Public Safety Communications and Spectrum
Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
July 23, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40859
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Summary
Effective emergency response is dependent on wireless communications. To minimize
communications failures during and after a crisis requires ongoing improvements in emergency
communications capacity and capability. The availability of radio frequency spectrum is
considered essential to developing a modern, interoperable communications network for public
safety. Equally critical is building the radio network to use this spectrum. Opinions diverge,
however, on such issues as how much spectrum should be made available for the network, who
should own it, who should build it, who should operate it, who should be allowed to use it, and
how it might be paid for.
To resolve the debate and move the planning process forward, Congress may decide to pursue
oversight or change existing law. Actions proposed to Congress include (1) authorizing the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reassign spectrum and (2) changing requirements
for the use of spectrum auction proceeds. In particular, legislation in the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-171) might be modified. This law mandated the termination of analog television
broadcasting and the release of those channels for other uses, including public safety.
Congress may consider additional legislation to meet desired levels of emergency
communications performance. A bill that would increase the amount of radio frequency spectrum
assigned for public safety has been introduced (H.R. 5081, Representative King). A Senate bill
contains similar provisions for spectrum assignment and would add a number of new provisions,
including funding (S. 3625, Senator Lieberman). Both bills would require the FCC to transfer a
spectrum license intended for commercial use, the D Block, to the license-holder for adjacent
frequencies already assigned to public safety, known as the Public Safety Broadband License.
Other bills and oversight activities are likely.
Congress has before it an opportunity to bring public safety communications into the 21st century
by assuring that a nationwide, interoperable communications network is put in place. The tools at
its disposal include homeland security policy, spectrum policy, funding programs, and leadership.
Among the actions that Congress might take, those dealing with governance and funding are
often cited by public safety officials and others as the areas most in need of its consideration.
They have recommended that, for the proposed network project to go forward on a sustainable
footing, funding sources need to be identified for investment and operating expenses over the
long term. To ensure the resources are wisely used, many analysts point to the primacy of putting
in place a well-grounded but flexible governance structure. They argue that good governance is
essential to complete development of needed technologies and standards, and to plan for and
execute their deployment. In its National Broadband Plan, the FCC proposed that it assume the
needed leadership role and has since taken a number of steps to realize the goals it has set for
itself.
Since September 11, 2001, Congress has passed several laws that empowered the Department of
Homeland Security to recognize and respond to technological developments in wireless and
Internet protocol (IP) communications, and to apply this knowledge to guiding the development
of a nationwide, interoperable network for public safety. By choosing to focus on interim
solutions, the Department might appear to have passed on the opportunity to provide the needed
leadership and planning to move public safety communications toward a next-generation
emergency communications network.
Congressional Research Service
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Contents
The Issues Before Congress ........................................................................................................ 1
Debate Over Spectrum Resources: The D Block.......................................................................... 2
FCC’s Announced Plans for the D Block ............................................................................... 2
Legislation to Assign the D Block to Public Safety................................................................ 3
Legislation in Support of a Public Safety Network Without the D Block................................ 3
Communications Infrastructure and Governance ......................................................................... 3
Public Safety Broadband Network Requirements .................................................................. 3
FCC’s Proposals for Communications Infrastructure ............................................................. 4
Emergency Response Interoperability Center .................................................................. 5
Requirements for Conditional Build-Outs........................................................................ 6
Legislative Proposals for Communications Infrastructure ...................................................... 7
Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 7
FCC’s Proposals for Funding Infrastructure........................................................................... 8
Legislative Proposals for Funding Infrastructure.................................................................... 8
Spectrum Auctions as a Source of Funds ......................................................................... 9
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 9
Figures
Figure B-1. Public Safety and the D Block ................................................................................ 18
Appendixes
Appendix A. Congressional Efforts on Behalf of Public Safety Communications....................... 11
Appendix B. Spectrum Chart..................................................................................................... 18
Appendix C. Managing Technology and Spectrum Resources.................................................... 19
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 24
Congressional Research Service
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
The Issues Before Congress
Since September 11, 2001, Congress has passed several significant pieces of legislation intended
to help surmount failures in public safety radio communications such as (1) insufficient
interoperability among radio systems, a problem that hampered rescue efforts on and after
September 11; and (2) insufficiently robust networks, a shortcoming revealed after Hurricane
Katrina struck in August 2005. To achieve a higher standard of communications performance
might require, among other elements, improvements in communications capacity and quality.
Increased capacity is achievable through a number of means. Increasing the amount of radio
frequencies available for public safety use is one solution for adding capacity. Building additional
infrastructure to use existing airwaves more effectively is another solution, as is investment in
more spectrum-efficient technologies. Sharing networks also can provide additional capacity for
operations. All of these measures have been proposed for improving public safety
communications, with different groups voicing preferences for one means over another.
Many representative of the public safety community have argued that additional spectrum
assignments are needed to meet the future needs of emergency communications, while the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has presented an action plan that would develop
capacity through investing in network infrastructure, public-private sharing of development costs
for efficient radios, and creating a regulatory regime that would allow public safety and
commercial users to share infrastructure. All of the measures under consideration by the FCC or
proposed by public safety agencies would require substantial funding—many billions of dollars—
of which some is expected to come from the federal government.
Two bills have been introduced that would require the FCC to assign additional spectrum, known
as the D Block, for a public safety broadband network and take steps to ensure construction of an
interoperable network.1 Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV has announced plans for another bill that
would include similar provisions for assigning the D Block to public safety and also provide
funding.2 A draft discussion bill was released in June that would support the FCC’s plans for
using spectrum and developing infrastructure, funded in part by auction proceeds that would
include the sale of the D Block.3 Additional measures, as amendments or new bills, may be under
consideration.
1 H.R. 5081, the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2010, Representative King, introduced April 20, 2010, referred
to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and S. 3625, the First Responders Protection Act of 2010, Senator
Lieberman, referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
2 Recent Press Release, “Chairman Rockefeller Statement—Will Introduce the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless
Innovation Act in the Coming Days,” July 21, 2010, at http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=
PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f682dc37-772c-4a75-9c80-12bafbf37949&ContentType_id=77eb43da-aa94-497d-
a73f-5c951ff72372&Group_id=4b968841-f3e8-49da-a529-7b18e32fd69d&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010.
3 Staff discussion draft, the Public Safety Broadband Act of 2010, House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, presented June 14, 2010;
http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100615/Public.Safety.Broadband.Act.Discussion.Draft.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Debate Over Spectrum Resources: The D Block
Congress last addressed the public safety community’s need for spectrum capacity by mandating
the release of 24 MHz4 of frequencies that were originally designated for public safety use in the
late 1990s.5 This crucial resource, part of the 700 MHz band,6 remained largely unavailable as
long as its airwaves were used for analog television transmissions. By providing a deadline for
the transition from analog to digital television, Congress ensured that valuable radio frequency
spectrum would be released by 2009.7
The assignment of one set of frequencies in the 700 MHz band, referred to as the D Block, has
been widely debated. The D Block was slated for auction in 2008 along with other available
frequencies identified in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.8 In compliance with instructions from
Congress to auction all unallocated spectrum in this band, the FCC conducted an auction, which
concluded on March 18, 2008. As part of its preparation for the auction (Auction 73), the FCC
sought to increase the amount of spectrum available to public safety users in the 700 MHz band.
The FCC proposed to assign 10 MHz—part of the original 24 MHz designated for public safety
use—to a Public Safety Broadband Licensee specifically for public safety broadband
communications. Of the balance, 12 MHz were designated for mission critical voice
communications on narrowband networks and 2 MHz were set aside as a guard band to protect
against interference. A section of the 700 MHz band plan, showing the location of public safety
licenses and the D Block, is provided in Appendix B.
In the FCC plan for Auction 73, the Public Safety Broadband License (PBSL) was to have been
matched with a commercial license of 10 MHz, known as the D Block. The D Block was to be
auctioned under rules that would require the creation of a public-private partnership to develop
the two 10-MHz assignments as a single broadband network, available to both public safety users
and commercial customers. The D Block license was offered for sale in 2008 but did not find a
buyer. The FCC then set about the task of writing new rules for a reauction of the D Block.9
FCC’s Announced Plans for the D Block
The FCC subsequently decided to auction the D Block for commercial use with conditions
deemed beneficial for public safety users, such as assumption by the license-holder of the cost of
developing mobile devices, and guarantees that public safety networks would have roaming and
4 Spectrum is measured in cycles per second, or hertz. Standard abbreviations for measuring frequencies include kHz—
kilohertz or thousands of hertz; MHz—megahertz, or millions of hertz; and GHz—gigahertz, or billions of hertz.
5 The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171, Title III, Sec. 3002 120 STAT. 21 set a deadline for releasing the
frequencies. Initial legislation requiring the release was in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33, Title III, Sec.
3003 and Sec. 3004, 111 STAT. 265 et seq.
6 Spectrum resources are typically segmented into bands of radio frequencies. The 700 MHz band includes radio
frequencies from 698 MHz to 806 MHz. Public safety has frequency allocations within this band totaling 24 MHz.
7 Expediting the release of these frequencies was among the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11
Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, p. 397,
Washington: GPO, 2004.
8 The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171, Title III, Sec. 3003 120 STAT. 22.
9 A summary of FCC actions regarding the D Block is included as Background in FCC, Order, released May 12, 2010,
PS Docket No. 06-229, concerning waivers to allow early establishment of public safety broadband networks at 700
MHz, at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-79A1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
priority access rights to the D Block network. The decision was announced in the National
Broadband Plan (NBP),10 released March 16, 2010. The NBP proposed several actions to be taken
to facilitate development of a national wireless broadband network for public safety use. 11 Public
safety needs, such as developing standards and establishing procedures, would be addressed
through a newly established Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC).12
Legislation to Assign the D Block to Public Safety
The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2010 (H.R. 5081, Representative King) would amend
the Communications Act of 1934 by requiring the FCC to allocate the D Block for public safety
services. The bill would require the FCC to establish rules to encourage the rapid deployment of
an interoperable national wireless broadband network, and to allow public safety license-holders
to share spectrum with other entities, as long as requirements for roaming and priority access
were met. The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 (S. 3625, Lieberman) would require the
same steps, rule-making procedures, and requirements.
Legislation in Support of a Public Safety Network Without the D
Block
The discussion draft of the Public Safety Broadband Act of 2010 includes the presumption that
the D Block will be auctioned, in that it provides that proceeds from its auction be applied to the
construction and operation costs of public safety broadband networks. The draft bill would permit
sharing of spectrum designated for broadband networks between public safety and other entities.
It would also direct the FCC to allow flexible use of other frequencies in the 700 MHz band
designated for public safety.
Communications Infrastructure and Governance
The First Responders Protection Act of 2010, the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2010,
the discussion draft of the Public Safety Broadband Act of 2010, and several inter-connected
initiatives of the FCC address the complex issue of how to plan, build, and fund a national
network for public safety communications.
Public Safety Broadband Network Requirements
Developments in mobile broadband communications are changing the public safety community’s
expectations about how to best use the 700 MHz airwaves allocated for their use. Public safety
representatives have argued that this spectrum should be used for a wireless network customized
to meet needs that they have indentified. Arguments in favor of building a network exclusively
for public safety revolve around the shortcomings of current commercial wireless services such as
10 FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/.
11 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.8.2.
12 Connecting America, Recommendation 16.1. FCC Order establishing ERIC was released April 23, 2010,
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-67A1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
poor availability, inadequate coverage in rural areas, lack of security features, and absence of
priority access.
Network infrastructure requirements for public safety communications that are frequently
discussed include13
• Broadband applications should facilitate emergency response by providing data
and images, including video.14
• The network should cover all areas of the United States, ensuring service to meet
a public safety emergency anywhere.
• Broadband services should include voice communications as a back up to
mission critical voice channels on other frequencies and offer the same features
such as push-to-talk and one-to-one or one-to-many connectivity.
• Network software should provide traffic management services such as
prioritizing service. If multiple networks were built separately and then linked
together, interoperability15 and nationwide roaming16 would need to be ensured.
• Radio software should provide mobile broadband applications designed for
public safety. In particular, radio chipsets need to be developed for wireless
devices that can connect to a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network.
• Radio software should support encryption and authentication.
• Cell towers in the network should be strengthened against natural hazards and
furnished with back-up power supplies that can outlast extended power outages.
• Robust backhaul should be ensured. Backhaul typically refers to connectivity
between access points like cell towers and high capacity, landline
communications networks. Backhaul is an essential component of wireless
network infrastructure.
FCC’s Proposals for Communications Infrastructure
In the NBP, the FCC made these key recommendations for promoting public safety wireless
broadband Communications.17
13 These requirements are included in presentations by Ralph A. Haller, Chairman of the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council, and Chief Harlin R. McEwen, Chairman of the Public Safety Spectrum Trust, at an FCC
National Broadband Plan Staff Workshop on August 25, 2009. The presentations are available at http://www.npstc.org/
index.jsp.
14 Broadband refers to the capacity of the radio frequency channel. A broadband channel can transmit live video,
complex graphics and other data-rich information as well as voice and text messages whereas a narrowband channel
might be limited to handling voice, text, and some graphics.
15 One frequently cited definition of interoperability has been provided by the government agency SAFECOM: “In
general, interoperability refers to the ability of public safety emergency responders to work seamlessly with other
systems or products without any special effort. Wireless communications interoperability specifically refers to the
ability of public safety officials to share information via voice and data signals on demand, in real time, when needed,
and as authorized.” http://www.safecomprogram.gov.
16 The practice of transferring a wireless call from one network to another—or roaming—is described in Understanding
Wireless Telephone Coverage Areas, FCC Consumer Facts at http://www.ifap.ru/library/book385.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
• Create an administrative system that ensures access to sufficient capacity on a
day-to-day and emergency basis.
• Ensure there is a mechanism in place to promote interoperability and operability
of the network.
• Establish a funding mechanism to ensure the network is deployed throughout the
United States and has necessary coverage, resiliency, and redundancy.
• Conform existing programs to operate with the public safety broadband network.
The FCC has recommended that the public safety community leverage the availability of
commercial technologies and networks to assure system-wide capacity and has encouraged
partnerships and administrative agreements with commercial operators and others.
Emergency Response Interoperability Center
The FCC would address public safety needs such as developing standards and establishing
procedures through the newly established Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC).
ERIC was established within the FCC Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, in April
2010.18 It is intended for ERIC to work closely with the Public Safety Communications Research
program, jointly managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the
NTIA, to develop and test the technological solutions needed for public safety broadband
communications.19 The Department of Homeland Security is to participate in the areas of public
safety outreach and technical assistance, as well as best practices development, through its Office
of Emergency Communications. ERIC has been tasked with implementing standards for national
interoperability and developing technical and operational procedures for the public safety
wireless broadband network in the 700 MHz band. In the future, ERIC may perform similar
functions for other public safety communications systems.
One of the expectations is that ERIC will be able to guide the development of standards for
crucial radio components, with the participation of commercial providers and public safety
representatives. The participation of commercial carriers in developing and deploying, for
example, a common radio interface, is expected to put the cost of public safety radios in the same
price range as commercial high-end mobile devices ($500). By contrast, interoperable radios for
the narrowband networks at 700 MHz cost $3,000 and up, each.
Within the 700 MHz band, ERIC might use the regulatory powers of the FCC to require the
cooperation of commercial wireless operators in establishing roaming rights and access rules
between the public safety broadband network and other networks built to use the 700 MHz
frequencies. In particular, the FCC’s powers to write rules for spectrum license auctions and set
service rules for auction winners are to be brought to bear on the winner or winners of licenses in
the D Block. In addition to cooperation for sharing network resources, the FCC has anticipated
(...continued)
17 Connecting America, Recommendation 16.1.
18 FCC, Order, PS Docket No. 06-229, released April 23, 2010 at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-10-67A1.pdf.
19 NIST, “Demonstration Network Planned for Public Safety 700 MHz Broadband,” December 15, 2009 at
http://www.nist.gov/eeel/oles/network_121509.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
5
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
that the D Block owner or owners will lead, and fund, the development costs of the air interface
that will operate within the band comprised of the Public Safety Broadband License and the D
Block. LTE has been specified by the FCC as the network technology for these frequencies. The
FCC has also assumed that the other networks at 700 MHz will use LTE or a compatible fourth-
generation (4G) technology and it has anticipated that it will be able to negotiate roaming and
priority access across the 700 MHz band. Its authority to enforce access requirements is
uncertain, however, and might be successfully challenged in court.
Requirements for Conditional Build-Outs
Some states and localities have petitioned the FCC to allow them to use frequencies from the 10
MHz assigned to the PSBL for their own public safety networks. Plans would be developed based
on local and regional needs, with anticipated funding from sources such as existing programs,
partnerships with commercial providers, and federal grants. The FCC has therefore adopted an
order to provide the framework for nationwide interoperability and mobile broadband and grant
waivers to public safety entities that meet its requirements.20 Providing evidence of funding is
among the conditions established by the FCC.
ERIC will play a lead role in approving and coordinating the technical aspects of the waiver
requests. Technical components of the waiver requests include specifications for system
architecture, required applications, and network operations, administration and maintenance.
System requirements to support interoperability must include radio access network and core
network architectures. Plans for supporting roaming, priority access, Quality of Service (QoS),
and security are required. Specifications must be provided regarding the devices planned for use
on the network, including information on type (form factor), operational specifications, and
spectrum coverage.21
Additional development work is needed to advance from the planning stages to testing and
deployment of mobile devices on the LTE radio network. The term profile is generally used in
referring to the range of technical specifications needed for mobile devices using LTE technology
to operate on a designated network. The primary group coordinating standards-setting for LTE22
has established four profiles for commercial bands using LTE in the 700 MHZ band: Band 12,
Band 13, Band 14, and Band 17. Band 14 includes the D Block and can include the public safety
frequencies assigned to broadband and possibly the frequencies assigned to narrowband as well.
The LTE profile for Band 14 needs to be modified to support public safety requirements. Part of
the challenge for ERIC and network developers participating in the early-build-out program will
be to establish a profile for public safety requirements that can be developed in conjunction with
the Band 14 profile for the D Block and, possibly, other LTE bands at 700 MHz.
20 FCC, Order, Request for Waiver of Various Petitioners to Allow the Establishment of 700 MHz Interoperable Public
Safety Wireless Broadband Networks, P.S. Docket No. 06-229, released May 12, 2010 at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-79A1.pdf.
21 FCC, Public Notice, “Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Offers Further Guidance to Conditional Waiver
Recipients on Completing the Interoperability Showing Required by the 700 MHz Waiver Order,” P.S. Docket No. 06-
227, DA 10-923, released May 21, 2010, at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-923A1.pdf.
22 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) coordinate telecommunications standards bodies as “Organization
Partners,” see http://www.3gpp.org/About-3GPP. 3GPP is addressing commercial standards for 4th Generation
technologies, including LTE; see http://www.3gpp.org/technologies.
Congressional Research Service
6
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Legislative Proposals for Communications Infrastructure
Both the First Responders Protection Act of 2010 and the Broadband for First Responders Act of
2010 would require the FCC to establish rules for the construction and operation of a wireless
public safety broadband network. The requirements would cover interoperability, roaming,
priority access, network survivability, and cybersecurity. The FCC would also be required to
develop a statement of requirements for standards that would take into account: commercial
availability of technologies; licensing terms; adaptability; transmission priority; security; and
other considerations, as appropriate.
The discussion draft of the Public Safety Broadband Act of 2010 eliminates requirements for
roaming privileges but otherwise would make similar requirements. It would direct the FCC to
“take all actions necessary” to develop and implement technical standards and rules for a
nationwide public safety interoperable broadband network that would include user authentication
and encryption. This and other provisions in the bill would support the FCC’s regulatory authority
to mandate sharing of 700 MHz infrastructure. The FCC would be required to establish “an
appropriate rule, or set of rules” to ensure interoperability, taking into account: commercial
availability of technologies; licensing terms; adaptability; transmission priority; and security.
The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 does not include any provisions that support the
FCC’s position to mandate that commercial networks provide access for roaming or make other
accommodations to public safety users. These provisions therefore are likely to be part of
separate contractual agreements between public safety network users and commercial network
owners as part of negotiations among multiple players.
The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 and the discussion draft both provide funding
mechanisms for construction and operation of the wireless broadband network. Projects eligible
for funding that are mentioned in the bills include “construction of a new public safety
interoperable broadband network using commercial infrastructure or public safety infrastructure,
or both, in the 700 MHz band” and “improvement of the existing commercial networks and
construction of new infrastructure to meet public safety requirements....” There is no provision in
either bill for funds to cover the cost of development and testing of new radio technologies that
allow public safety broadband radios to operate on the new networks, which are expected to be
built in accordance with commercial standards for LTE.
Funding
At the time of the attempted auction of the D Block, the cost of building the mobile broadband
network under the public-private partnership proposed by the FCC was estimated at from $18
billion to as much as $40 billion.23 These projected costs did not include radios.
23 Cyren Call Communications Corporation, in ex parte comments filed with the FCC on June 4, 2007, set the
cumulative capital expenditure for building a public-private network at $18 billion, of which roughly a third of the cost
would be for enhancements for public safety use. An estimate from Northrop-Grumman Corporation placed the cost at
$30 billion, when service applications are included. (Statement by Mark S. Adams, Chief Architect Networks and
Communications, at WCA 2007, Washington, DC, June 14, 2007.) These estimates do not include the cost of radios.
An estimated range of $20 billion to $40 billion for network infrastructure was discussed at a House of Representatives
hearing held by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the
Internet, “A National, Interoperable Broadband Network for Public Safety: Recent Developments,” September 24,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
FCC’s Proposals for Funding Infrastructure
In the NBP, the FCC has recommended that a grant program be established to ensure that needed
infrastructure is fully deployed.24 It has recommended that the grants program be administered by
a single agency and only be applied to projects that comply with requirements set by ERIC. The
four recommended uses of these grants would be: construction of a public safety network,
including use of commercial infrastructure; coverage of rural areas; hardening existing
commercial networks for public safety use, including reimbursement of non-recoverable
engineering costs; and deployable capabilities for public safety.
The NBP provided an estimate of up to $6.5 billion for capital expenditures over ten years and
operating costs of $1.3 billion a year. A subsequent report providing details on these projections
were later released.25 The report included a comparison of costs that concluded that building a
dedicated public safety broadband network would require $15.7 billion in capital expenditures. A
substantial part of the projected savings would come from the ability for public safety to use
commercial towers.
The NBP stated that it was “essential that the United States establish a long-term, sustainable and
adequate funding mechanism to help pay for the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the
public safety broadband network.”26 To provide these funds, the plan recommended that a
“minimal public safety fee” be assessed on all U.S. broadband users.
Legislative Proposals for Funding Infrastructure
The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2010 would rely on existing authorizations for
funding public safety communications, such as the Interoperable Emergency Communications
Grant program. This law authorized appropriations as necessary for fiscal year 2008 and
appropriations of up to $400 million for fiscal years 2009 though 2012, with such sums as may be
necessary in subsequent years.27 The first appropriations were provided for fiscal year 2008 in the
amount of $50 million, appropriations in subsequent years have also been for $50 million.28
The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 and the discussion draft of the Public Safety
Broadband Act of 2010 would fund network construction and operation with proceeds from
future spectrum auctions. Both bills have designated several sets of spectrum bands for auction as
sources of revenue over a specified time period. The D Block is included in the draft discussion
bill. Two funds would be created to receive auction proceeds. The first $5.5 billion would be
destined for a Construction Fund; subsequent proceeds would be administered through a
(...continued)
2009.
24 Connecting America, p. 317.
25 FCC, A Broadband Network Cost Model: A Basis for Public Funding Essential to Bringing Nationwide
Interoperable Communications to America’s First Responders, OBI Technical Paper No. 2, May 2010 at
http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/ps-bb-cost-model.pdf.
26 Connecting America, p. 319.
27 P.L. 110-53, Title III, 121 STAT. 299; 6 U.S.C. 579.
28 PSIC grants are discussed in CRS Report R40632, FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States
and Localities, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
8
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Maintenance and Operation Fund. The NTIA would have primary responsibility for grants
programs covered by the funds. Construction projects that would be eligible would be for new
construction for a public safety broadband network; improvements to existing commercial
networks and other improvements to infrastructure needed to operate an interoperable, public
safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. The bills have described eligibility for
reimbursement of maintenance and operational costs and related provisions.
Spectrum Auctions as a Source of Funds
Congress has twice enacted laws to create special funds to hold the revenue of certain spectrum
auctions for specific purposes. These funds represent a departure from existing practice, which
requires that auction proceeds be credited directly to the Treasury as income. The Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171, Title III) required the auctioning of licenses for spectrum
currently used by TV broadcasters for analog transmissions. It established the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Fund to receive this auction revenue and use some of the proceeds
for the transition to digital television, public safety communications, and other programs. The
Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (P.L. 108-494, Title II) established a Spectrum
Relocation Fund to hold the proceeds of certain spectrum auctions for the specific purpose of
reimbursing federal entities for the costs of moving to new frequency assignments.
The Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant program, now administered
through the Department of Homeland Security, was funded under provisions in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005.
Conclusion
Homeland security depends on effective communications for prevention, preparedness, and
response to a range of threats. First responders and the larger public safety community that
supports them rely heavily on effective radio communications to meet their responsibilities for
homeland security. More important to the average American is the role that public safety services
play in daily life and in responding to natural disasters. Flash floods, forest fires, tornados,
hurricanes—Mother Nature provides endless variations for the scenarios of response and
recovery.
The FCC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have different perspectives on radio
technology and infrastructure. DHS policies favor reliability and familiarity in their requirements
and guidelines for technology and in their emphasis on training and repeated use of equipment.
Spectrum policy at the FCC promotes spectrum efficiency and competition among commercial
license-holders.
Congress has separately conferred authority on DHS and the FCC to act on behalf of public
safety. In the case of DHS, this includes requirements to coordinate and support specific goals,
such as interoperability and a national communications capability.29 None of the actions required
of DHS by Congress relate specifically to using 700 MHz spectrum to achieve these objectives.
The FCC brings to the process several important mandates from Congress, such as an obligation
29 Discussed in detail in Appendix A, “Congressional Efforts on Behalf of Public Safety Communications.”
Congressional Research Service
9
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
to “promote safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication,”30 as
well as specific instructions regarding the assignment of frequencies at 700 MHz.
The bills introduced so far would increase the powers and responsibilities of the FCC in shaping
the public safety communications network of the future, placing DHS in an advisory role.
Governance of the public safety network at a national level would be dependent almost entirely
on the FCC and its willingness to write and enforce regulations. The Public Safety Broadband
Licensee Board of Governors and the Technical Advisory Committee of ERIC appear to be the
primary conduits for presenting public safety views and requirements to the FCC. The Public
Safety Broadband License, the charter for the Public Safety Broadband Licensee, and ERIC were
established by the FCC through its rule-making process.
30 47 U.S.C. § 151. The FCC relied partly on this authority in requiring the relocation of commercial licenses because
transmissions were interfering with public safety radio communications in the 800 MHz band. See CRS Report
RL32408, Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications Interference, by Linda K. Moore.
Congressional Research Service
10
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Congressional Efforts on Behalf of
Public Safety Communications
Many of the statutes passed since 2001 have provided guidelines and set performance goals for
public safety communications while delegating decisions about implementation to federal
agencies and state officials. Although Congress has appropriated money for public safety
communications it has not directly addressed the question of investment in network
infrastructure, leaving it largely to federal agencies to set priorities for how public safety grants
can be used. Most of the grant programs are now administered through the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).31 Grants for emergency communications have been used to purchase
equipment that facilitates interoperability, for planning, and for training.
To facilitate planning and coordination, and to provide direction, Congress authorized the creation
of an Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) within DHS. The OEC was given the
responsibility of preparing a National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). The resulting
plan set goals for improving emergency communications and interoperability but did not address
developing a network infrastructure for public safety communications or for using the 700 MHz
spectrum for that purpose.32
To support its vision33 of interoperability as a system of systems, DHS sponsored an Emergency
Response Council (ERC) composed of several dozen agencies, associations, and other entities
involved in public safety and emergency response planning. In 2007 the ERC provided a set of
agreements on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable Communications. The ERC published 12
guiding principles deemed essential to their key goals of forging partnerships, designing
interoperable systems, educating policymakers, and allocating resources.34 To date, the council’s
role has been primarily to establish a base for advocacy and communication among
representatives of public safety agencies and associations.
Congress first addressed the issue of emergency communications interoperability in the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). Two years later, responding to recommendations
of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission),
Congress included a section in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-458) that expanded its requirements for action in improving interoperability and public
safety communications. Also in response to a recommendation by the 9/11 Commission,
Congress set a firm deadline for the release of radio frequency spectrum needed for public safety
radios, as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). These laws provided the base
from which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could develop a national public safety
communications capability as required by the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L.
31 DHS grants programs are discussed in CRS Reports CRS Report R40632, FY2010 Department of Homeland Security
Assistance to States and Localities, and CRS Report R40246, Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States
and Localities: A Summary and Issues for the 111th Congress, both by Shawn Reese.
32 DHS, National Emergency Communications Plan, July 2008 at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
national_emergency_communications_plan.pdf
33 “Our vision was developed at the 2003 SAFECOM/AGILE Joint Program Planning Meeting in San Diego, CA.”,
Emergency Response Council, Agreements on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable Communications, Summer 2007,
footnote 1.
34 Op. cit., Agreements on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable Communications.
Congressional Research Service
11
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
109-295). Title VI, Subtitle D of the act, referred to as the 21st Century Emergency
Communications Act of 2006, placed new requirements on DHS. Additional requirements were
included in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-
53).
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
The initial allocation to public safety of frequencies in the 700 MHz band was required by
Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33),35 which directed the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to designate 24 MHz of spectrum capacity for public safety.
To carry out the process of assigning this newly allocated spectrum asset, the FCC created the
Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC) as a Federal Advisory Committee. Active
from 1999 through 2003, the NCC had a Steering Committee from government, the public safety
community, and the telecommunications industry. The NCC developed technical and operational
recommendations for the 700 MHz band, including plans for interoperable channels. The existing
governance for these channels is through Regional Planning Committees (RPCs),36 established
and loosely coordinated by the FCC, with the participation of the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), a group consisting primarily of public safety
associations. The RPCs are responsible for submitting 700 MHz band plans to the FCC for
approval, and for managing these plans.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Actions by the Department
Provisions of the Homeland Security Act instructed DHS to address some of the issues
concerning public safety communications in emergency preparedness and response and in
providing critical infrastructure. Telecommunications for first responders is mentioned in several
sections, with specific emphasis on technology for interoperability.37
The newly created DHS placed responsibility for interoperable communications within the
Directorate for Science and Technology, reasoning that the focus of DHS efforts would be on
standards and on encouraging research and development for communications technology.
Responsibility to coordinate and rationalize federal networks, and to support interoperability, had
previously been assigned to the Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable COMmunications
Program—called Project SAFECOM—by the Office of Management and Budget as an e-
government initiative. With the support of the George W. Bush Administration, SAFECOM was
placed in the Science and Technology directorate and became the lead agency for coordinating
federal programs for interoperability.38 The Secretary of Homeland Security assigned the
responsibility of preparing a national strategy for communications interoperability to the Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), which DHS created, an organizational move that was
later ratified by Congress in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.39 SAFECOM
continued to operate as an entity within the OIC, which assumed the leadership role.
35 47 U.S.C. § 309 (j) (14).
36 Additional information at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/public-safety-spectrum/700-MHz/regional-planning.html.
37 Notably, P.L. 107-296, Sec. 232, 116 STAT. 2159 and Sec. 502, 116 STAT. 2213.
38 “Homeland Security Starting Over With SAFECOM,” Government Computer News, June 9, 2003.
39 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (2), 118 STAT. 3843-3844.
Congressional Research Service
12
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
Acting on recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, Congress included several sections
regarding improvements in communications capacity—including clarifications to the Homeland
Security Act—in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458).
The Commission’s analysis of communications difficulties on September 11, 2001, was
summarized in the following recommendation.
Congress should support pending legislation which provides for the expedited and increased
assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes. Furthermore, high-risk urban areas
such as New York City and Washington, D.C., should establish signal corps units to ensure
communications connectivity between and among civilian authorities, local first responders,
and the National Guard. Federal funding of such units should be given high priority by
Congress.40
Congress addressed both the context and the specifics of the recommendation for signal corps
capabilities. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act amended the Homeland
Security Act to specify that DHS give priority to the rapid establishment of interoperable capacity
in urban and other areas determined to be at high risk from terrorist attack. The Secretary of
Homeland Security was required to work with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
the Secretary of Defense, and the appropriate state and local authorities to provide technical
guidance, training, and other assistance as appropriate. Minimum capabilities were to be
established for “all levels of government agencies,” first responders, and others, including the
ability to communicate with each other.41 The act further required the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish at least two trial programs in high-threat areas. The process of development
for these programs was to contribute to the creation and implementation of a national model
strategic plan. The purpose was to foster interagency communications at all levels of the response
effort. Building on the concept of using the Army Signal Corps as a model, the law directed the
Secretary to consult with the Secretary of Defense in the development of the test projects,
including review of standards, equipment, and protocols.42
Congress also raised the bar for performance and accountability, setting program goals for the
Department of Homeland Security. Briefly, the goals were to:
• Establish a comprehensive, national approach for achieving interoperability;
• Coordinate with other federal agencies;
• Develop appropriate minimum capabilities for interoperability;
• Accelerate development of voluntary standards;
• Encourage open architecture and commercial products;
• Assist other agencies with research and development;
40 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
Washington: GPO, 2004, p. 397.
41 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303, 118 STAT. 3843 et seq.
42 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304, 118 STAT. 3847-3848.
Congressional Research Service
13
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
• Prioritize, within DHS, research, development, testing and related programs;
• Establish coordinated guidance for federal grant programs;
• Provide technical assistance; and
• Develop and disseminate best practices.
The act included a requirement that any request for funding from DHS for interoperable
communications “for emergency response providers” be accompanied by an Interoperable
Communications Plan, approved by the Secretary. Criteria for the plan were also provided in the
act.43
The act also provided a sense of Congress that the next Congress—the 109th—should pass
legislation supporting the Commission’s recommendation to expedite the release of spectrum.
This was addressed in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171).
The Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
The destruction caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August-September 2005 reinforced the
recognition of the need for providing interoperable, interchangeable communications systems for
public safety and also revealed the potential weaknesses in existing systems to withstand or
recover from catastrophic events. Testimony at numerous hearings following the hurricanes
suggested that DHS was responding minimally to congressional mandates for action, most
notably as expressed in the language of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
Bills subsequently introduced in both the House and the Senate proposed strengthening
emergency communications leadership and expanding the scope of the efforts for improvement.
Some of these proposals were included in Title VI of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2007 (P.L. 109-295). Title VI—the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006—
reorganized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), gave the agency new powers,
and clarified its functions and authorities within DHS.44
The act also addressed public safety communications in Title VI, Subtitle D—the 21st Century
Emergency Communications Act of 2006. This section created an Office of Emergency
Communications (OEC)) and the position of Director, reporting to the Assistant Secretary for
Cybersecurity and Communications. The Director was required to take numerous steps to
coordinate emergency communications planning, preparedness, and response, particularly at the
state and regional level. These efforts were to include coordination with Regional Administrators
appointed by the FEMA Administrator to head ten Regional Offices. To assist these efforts,
Congress required the creation of Regional Emergency Communications Coordination (RECC)
Working Groups.45
Other responsibilities assigned to the Director included conducting outreach programs, providing
technical assistance, coordinating regional working groups, promoting the development of
standard operating procedures and best practices, establishing non-proprietary standards for
43 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 118 STAT. 3843 et seq.
44 Information on the FEMA reorganization is provided in CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency Management
Policy Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions, coordinated by Keith Bea.
45 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1805, 120 STAT. 1439.
Congressional Research Service
14
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
interoperability, developing a national communications plan, working to assure operability and
interoperability of communications systems for emergency response, and reviewing grants.
Required elements of the National Emergency Communications Plan included establishing
requirements for assessments and reports, and an evaluation of the feasibility of developing a
mobile communications capability modeled on the Army Signal Corps. The feasibility study was
to be done by DHS on its own or in cooperation with the Department of Defense. Congress also
required assessments of emergency communications capabilities, including an inventory that
identified radio frequencies used by federal departments and agencies.46
Many of the functions Congress envisioned for the OEC were later assumed by the Command,
Control and Interoperability Division in the Directorate of Science and Technology.
Regional Emergency Communication Coordination
Congress directed the OEC to coordinate with the Regional Emergency Communication
Coordination (RECC) Working Groups established by FEMA.47 These groups could provide a
platform for coordinating emergency communications plans among states and were intended to
include representatives from many sectors with responsibility for public safety and security. Plans
for forming RECCs were announced in December 2007. In 2008 organization charts were
developed, graphing how the RECCs were structured and where they would fit in the existing
chain-of-command of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A National RECC
Coordinator was appointed and plans were announced to appoint administrators for each of the
regions.
A key proposal for the RECC structure is to “Establish and use the RECC’s as a single Federal
emergency communications coordination point for Federal interaction with the State, local and
tribal governments.”48 It is not clear at this early stage whether the RECCs will become an
effective conduit for interaction to develop policies and plan for shared infrastructure or a forum
for FEMA’s Disaster Operations Directorate to relay guidelines and orders. Congress placed an
emphasis on assisting first responders in its statement of RECC goals but did not limit the
RECCs’ ability to set more inclusive goals. Based on the role of RECCs as assigned by the
National Emergency Communications Plan, their focus will be narrowly on assisting first
responders to prepare for disaster response. Leadership will be provided by FEMA and
governance will be through the chain-of-command of the agencies’ directorates.
The formation of the regional working groups, the RECCs, responded in part to requests from the
public safety community to expand interoperable communications planning to include the second
tier of emergency workers. Non-federal members of the RECC are to include first responders,
state and local officials and emergency managers, and public safety answering points (911 call
centers). Additionally, RECC working groups are to coordinate with a variety of communications
providers (such as wireless carriers and cable operators), hospitals, utilities, emergency
46 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803, 120 STAT. 1437-1438.
47 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), “Title XVIII, “Sec. 1805, 120 STAT. 1439.
48 Presentation by Brian Carney, National RECC Coordinator, Disaster Operations Directorate, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, “Regional Emergency Communications Coordination
Working Groups (RECCWG)” at National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), Seattle, Washington,
September 15, 2008 at http://www.npstc.org/meetings/GB_Carney_RECC%20Briefing_090208_NPSTC.ppt.
Congressional Research Service
15
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
evacuation transit services, ambulance services, amateur radio operators, and others
as appropriate.
National Emergency Communications Plan
In compliance with requirements of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, the
Department of Homeland Security issued the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP)
in July 2008.49
The NECP sets three goals for levels of interoperability50
• By 2010, 90% of all areas designated within the Urban Areas Security Initiative
(UASI) will demonstrate response-level emergency communications, as defined
in grant programs, within one hour for routine events involving multiple
jurisdictions and agencies.
• By 2011, 75% of non-UASI will have achieved the goal set for UASIs.
• By 2013, 75% of all jurisdictions will be able to demonstrate response-level
emergency communications within three hours for a significant incident as
outlined in national planning scenarios.
These jurisdictional goals are to be knit together into a national communications capability
through program efforts such as FEMA’s Regional Emergency Communications Coordination
(RECC) Working Group. The three goals are bolstered by seven objectives for improving
emergency communications for first responders, dealing largely with organization and
coordination.51 Each of these objectives have “Supporting Initiatives” and milestones.
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the Public Safety
Interoperability Grant Program
Provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 planned for the release of spectrum by
February 18, 200952 and created a fund to receive spectrum auction proceeds and disburse
designated sums to the Treasury and for other purposes,53 including a grant program of up to $1
billion for public safety agencies. The fund’s disbursements were to be administered by the
NTIA.54 At the time, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the grants program for
public safety would receive $100 million in FY2007, $370 million in FY2008, $310 million in
FY2009 and $220 million in FY2010.55 However, the 109th Congress, in its closing hours, passed
49 DHS, National Emergency Communications Plan, July 2008 at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
national_emergency_communications_plan.pdf.
50 National Emergency Communications Plan, “Executive Summary,” page ES-1.
51 Ibid., “Executive Summary,” page ES-2.
52 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3002 (a) (1) (B). The deadline was later extended through June 12, 2009, by the DTV Delay Act,
P.L. 111-4, Sec. 2 (a) (1).
53 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004, 120 STAT. 22-23.
54 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006, 120 STAT. 24-25.
55 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, S. 1932, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, January 27, 2006, p. 21,
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7028&sequence=0.
Congressional Research Service
16
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
a bill with a provision requiring that the grants program receive “no less than” $1 billion to be
awarded “no later than” September 30, 2007.56 Language in Implementing Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) required some changes in the grant program and
reaffirmed the 2007 fiscal year deadline.57
In February 2007, the NTIA transferred the management of the public safety grant program to
DHS, signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Office of Grants and Training.58
The MOU included an overview of how the Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC)
Grant Program, as it is called, is to be administered. The overview was reiterated and explained in
testimony.59 Both the MOU and the testimony indicate that the priority was to fund needs
identified through Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans and Statewide Interoperable
Plans developed in conjunction with SAFECOM.
On July 18, 2007, the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security jointly announced the
details of the PSIC grant program.60 The program, as announced, was to provide $968,385,000 in
funding for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories.61 The announcement of
the top-level, statewide allocations met the September 30 deadline set by Congress. The states,
however, have additional time to submit their detailed requests. Originally, states were eligible to
receive funds through FY2010.62 New legislation (P.L. 111-96) extends the deadline through
FY2012.63 The status of the PSIC grant program was discussed at a hearing in March 2009.
Testimony at the time indicated that all of the states, territories, and the District of Columbia had
filed Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans, a prerequisite for receiving funds.64
56 P.L. 109-459, Sec. 2.
57 P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Title XXII, Sec. 2201, 121
STAT. 537 et seq.
58 MOU at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/psic/PSICMOU_Executed_2-16-2007.pdf.
59 Testimony of Corey Gruber, Acting Assistant Secretary for Grants and Planning, Office of Grants and Training,
Department of Homeland Security at hearing on “Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grants: Are the
Departments of Homeland Security and Commerce Effectively Coordinating to Meet our Nation’s Emergency
Communications Needs?” House of Representatives, Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response, March 14, 2007.
60 Press releases at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1184783934669.shtm and http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
ntiahome/press/2007/PSIC_071807.pdf.
61 See http://www.dhs.gov/xgovt/grants/gc_1184774852768.shtm. The NTIA website main page has a section devoted
to PSIC at http://www.ntia.doc.gov.
62 For details, see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/psic/awards.html.
63 S. 1694, signed into law November 6, 2009.
64 Testimony of W. Ross Ashley, III, Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate, FEMA, Hearing,
“Interoperable Communications,” House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Homeland Security, March 17, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
17
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Spectrum Chart
Below is an excerpt of the 700 MHz band plan that shows the location of public safety allocations
and the D Block, and their relation to other adjacent spectrum holdings.
Figure B-1. Public Safety and the D Block
Source: Federal Communications Commission, Revised 700 MHz Band Plan for Commercial Services.
Congressional Research Service
18
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Appendix C. Managing Technology and Spectrum
Resources
Within the federal government, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has authority for
planning and implementing public safety communications solutions. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) created a Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau in
2006 to consolidate its many programs oriented toward public safety.65 The FCC and DHS have
each approached the goal of communications interoperability from a different perspective. The
following discussion provides snapshot summaries of the approaches adopted by the two agencies
and the technologies and network design concepts that might be applied by the FCC. The section
also discusses the trend to Internet-based concepts for networks and spectrum management.
Ideas for managing emergency communications have moved along an evolutionary path from the
1990s, when agreement was reached on developing standards for interoperable communications,
to the system-of-systems concept embraced by DHS, to the network-oriented proposals of the
FCC, Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST), National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
(NPSTC),66 and others. The ubiquity of the Internet and the standards that support it are leading
to a new path for managing spectrum and network resources.
System-of-Systems
The communications solutions advocated by DHS have focused on developing what is often
referred to as a “system of systems.” The choice of terminology implies that independent systems
are made to work with each other through bridges and gateways that connect incompatible
technology choices into a larger system. This approach maximizes the value of past investments
but does not represent an efficient use of resources. Backward-compatible radio equipment that
can support several generations of different technologies, for example, is more expensive than
equipment designed to work only with newer network technology. Spectrum usage is inefficient
because more than one channel is often used to convey a single communication from system to
system.
Essentially, the system-of-systems concept starts with the radio user and works its way up, adding
and connecting the different levels of command and control needed to respond to specific
situations. DHS refers to this as a practitioner-driven approach. Many of the DHS programs for
public safety have focused on achieving interoperability within the existing framework of
proprietary systems and by expanding the diffusion of Project 25, or P25, standards.67 Backward
compatibility with legacy systems is one of the principles behind the digital radio and
65 See http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/about-us/.
66 See, for example, NPSTC, 700 MHz Public Safety Broadband Task Force Report and Recommendations, September
14, 2009 at http://www.npstc.org/documents/700_MHz_BBTF_Final_Report_0090904_v1_1.pdf.
67 P25 conforms to recommendations made in 1996 by the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC)
regarding the improvement of public safety communications over wireless networks, see “Final Report of the Public
Safety Wireless Advisory Committee,” September 11, 1996. The committee was disbanded after publication of its
recommendations. The Association for Public-Safety Communications Officials—International (APCO) is a principle
player in the development of P25 standards. Currently, meetings to develop standards are managed by the
Telecommunications Industry Association, an ANSI-standards-setting body. See http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/
technology/project_25/index.cfm/.
Congressional Research Service
19
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
interoperable gateway68 standards of P25. Its use is advocated by many public safety agencies and
by DHS.69 P25-compliant technologies coordinate and connect specified radio channels.70
Currently, the Command, Control, and Interoperability Division of the Science and Technology
Directorate at DHS is testing and evaluating P25 multi-band radios.71 The initial phase of the
program was announced July 1, 2009. Results will be documented in a report that “will provide
details to manufacturers about the needs of the response community and assist officials in making
informed radio purchasing decisions in the future.”72
Shared Networks
The FCC has taken a more network-oriented approach to achieving interoperability by laying out
a plan for a national network at 700 MHz that would eventually reach every community with the
same technology and connectivity, providing a common base for individual applications.
Network-centric solutions start with the network framework, which sets a common standard. Any
traffic that wants to use this network has to accommodate that standard (although it can use
additional standards as well). Network-centric solutions tend to be managed from the top down,
with centralized control of core decisions. The FCC, primarily through the Emergency Response
Interoperability Center (ERIC), is attempting to structure a central administration to lead the
decision-making process for implementing a nationwide public safety network.
Interconnected Networks
The PSST was assigned the Public Safety Broadband License (PSBL) as part of the FCC’s plans
to create a public-private partnership. The PSST considers that the new broadband network will
serve primarily as a data exchange network (text, photos, video, etc.) that would operate as an
adjunct to the current mission critical public safety voice systems. Existing voice communications
systems and new narrowband systems at 700 MHz would operate independently of the broadband
network with an interface to be established in a future development phase.73
68 Gateways, the current solution for interoperability, can connect radios using different technologies and frequencies.
69 Guidance for standards are included, for example in “Recommended Guidance for Federal Grant Programs,” at
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9DFFF882-1895-47F5-B724-9808BF1F9FE9/0/
FY2009SAFECOMRecommendedGuidanceforFederalGrantProgramsFINAL110408.pdf.
70 A useful description of the development, benefits, and disadvantages of P25 was issued by the Department of Justice
in 2007: Issue Brief Number 6, “Project 25: The Quest for Interoperable Radios,” by Dan Hawkins, May 2007 at
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/project25interopradios.pdf.
71 Multi-band radios facilitate switching from one frequency to another in as many as four different bands.
72 DHS Press Release, “DHS Announces Sites for Multi-Band Radio Pilot,” July 1, 2009 at http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/
releases/pr_1246478388904.shtm, and S&T Snapshots—Command, Control & Interoperability, “The Beginning of the
End of the Single Band Radios for Public Safety,” October 20, 2009, at http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/
gc_1258141690101.shtm.
73 This is the description supplied by PSST, the current Public Safety Broadband Licensee, in an e-mail from Chief
Harlin R. McEwen to CRS on August 3, 2009. A similar description was provided in testimony by Chief McEwen at
the hearing held by the House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Communications, Technology, and the Internet: “A National, Interoperable Broadband Network for Public Safety:
Recent Developments,” September 24, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
20
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
The Board of Directors of the PSST received recommendations from NPSTC on how to achieve
interoperability among different public safety networks operating in 700 MHz allocations for
public safety broadband. These were submitted to the FCC for consideration in December 2009.74
The recommendations were oriented toward paving the way for the early construction of
networks by states and cities. The interoperable framework provided by the task force is based on
connecting independent public safety networks. Interoperability would be facilitated by a number
of guiding principles and requirements, such as access to the Internet and IP-based voice
interoperability gateways. In general, the recommendations of the task force would facilitate these
expectations.
• Regional (including state and local) broadband systems will operate within the
framework of a Nationwide Broadband Data System (NBDS).
• The NBDS will use Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology and it is assumed
that regional systems will as well.
• Defining minimum requirements for public safety broadband networks at 700
MHz will enable national interoperability.
• An advisory council will provide governance among individual operators and the
PSBL.
• Public-private partnerships will be allowed.
• Different scenarios for assignment of the D Block will be accommodated by the
Task Force requirements and recommendations.
• Regional operators will have the right to deploy systems in advance of final
requirements and to select and deploy applications beyond what is required.
• Technical requirements will be specified to facilitate roaming and
interoperability.
• Those that have filed requests to the FCC for permission to build systems will be
able to fulfill their 700 MHz broadband objectives as quickly as possible.
• Best practices for network architecture and configurations will be provided but
not required.
Among other recommendations made to the FCC in the same filing, the PSST asked the FCC to
authorize it “to establish the technology standard for the 700 MHz nationwide public safety
broadband network....”
The Association for Public-Safety Communications Officials—International (APCO) has
announced its intention to develop standards for the broadband networks at 700 MHz.
Specifically, APCO “will identify gaps and set standards in those areas where none currently exist
and where standards are necessary to ensure roaming and interoperability ...” and will “establish
basic requirements necessary to ensure interoperability” for the network.75 APCO is accredited by
the American National Standards Institute as a Standards Development Organization.
74 Submitted December 15, 2009, as an Ex Parte communication, PS Docket No.06-229, WT Docket No. 06-150 at
http://www.psst.org/documents/PSST-Minimum-Recommendations-121509.pdf.
75 APCO News, “APCO Announces Intent to Develop Standards for Build Out of 700 MHz Broadband Network,”
October 14, 2009 at http://www.apcointl.org/new/news/standards_700mhz.php.
Congressional Research Service
21
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
IP-Enabled Networks
As part of the discussion about how to bring broadband to public safety users, several
organizations recommended Long Term Evolution (LTE), a fourth-generation wireless
technology,76 for the underlying network infrastructure on the 700 MHz frequencies.77 The FCC
has concluded that it will require LTE technology for the network infrastructure for the D Block
and the PSBL.78 Fourth-generation technologies such as LTE are being developed to use Internet
Protocol (IP) standards, assuring a high degree of interoperability among other IP-based
technologies. Developing standards for public safety interfaces on LTE networks could represent
a shift in concept for public safety communications—to IP-based platforms and communications
management at the network level. Some public safety representatives have shown a willingness to
move from a model that connects disparate systems to a model that provides interoperability
through network administration.79
Some states have decided to deploy IP-enabled fiber optic networks to support their
communications needs, including those of public safety. These networks use IP standards to
achieve the same level of interoperability, availability, and flexibility associated with the Internet
but do not necessarily link to the Internet.
Congress has recognized the value of IP-based networks for 911 communications by, for
example, requiring the NTIA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to prepare
recommendations that would support the transition of out-dated 911 systems to IP-based
technologies.80 Congress has not previously considered giving the same attention to the adoption
of IP-based technologies for public safety radio communications.
Adaptive Network Technologies
The FCC, DHS, PSST, and NPSTC approaches to interoperability, although different in
perspective, are all based on managing radio channels as the way to meet common goals such as
minimizing interference among wireless transmissions.
The concept of channel management dates to the development of the radio telegraph by
Guglielmo Marconi and his contemporaries. In the United States, mitigation of radio interference
was addressed in what is commonly known as the Radio Act of 1912. Passage of the bill, versions
of which had been introduced in earlier Congresses, was prompted in part by Marconi’s testimony
at a congressional hearing investigating the sinking of the Titanic. The act established the basic
principle of assigning licenses for specific channels through a central federal authority, which
became the FCC with the passage of the Communications Act of 1934.
76 A discussion of broadband technology is include in CRS Report R40674, Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband:
Issues for Congress , by Linda K. Moore.
77 APCO and NENA jointly endorsed LTE . NPSTC, and the PSST are among those that also have endorsed LTE.
78 This decision is discussed in FCC White Paper, The Public Safety Nationwide Interoperable Broadband Network: A
New Model for Capacity, Performance and Cost, June 2010, at http://fcc.gov/pshs/docs/releases/DOC-298799A1.pdf.
79 In an interview, Richard Mignon, the incoming president of APCO, observed that broadband is “the future of public
safety communications.... It’s almost like reinventing public safety technology and how we work together.” As reported
in MissionCritical Communications TRANSMISSION, e-newsletter, August 19, 2009.
80 Next Generation 911 technologies and congressional actions in support of 911 are discussed in CRS Report R41208,
Emergency Communications: Broadband and the Future of 911 , by Linda K. Moore.
Congressional Research Service
22
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
In the age of the Internet, however, channel management is an inefficient way to provide
spectrum capacity for mobile broadband.81 Innovation points to network-centric spectrum
management as an effective way to provide spectrum capacity to meet the bandwidth needs of
fourth-generation wireless devices. Network-centric technologies organize the transmission of
radio signals along the same principle as the Internet. A transmission moves from origination to
destination not along a fixed path but by passing from one available node to the next. Pooling
resources, one of the concepts that powers the Internet now, is likely to become the dominant
principle for spectrum management in the future.
The new generations of iPhones and Android-based82 mobile devices provide early examples of
how the Internet is likely to change wireless communications as more and more of the underlying
network infrastructure is converted to IP-based standards. The devices use Internet protocols to
perform many of its functions; these require time and space—spectrum capacity—to operate.
The core Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) was conceived to work with high capacity landline networks.
In a wireless environment, IP applications are bandwidth-intensive, consuming large amounts of
channel capacity. Although future generations of mobile broadband devices will no doubt use IP
applications that have been refined for the wireless environment, additional capacity will still be
required to handle expected increases in activity.
More efficient spectrum use can be realized by integrating adaptive networking technologies,
such as dynamic spectrum access (DSA),83 with IP-based commercial network technologies such
as LTE. Radios using DSA chipsets are more effective at managing interference and congestion
than the channel management techniques currently in use. If a channel’s link fails, the radio is cut
off. When radios are networked using DSA, individual communications nodes continue to operate
and can compensate for failed links. The effects of interference are manageable rather than
catastrophic. The network is used to overcome radio limitations.
Adaptive networking has the potential to organize radio communications to achieve the same
kinds of benefits that have been seen to accrue with the transition from proprietary data networks
to the Internet. Adaptive technologies are designed to use pooled spectrum resources. Pooling
spectrum licenses goes beyond sharing. Licenses are aggregated and specific ownership of
channels becomes secondary to the common goal of maximizing network performance. For many,
the construction of a new network for public safety communications represents an opportunity to
reap the perceived benefits of shared infrastructure and pooled spectrum by using the
technologies and principles of network-centric operations.
81 A leading advocate for replacing channel management of radio frequency with network-centric management is
Preston Marshall, the source for much of the information about network-centric technologies in this report. Mr.
Marshall is Director, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Viterbi School of Engineering,
Arlington, Virginia. CRS also spoke with other experts who provided background on the topic.
82 Google, which uses the Android platform, describes it as “a software stack for mobile devices that includes an
operating system, middleware, and key applications.”
83 Dynamic Spectrum Access, Content-Based Networking, and Delay and Disruption Technology Networking, along
with cognitive radio, and decision-making software, are examples of technologies that can enable Internet-like
management of spectrum resources.
Congressional Research Service
23
Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress
Author Contact Information
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
lmoore@crs.loc.gov, 7-5853
Congressional Research Service
24