V. SOLUTIONS

In addition to continued education of decision makers at the federal, state and local level on the issues of interference and interoperability, NACo and TeleCommUnity believe that there are at least three elements to addressing these dual challenges:

• Additional interference-free spectrum;
  
• Adequate and assured funding; and
  
• Increased coordination at the federal and local levels including a focus on open standards.

I would like to take a moment to address each of these three solutions.

A. Radio Spectrum
In its final report, the PSWAC concluded that “unless immediate measures are taken to alleviate spectrum shortfalls and promote interoperability, public safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their obligation to protect life and property in a safe, efficient and cost effective manner.”

PSWAC asked the FCC to allocate additional spectrum for the exclusive use of public safety agencies. The radio frequencies currently set aside for public safety use are primarily in four areas of the spectrum and range from low band VHF (25-50 MHz) to 800 MHz (806-869 MHz). As a result, no universally available or affordable radio can handle all possible combinations.

In addition, many mutual aid channels have been set up on a regional or statewide basis. Research conducted for the PSWAC’s Operational Subcommittee concluded that one of the top priorities for public safety communications is the need to operate across frequency bands (e.g., from VHF to 800 MHz). Communications across bands is possible through “patching,” but the process has serious limitations and complications. PSWAC determined that more than 100 MHz of spectrum is needed for public safety, yet public safety agencies currently have only 30 MHz of spectrum. It would be in the public interest to increase the number of nationwide interoperability channels. To accomplish this, however, there is a need for greater allocation of radio spectrum dedicated to public safety use.

Congress authorized the FCC to reassign spectrum between UHF television channels 60 through 69 in the 700 MHz range for public safety use. This spectrum was to be available for licensing in the year 2000. However, at the urging of broadcasters, Congress included a provision in the legislation that may delay indefinitely the availability of that spectrum in some regions. Some broadcasters may never relinquish the frequencies if the penetration of digital television service remains below specified levels in individual markets.

Representative Jane Harman introduced H.R.1425, the HERO Act to set a firm date for the broadcasters to relinquish the spectrum. Under the HERO Act, broadcasters must clear the spectrum by the end of 2006. TeleCommUnity, NACo and all the major public safety associations support this legislation.[13]

To date, the FCC has allocated 24 MHz of spectrum in the 746-806 MHz range for public safety use. An additional 73.5 MHz is needed now to meet interoperability and capacity needs.

B. Adequate Funding
According to the study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, limitations in funding already affect interoperability for 69 percent of all agencies surveyed. Wireless communications systems are becoming more complex and costly at a time when revenues are shrinking. Currently, only densely populated metropolitan areas are implementing new systems.

The federal government has decided to auction the 800 MHz spectrum for commercial uses. This has created interference problems within the portion of the 800 MHz spectrum previously used for local public safety communications. Not only has the FCC not remedied interference in the 800 MHz spectrum, but federal authorities also are proposing a new auction in the 700 MHz spectrum.( I respectfully suggest that unless the mixed public safety and commercial uses are adequately separated, the 800 MHz interference problems may be replicated.) NACo and TeleCommUnity believe local communities should receive a portion of the federal revenues from wireless spectrum auctions to enhance interoperability and address interference through the spectrum relocation of local public safety communications systems.

Compared to the billions generated by a federal spectrum auction, the aggregate cost of new equipment to enable public safety interoperability should be minimal. The federal government should allocate an appropriate share of the spectrum auction money to address local government efforts to protect the health, welfare, and public safety of their citizens.

1. Public Safety Spectrum Trust Fund
My work with PSWN, NTFI and CapWIN has convinced me that a federal funding mechanism, separate and apart from the annual appropriations process, is needed to support interoperability. The federal government is subject to many of the same budget challenges we have at the local level. Technology investments and/or upgrades in equipment are often some of the first things to be cut in tight budget times. My recommendation is that this “Public Safety Spectrum Trust Fund” would be funded by the proceeds from the sale of public spectrum to private interests, like cellular phone companies and used to assist local governments fund interoperability projects.[14]

C. Coordination and National Standards
I also share PSWN’s feeling that improving interoperability requires local, state, and federal decision-makers active participation in the development of open standards to ensure compatible technologies and competitive markets. Public safety personnel often cannot talk to each other because their equipment comes from competing manufacturers who have sought to protect market share by not building on an open standard.

Congress and the FCC should examine what role they might play in encouraging manufacturers to build equipment that complies with open standards.

We at the state and local level can do our own part to encourage such open standards through our procurement policies. We must also participate in standards development efforts.

VI. SPECIFIC ISSUE AREAS

In inviting me to testify here today, the Committee asked that I provide insights into a number of specific issues including:

• What is the role of organizations such as NACo & TeleCommUnity in addressing interference and interoperability;
  
• What type of role can regional partnerships such as CapWin play;
  
• Could I share local government’s thoughts on Project SAFECOM; and
  
• Is there a technological fix to issue of interoperability?

  
  A. Role for TeleCommUnity, NACo and others.
  The National Association of Counties has long viewed its role in this area as one of education. My fellow elected officials are often not familiar with the technical aspects of interoperability and interference. They, therefore, are not always prepared to ask the right questions and might be swayed by solutions a vendor or even our procurement officers suggest from the voice component of interoperability. This can result in a failure to appreciate the migration to, and growing importance of, data sharing.
  
  NACo feels that this issue is so important that it is actively pursuing grant funding in this area so that we can do more to provide technical assistance to counties in a number of homeland security areas, including interoperability.
  
  NACo has also invested substantial time and effort to ensure that as a group county officials’ voices are heard and understood on this issue. This commitment is reflected in having three participating members of the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Task Force on Interoperability, of which I was one. NACo is also represented on the SAFECOM Executive Committee.
  
  We also recommend the use of Public Safety WINS: Wireless Interoperability National Strategy, developed by the PSWN Program. This tool is of assistance as local governments pursue solutions to the technical and policy challenges to improving interoperability.
  
  B. CapWIN
  The benefits of coordinated communications that are broadly and actively shared at all levels of government are beginning to be realized in the Washington metropolitan area with the CapWIN Project.[15] Local, state, and federal agencies have formed a working group to coordinate interoperability activities, and to develop and enact appropriate policies or executive orders.
  
  CapWIN is also deploying a shared state-of-art wireless integrated mobile data communications network to support federal, state, and local law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services (EMS), transportation, and other public safety agencies primarily in the Washington, DC Metropolitan area.
  
  The purpose of CapWIN is to enhance communication and messaging systems through a “communication bridge," which allows mobile access to multiple criminal justice, transportation, and hazardous material data sources. It is also the first multi-state, inter-jurisdictional transportation and public safety integrated wireless network in the United States.
  
  We hope that the lessons and model of CapWIN proves a success that may be replicated, where appropriate, around the county.
  
  C. Project SAFECOM
  The Committee also asked that I provide my feelings on the prospects for success at SAFECOM. I attended my first SAFECOM meeting this past Monday and I believe that we are moving in the right direction. This was, however, not always the case.
  
  Project SAFECOM started out as a federal “top-down” solution to interoperability. In my opinion it was doomed to fail because first responders and local elected officials were not at the table. We were told that FEMA would look after our interests.
  
  It was only after many months of intense discussions between the associations of local elected officials, first responders and the federal agencies that OMB and others came to understand that SAFECOM could only be successful if state and local partners were at the table.
  
  The success of SAFECOM is yet to be judged, but with all the players at the table as potential equals, the long and arduous process of achieving regional, if not national interoperability may have just begun. It would also be my hope that the first products of SAFECOM would be the coordination, if not reduction, of the numbers of well-intentioned federal initiatives.
  
  D. Role of Technology
  Local government officials would be making a serious mistake were we to attempt to define what the technology fixes are for interoperability. As I said previously, national standards for open platforms are needed, but I believe this to be more a policy debate than a technology debate.
  
  Since the Committee did ask me my opinion regarding the state of technology, I will offer my personal opinion. I believe that there are existing technologies to bridge most of the interoperable gaps in voice communication – solutions that are relatively inexpensive, but less than optimum. For data interoperability, the use of XML and other data normalization techniques can assist in making differing jurisdictions’ legacy systems work together, but that too is no panacea. Encrypted wireless technologies need further development and with the utilization of new spectrum for personal communication devices, there are opportunities for improving both voice and data interoperability.
  

VII. CONCLUSION

There are no perfect “national” solutions to interoperability. The nuances of each region are too complex for a “one size fits all” approach. The biggest need to achieve interoperability is funding for a well planned, sustained effort over several years. Quickly throwing large sums of cash at jurisdictions in a short time frame with the goal of improving interoperability is actually counterproductive. The largest challenges for local governments is understanding the nature and limitations of their existing systems in achieving interoperability, determining the options, and then developing an engineering plan and migration strategy to a new interoperable system if necessary. This requires a great deal of education for local elected officials in some very technical matters as well as the availability of the necessary financial resources, interference-free spectrum and standards, which promote competition.

Thank you and I welcome your questions.

download as a PDF

Notes

13. Both TeleCommUnity and NACo support H.R. 1425, Rep. Harmon’s “HERO” legislation and would request that all the Members of the Government Reform Committee join her efforts by co-sponsoring the legislation.

14. I have already noted TeleCommUnity and NACo’s very strong support for Rep. Harmon’s “HERO” legislation.

15. The CapWIN Project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Domestic Preparedness, the Maryland State Highway Administration, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation (FHWA), the National Institute of Justice, Office of Science and Technology and the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN)