on
contiguous frequencies. In exchange for moving from this frequency,
Nextel requests that it be

1 State Government News, The Council of State Governments, May 2003.

2 Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director of Homeland Security
and Justice Issues, before the House
Subcommittee on the Government Reform Committee, November 6, 2003
available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04231t.pdf.
3 See Section 90.173 (b) of the FCC’s rules (47 C.F.R. Part 90.173b) and
Section 90.403(e) of the FCC’s rules (47
C.F.R. Part 90.403e).
2
granted replacement spectrum in a different frequency (1.9 GHz). Such a
grant would allow
Nextel to reap the benefits of better quality spectrum and expand its
wireless services, while
ignoring the federal requirement that the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) auction
off spectrum for fair market value. The standard auction value of the
spectrum Nextel is seeking
could net American taxpayers over $5 billion dollars by one estimate.

Nextel’s proposal ignores the important interoperability issue,
sacrificing the security of
American communities and first responders. Many entities, with explicit
knowledge of the needs
of public safety departments, are working to create communications
systems that are
interoperable with those of other public safety departments from
federal, state, and local
jurisdictions. Rather than giving away spectrum, as Nextel requests,
resources should be devoted
to speed the transition to an interference-free, interoperable,
communications system for the
nation’s public safety agencies.

In this report, the First Response Coalition join together to present an
alternative to Nextel’s
shortsighted plan, one that puts the needs of America’s public safety
personnel first and
addresses the critical issue of interoperability. Nextel’s ill-advised
plan places first responders at risk and could threaten the security of
all Americans if the communications services used by public safety are
not operating at the highest standards.

Interoperability: The Real Problem Nextel Forgot

Of critical importance, Nextel’s proposal to move public safety agencies
to new frequencies and
upgrade their equipment in the existing system does not solve the
problem of interoperability
between public safety agencies. Nextel’s concept only seeks to reduce
the limited amount of
interference it causes to public safety agencies. The First Response
Coalition believes
interoperability issues, which have become even more important after the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, must be addressed in any public
safety communications plan.

It is hard to see how Nextel’s proposal will dramatically help public
safety agencies achieve interoperability. Nextel’s plan does not provide
for large-scale replacement of public safety radios. This step is
critical to create interoperable communications systems, as the current
units operate in widely divergent manners. Without replacing radios,
Nextel’s plan is merely a shifting of spectrum assignments, without
allocating additional spectrum or resources for interoperability needs.
If local governments and public safety departments are going to spend
millions of dollars upgrading their communications systems to deal with
Nextel’s interference, it would be prudent to include interoperability
considerations, rather than taking separate courses of actions on the
two problems.

Costs of Interoperability Considerable

4 “Nextel Says Compromise Won’t Work, FCC Considers Swap of Different
Spectrum,” The Washington Post, May
12, 2004.
3
The cost of creating interoperable communications systems between state,
local, and federal
public safety agencies to respond to emergencies, natural disasters, or
terrorist attacks is
estimated to be $18.3 billion to replace communications equipment and
network infrastructure.5
The state of Rhode Island alone has estimated it will need about $57
million to create an
interoperable state-wide system. At a micro level, the modern
“walkie-talkie” used by public
safety departments can cost up to $2,000 each.

There are more than 20,000 cities and counties in the United States, and
thousands of other local
jurisdictions. In 2003, there were over 2.5 million public safety first
responders in the United
States, but no uniform standards exist to govern their communications.7
Ranging from large
metropolitan areas to rural towns with less than one thousand people,
the uniting factor is the
need for the communications systems in these areas to be compatible. The
events of September
11th necessitated a new approach to homeland security and public safety
in America. No longer
can public safety departments afford to operate independent from one
another; information
sharing is critical to both prevent and respond to possible terrorist
attacks and other emergency
situations.

Federal Funding for Interoperability Lacking

President George W. Bush promised $3.5 billion to first responders in
the wake of the September
11th terrorist attacks, including money for interoperable
communications. However, approval of
the promised federal funds has lagged. State and local governments,
already pressed by budget
shortfalls, have had to delay communications systems upgrades or fund
them from limited
taxpayer funds.

Funds from auctioning the frequencies at 1.9 GHz, which Nextel wants for
free, could be used by
the federal government to make good on its promise to help first
responders across the nation to
upgrade their communications systems.

Nextel’s “Consensus Plan” Is a Diversion, Not an Agreement
Nextel’s Consensus Plan has caused much disagreement among wireless
providers, public safety departments, and policymakers. This is
evidenced by the over two thousand filings submitted to the FCC in its
open docket (WT 02-55) on this matter.

The interference problems caused by Nextel, and unresolved by Nextel’s
plan, plague public
safety departments across the country. In 2001, The Oregonian newspaper
conducted an
investigation that found Nextel was responsible for interference with
public safety
communications in 21 states.8 Examples include Scottsdale, Arizona,
where twelve police
officers stood within one hundred feet of each another and could not
communicate using their

5 Public Safety Communications Funding Awareness Guide, Public Safety
Wireless Network, available at
http://www.publicsafetywins.gov/PolicySolutions/Funding/CommFundAwareGuide.pdf

6 State Government News, The Council of State Governments, May 2003.
7 Ibid.
8 “Emergency Calls Crowded Out,” The Oregonian, August 5, 2001.

radios as they searched for an armed suspect. In Portland, Oregon one of
every three radio or
computer transmissions encountered some form of interference over a two
and half year period.9 Instead of resolving these issues with efficient
responses based on the unique circumstances of each community, Nextel
has offered the FCC a blanket remedy that does not provide sufficient
funding for rebanding the spectrum used by public safety departments.
Nextel offered the FCC $700 million to fund the transition of public
safety communications system, which would take place over approximately
three years according to Nextel’s estimates.

Nextel’s Proposal Doesn’t Make Adequate or Timely Funds Available

Given that a 1998 estimate placed the cost at $18.3 billion to replace
public safety communications equipment and network infrastructure
nationwide,10 it is clear that Nextel has not allocated sufficient funds
for the transition. There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the
exact cost of the transition; the divergent nature of the thousands of
public safety departments involved make it difficult to craft any
reliable estimate.

For example, the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida estimated spectrum
relocation would cost as
much as a total communications system replacement, or roughly $5 million
to $7 million. This is
due to the fact that older equipment is not capable of being retuned and
would require
replacement.11 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania installed a new citywide
public safety
communications system at a cost of $52 million.12 Anne Arundel County,
Maryland upgraded its
emergency communications system, at a cost of $35 million, and then had
to spend another
$200,000 to fix remaining interference problems caused by Nextel.13
These three jurisdictions
alone could account for over $90 million of the $700 million Nextel
would allocate for the
transition.

Nextel has also not proposed a remedy if costs for rebanding the 800 MHz
spectrum exceed the
company’s estimates. Public safety departments could be left in current
spectrum assignments,
still confronting interference problems, and local governments would be
without funding when
they could have already begun the upgrades in order to protect their
first responders and citizens.
Nextel proposes to have a Fund Administrator manage the $700 million for
public safety
transition costs. But the mechanism unduly burdens local communities and
could be unfair
to certain populations. First, localities must complete the equipment
upgrades and spectrum
rebanding and then apply to the Administrator to receive funding from
Nextel’s commitment.

This would force local governments to spend taxpayer money, with no
guarantee of
reimbursement, on a problem that is Nextel’s responsibility to
alleviate. There is also no
timetable for the reimbursement of funds spent by local jurisdictions.
Thus, while Nextel
proposes to immediately receive the new spectrum at 1.9 GHz (and thus
the commercial benefits

9 Ibid.
10 Public Safety Communications Funding Awareness Guide, Public Safety
Wireless Network, available at
http://www.publicsafetywins.gov/PolicySolutions/Funding/CommFundAwareGuide.pdf

11 Comments of the City of Fort Lauderdale, WT Docket 02-55, May 3,
2002.
12 Comments of the City of Philadelphia, WT Docket 02-55, February 10,
2003.
13 “Cell-Tower Detectives Fight Static” Washington Post, June 17, 2004,
available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47852-2004Jun16?language=printer

of offering new services), public safety departments and local
governments would be forced to
wait until Nextel’s appointed Administrator decides to act on their
funding requests.14
Finally, the Administrator must be “acceptable to Nextel”15 and there
are no guarantees that the Administrator will be sensitive to the needs
to underserved communities. There are no provisions to ensure rural,
minority, low-income or other traditionally underserved communities
receive sufficient funds in a timely fashion, if at all.

Nextel’s Proposal “Locks In” Today’s Technology

Another drawback to Nextel’s plan is that it upgrades or provides
communications equipment that may be obsolete as newer, more
interoperable systems and standards are developed. The U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) recognized this in a 2003 report, “Challenges in
Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders.” It notes:

As technology changes, it presents new problems and opportunities for
achieving and maintaining effective interoperable communications.
According to one official, in the 1980s, a method of voice transmission
called “trunking” became available that allowed more efficient use of
spectrum. However, three different and incompatible trunking
technologies developed, and these systems are not interoperable. This
official noted that as mobile data communications becomes more prevalent
and new digital technologies are introduced, standards become more
important.

In addition, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging,
and high speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital
communications systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems, are
potential sources of new interoperability problems.16 Advanced
communications, including broadband networks and satellite global
positioning systems (GPS), can greatly improve the ability of public
safety departments to respond to emergencies. By focusing on a
short-term solution, Nextel could force police, fire, and EMS
departments to utilize current technology that may solve the
interference problem today, but be useless tomorrow.

The First Response Plan

Any solution to the interference and interoperability problems faced by
public safety departments must begin with sufficient funding. To deprive
first responders of critical equipment because of financial shortfalls
puts all Americans in danger and is wholly unacceptable.

The First Response Plan takes a responsible approach to funding the
transition of public safety
communications to interference free spectrum and equipment and addresses
the need for these

14 Ex Parte Comments of United Telecom Council, WT Docket 02-55, August
7, 2003.
15 Supplemental Comments of the Consensus Parties, WT Docket 02-55,
December 24, 2002.
16 Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director of Homeland Security
and Justice Issues, before the House
Subcommittee on the Government Reform Committee, November 6, 2003,
available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04231t.pdf.

systems to be interoperable. The Plan calls for a cutting edge
nationwide public safety communications network that improves
capabilities for all first responders, including those in rural and
underserved communities and first responders of color.  Regarding the
interference issue, Nextel should be responsible for resolving all
instances where its signal overlaps with public safety communications.
On a case-by-case basis, responding to the unique circumstances of each
community, Nextel should collaborate with the public safety departments
to craft solutions that eliminate the interference at no cost to the
local jurisdiction.
Rather than relying on monies promised by Nextel (and to be administered
by Nextel) for public
safety communications upgrades, the First Response Plan calls for the
auctioning of spectrum in
the 1.9 GHz band. This valuable frequency is expected to solicit an
opening bid of at least $5
billion. The proceeds of this auction would be earmarked (by Congress)
solely for use in
upgrading public safety communications systems and equipment to ensure
interoperability and
non-interference.

With this funding, deployment of new communications systems and
equipment must be swift.
An accelerated regional deployment schedule will be followed, ensuring
that the majority of
public safety communications nationwide are upgraded by 2006. In
developing the deployment
schedule, priority will be given to rural and other underserved areas,
providing these
communities with the same technologies as those departments in urban and
suburban areas.

While the $5 billion in funding garnered from the spectrum auction will
begin the transition process, it is likely that communities will have
future communications needs that require additional appropriations. This
could be particularly true in rural areas and other underserved and
economically disadvantaged communities, where funds might not be
available to ensure the communications equipment is upgraded as
technology improves. The First Response Plan calls for low interest
loans and guarantees to help these communities maintain the
communications systems and provide their first responders with
state-of-the-art systems that will help save lives.  A final drawback to
Nextel’s plan is its lack of attention to public safety communications
in vulnerable communities – senior citizens, disabled person, and
ethnically diverse population centers. Nextel’s proposal could cause
bypass these communities, leaving them with substandard communications
technologies. The First Response Plan calls for the establishment of
advisory panels to recommend funding and actions to ensure the needs of
America’s diverse communities are met. No two public safety departments
are alike and all deserve equitable solutions so first responders are
adequately prepared to protect their communities. The advisory panels
will include input from communities of color, senior citizens and
disability communities among others.

Conclusion

America’s public safety departments must be given the best tools. The
danger they confront on a
daily basis cannot be taken lightly. The interference caused by Nextel
must be met with an
appropriate solution, not a piecemeal attempt that provides more benefit
for those that caused the
interference in the first place.

The First Response Plan provides a complete solution to the interference
problem and appropriately addresses the issue of interoperability by:

Holding Nextel responsible for all instances of interference it causes
and ensuring the company works with local public safety departments to
resolve the problems.

Auctioning spectrum in the 1.9 GHz band and earmarking the proceeds for
upgrading
first responder communications systems.

Developing an accelerated regional deployment schedule to ensure that
public safety communications systems are upgraded by 2006.

Providing low-interest loans and guarantees to assist underserved and
economicallydisadvantaged
communities in obtaining the newest communications technologies.
Establishing advisory panels to recommend solutions that adequate
address the disparate needs of America’s diverse communities.

The First Response Plan can protect our first responders and by doing
so, protect all of us.

http://thehastingsgroup.com/First_Response_Coalition_White_Paper.PDF