.
Funding Emergency Communications:
Technology and Policy Considerations
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
September 2, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41842
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Summary
The United States has yet to find a solution that assures seamless communications among first
responders and emergency personnel at the scene of a major disaster. Since September 11, 2001,
when communications failures contributed to the tragedies of the day, Congress has passed
several laws intended to create a nationwide emergency communications capability. The 111th
Congress considered pivotal issues, such as radio frequency spectrum license allocation and
funding programs for a Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN), without finding a solution that
satisfied the expectations of both public safety and commercial network operators. Congressional
initiatives to advance public policies for Next Generation 911 services (NG9-1-1) also remained
incomplete. The 112th Congress is under renewed pressure to come to a decision about the
assignment of a block of radio frequency spectrum licenses referred to as the D Block, and to
provide a plan for federal support of broadband networks for emergency communications. The
cost of constructing new networks (wireless and wireline) is estimated by experts to be in the tens
of billions of dollars over the long term, with similarly large sums needed for maintenance and
operation. Identifying money for federal support in the current climate of budget constraints
provides a challenge to policy makers. The greater challenge, however, may be to assure that
funds are spent effectively toward the national goals that Congress sets.
After years of debate, a majority in the public safety community has agreed to implement
common technologies using Internet Protocol (IP)-enabled networks and the wireless technology
known as Long Term Evolution (LTE) to build the nationwide PSBN. IP-enabled networks are
also considered essential to the introduction of NG9-1-1. The adoption of the Internet Protocol for
emergency communications represents a significant advance in the technologies available for
response and recovery operations. IP-enabled technologies are faster and smarter, capable of
analyzing and directing communications as they move through networks. Achieving the transition
to a leading-edge, broadband network powered by the next generation of IP technologies requires
significant changes in operations and long-standing agency traditions, major investments in
infrastructure and radios, and the development of enabling technologies.
The need appears increasingly urgent for timely decisions by policy makers on new infrastructure
for emergency communications and spectrum allocation for public safety radios. Commercial
deployment of wireless networks using LTE standards that might also support public safety use
are out-pacing the planning efforts of public safety and government officials.
Legislation that has been introduced in the 112th Congress to address some of these issues
includes the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act (S. 28, Rockefeller), the
Broadband for Public Safety Act of 2011 (S. 1040, Lieberman), the Broadband for First
Responders Act (H.R. 607, King), and the Strengthening Public-safety and Enhancing
Communications Through Reform, Utilization, and Modernization (SPECTRUM) Act (S. 911,
Rockefeller, as amended), the Public Safety and Wireless Innovation Act (H.R. 2482, Dingell),
and parts of Title II of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (S.Amdt. 581 of S. 1323, Reid).
Congressional Research Service
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Contents
Goals and Challenges....................................................................................................................... 1
Background: Planning to Meet Goals........................................................................................ 2
Challenges and Barriers to Change ........................................................................................... 3
Policy Considerations for the Future ............................................................................................... 4
Governance and Grants ............................................................................................................. 4
Decision Making and Planning Authority ................................................................................. 6
Federal Involvement............................................................................................................ 6
State and Local Involvement............................................................................................... 7
Commercial Involvement.................................................................................................... 8
Role of the Emergency Response Interoperability Center and the Public Safety
Spectrum Trust ................................................................................................................. 9
Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................................... 10
Wireless Networks ............................................................................................................ 11
Network Infrastructure: Wireless Backhaul and NG9-1-1 ................................................ 13
Radios................................................................................................................................ 14
Network Access................................................................................................................. 16
Financial Resources................................................................................................................. 17
Managing Radio Frequency Spectrum .................................................................................... 18
Technology .............................................................................................................................. 20
Networks ........................................................................................................................... 21
Radios................................................................................................................................ 22
Migration to Commercial Technologies............................................................................ 23
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Figures
Figure 1. Public Safety and the D Block ....................................................................................... 19
Figure 2. Emergency Communications Grid ................................................................................. 21
Tables
Table 1. Network Scenarios and Estimated Costs ......................................................................... 13
Appendixes
Appendix A. Legislation in the 112th Congress to Improve Emergency Communications ........... 26
Appendix B. Proposals for Spectrum Assignment......................................................................... 34
Appendix C. Congressional Efforts on Behalf of Public Safety Communications........................ 37
Congressional Research Service
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 44
Congressional Research Service
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Goals and Challenges
For nearly a decade, Congress and successive Administrations have worked to improve
emergency communications across the nation1 Although the issue of interoperable
communications for first responders2 has drawn the most attention, there have also been several
initiatives, including legislation, to upgrade the functionality of 911 call centers. As the tenth
anniversary of September 11, 2001 approaches, there is increasing pressure on Congress to
provide a comprehensive solution for better emergency communications to meet both local public
safety needs and national goals.3 The 112th Congress has examined assuring nationwide
availability of state-of-the art communications capability for emergency response and recovery.4
If there is common agreement among most public safety and government officials, industry
leaders, and policy makers for the need to act, a plan for action has not been agreed upon. The
White House has supported allocating additional radio frequency spectrum and funding in support
of a new, wireless public safety communications network.5 This position has received widespread
support among the public safety community and some commercial stakeholders, such as the
Public Safety Alliance.6 Proposed federal funding for this solution, however, has raised concerns
about the cost to the government. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed
a public-private partnership that would use radio frequency spectrum to attract a commercial
partner willing to share network infrastructure with public safety entities, reducing costs but also
limiting the amount of spectrum capacity under the direct control of public safety agencies.7 The
FCC’s plans have received support from the commercial sector and stakeholders and policy
makers who believe that it will increase competition and lower costs to all users of wireless
networks.8 The number and variety of conflicting interests have made it difficult for Congress to
1 Some of the actions by Congress and by Federal agencies have been discussed previously in these and other CRS
reports: CRS Report R40859, Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress , by
Linda K. Moore; CRS Report RL34054, Public-Private Partnership for a Public Safety Network: Governance and
Policy, by Linda K. Moore; CRS Report RL33838, Emergency Communications: Policy Options at a Crossroads, by
Linda K. Moore; and CRS Report RL32594, Public Safety Communications Policy, by Linda K. Moore.
2 A frequently cited definition of interoperability has been provided by SAFECOM, an agency with the Department of
Homeland Security: “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.” See http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/interoperability/
default.htm.
3 One example is a May 23, 2011, editorial that appeared in The New York Times, urging Congress to act,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/opinion/23mon1.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=editorial%205/23/2011&st=cse.
4 Hearings in the 112th Congress include Senate, Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation, “Safeguarding
our Future: Building a Nationwide Network for First Responders,” February 16, 2011; House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security, “Public Safety Communications: Are the Needs of Our First Responders Being
Met?,” March 30, 2011, and House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, “Using Spectrum to Advance Public Safety, Promote Broadband, Create Jobs, and
Reduce the Deficit,” April 12, 2011; House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology, “Creating an Interoperable Public Safety Network,” May 24, 2011.
5 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “President Obama Details Plan to Win the Future through Expanded
Wireless Access” February 10, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/10/president-obama-details-
plan-win-future-through-expanded-wireless-access.
6 Public Safety Alliance, at http://www.psafirst.org/.
7 FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan: http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/.
8 The Connect Public Safety Now coalition is one example; see http://www.connectpublicsafetynow.org/issue.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
reach agreement. Of the bills introduced in the 112th Congress, as of the date of this report, only
S. 911 has been reported favorably by committee.9
This report identifies areas where changes in existing policies and practices may facilitate
achievement of the important goals for emergency communications that Congress and others have
identified. Why these goals have become important, and recent planning efforts to achieve these
goals, is discussed first. Next, possible barriers to achieving these goals are identified and
described. The conclusion revisits key options presently under consideration by Congress.
Background: Planning to Meet Goals
Prior to September 11, 2001, planning for emergency communications rested largely with states
and communities, with an emphasis on effective response by different types of service (police,
fire, ambulance) at the local level. As radio technologies evolved, there was a growing awareness
among first responders—long before 9/11—of the need for better coordination and
communications interoperability.10 Their concerns crystallized after a commercial aircraft crashed
into a bridge crossing the Potomac River between Washington, DC, and Arlington County,
Virginia, in January 1982.11 As a result, new planning efforts for multi-jurisdictional and multi-
disciplinary responses were put in place across the United States, with federal agencies often
providing assistance through technical expertise and funding.
In 1996, a report was published by the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC),
which the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) had created to provide Congress with recommendations on
meeting the communications needs of first responders. The Committee’s Final Report12 was
considered a landmark in planning and goal setting for public safety communications. Post-9/11,
the concerns raised by PSWAC received new attention. In 2003, a National Task Force on
Interoperability, with the support of the Department of Justice, revisited the PSWAC report
findings, reiterating needs such as investment in infrastructure, more funding, better planning,
more coordination and cooperation among agencies, and allocation of additional radio frequency
spectrum.13 In 2007, Congress created the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) within
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and tasked it with the preparation of a National
Emergency Communications Plan (NECP), which was published in 2008.14 Separately, Congress,
9 Ordered reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably by the Senate, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, Executive Session, June 8, 2011. Other bills that have been introduced include S. 28
(Rockefeller), S. 1040 (Lieberman), and H.R. 607 (King).
10 According to Interoperable Communications for First Responders, an undated white paper from Frost & Sullivan,
interoperable communications for first responders was first addressed in 1970, when the FIRESCOPE Incident
Command System was developed in Southern California. The paper provides a brief history of the development of
communications for first responders, http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/en_US/pdf/InteroperableComm.pdf.
11 Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into the 14th Street Bridge and then sank into the icy Potomac River on January 13,
1982, costing 74 lives; see http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-af90.shtml. First responders arriving on the scene
from the District, Arlington County, and other counties in the capital area were unable to communicate with each other
or with federal authorities who also responded.
12 Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, September 11, 1996, at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
osmhome/pubsafe/pswac_al.pdf.
13 Why Can’t We Talk, February 2003: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/204348a.pdf.
14 National Emergency Communications Plan, July 2008, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
national_emergency_communications_plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
also in 2008, required the National E9-1-1 Implementation Coordination Office (ICO)15 to
prepare a national plan for migration to Next Generation 911 (NG9-1-1) and to identify possible
actions for Congress to take in advancing goals identified through the planning process.16 The
FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan17 included goals for advancing “robust and secure public
safety communications networks.”18 All of these planning efforts included a broad base of
stakeholders in the process. The plans, separately compiled and administered, have provided
much of the basis for current federal policy and technology strategies. The common thread is the
stakeholders who have participated in the various planning committees; for example, key public
safety associations are consistently represented on these committees.
The FCC’s broadband plan advocated deploying IP-enabled technologies for NG9-1-1 and for
wireless broadband networks for public safety radios. Planning efforts for both of these
emergency communications have since been initiated by the FCC.19
Challenges and Barriers to Change
Although many of the plans developed by federal agencies over the last decade have encouraged
statewide and regional planning, the evolutionary path for providing emergency communications
has favored local planning over federal, regional, and even state authority. In general, the larger
cities and more prosperous counties have taken the lead in deploying new communications
systems. Cities and towns with populations of less than 100,000 and rural counties apparently
may struggle with implementing modern communications systems. Lack of funds to build
infrastructure may not be the only difficulty; often these communities do not have the needed
personnel, such as grants administrators or information technology managers, and therefore rely
on sharing resources with neighboring counties.
The Department of Homeland Security has advocated emergency communications planning from
the bottom up, encouraging stakeholders to find their own solutions within frameworks
established within DHS, evolving along a development continuum provided by the agency.20
Although localism offers many benefits for communities, the relative autonomy in choosing
technology has led to incompatible equipment and small-scale, inefficient markets for equipment
and infrastructure. Emergency communications technology choices have tended to be proprietary,
tailored to specific needs of micro-markets, and closed to commercial, mass-market solutions.21
15 ICO was created by the Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers Employing (ENHANCE) 911 Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-494), to be jointly administered by the NTIA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
16 A National Plan for Migrating to IP-Enabled 9-1-1 Systems, September 2009, http://www.e-911ico.gov/
NationalNG911MigrationPlan_sept2009.pdf.
17 FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/.
18 For example, see the FCC’s Broadband Action Agenda at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/broadband-action-
agenda.html.
19 For example, see FCC, Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted January 25, 2011, PS Docket No. 06-229,
and Notice of Inquiry, for Next Generation 911, adopted December 21, 2010, PS Docket No. 10-25; a summary of other
actions is at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/broadband.html.
20 The continuum diagram is at http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/Tools/Continuum/continuum.htm;
additional descriptions at http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/oecguidancedocuments/continuum/default.htm.
21 Research reports that have addressed these issues include Sending Out an S.O.S.: Public Safety Communications
Interoperability as a Collective Action Problem, by Jerry Brito; Communicating During Emergencies: Toward
Interoperability and Effective Information Management, by Philip J. Weiser, University of Colorado Law Legal Studies
Research Paper No. 07-7, and Fundamental Reform in Public Safety Communications Policy, by Jon M. Peha; all
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
As a consequence, there is a notable gap between the level of technology available to the typical
first responder or 911 call center operator and that used every day by the average American
consumer.
Today, emergency communications systems are typically local in reach and limited in
applications. According to most experts, the emergency communications grid of the not-too-
distant future is likely to be local, national, and international in reach, with flexible and accessible
applications that can be instantaneously tailored to meet the needs of any emergency situation.
The emergency communications technologies of the future are expected to be developed for
common IP-enabled platforms that can operate on any IP-enabled network. IP-enabled wireless
devices using technologies such as Long Term Evolution (LTE) will deliver advanced services
anywhere, any time.22
Implementation of the next generation of emergency communications technology may alter the
patterns of the past 30 years of technology development and adoption for public safety radios and
systems. The transition might be facilitated by changes in the management of public safety
resources, addressing questions such as the following:
• Who will be responsible for governance?
• Where will decision making and planning reside?
• How will reliable cost estimates be established?
• What sources of revenue are available?
• How will radio frequency spectrum assets be managed?
• How will technology be developed and applied?
Policy Considerations for the Future
Current management of public safety resources—along with some comments about how these
may be changed in the future—are discussed below in six sections: governance, decision making,
cost estimates, sources of revenue, spectrum management, and technology. Current policies in
these areas may be inadequate to achieve the desired levels of emergency capabilities for
response and recovery in all regions of the country. Congress may therefore choose to consider
these and other areas where policy recommendations or legislative actions may expedite
improvements to emergency communications.
Governance and Grants
Governance is a broad term that can include a number of factors. At the federal level, governance
is closely associated with evaluation of existing programs and the management of federal
expenditures, including grants. A number of federal agencies have roles in guiding and
(...continued)
published in the Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 59, No. 3, 2007.
22 Long Term Evolution is a Fourth Generation (4G) mobile technology, at http://www.4gamericas.org/index.cfm?
fuseaction=page§ionid=249.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
monitoring some decisions of states and localities through grant administration. Currently, over
40 active programs, administered by nine different departments and multiple agencies within
those departments, are providing grants for funding emergency communications, and guidance
and governance for those grants.23 Within DHS, the Office of Emergency Communications, the
SAFECOM Program, and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) are
among the agencies that formulate policies, plan exercises, provide guidelines, and establish
requirements.24 Two major grants programs within the Department of Justice provide funds for
emergency communications; these are the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
program and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program.25 The NTIA
administers grants made through the Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program (BTOP),
some of which benefit public safety communications and 911 services.26 The NTIA shared
responsibility with the Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, for a 911 grant program27 established by the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004.28 The
only federal grant program exclusively for improving 911, its sole appropriations was less than
$50 million provided through the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund, created by the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.29
It is estimated that as much as $13 billion in federal funding, possibly more, was spent on
emergency communications from FY2001 through FY2010. This total does not take full account
of earmarks and other forms of assistance not reported as grants. Little information about how
this money was spent is readily available.30
Grant programs provide a mechanism for governance by affecting performance and behavior;
financial audits and other reviews of expenditures provide oversight. For investments in public
safety communications systems and equipment, oversight seems to be mostly within the
communities whose first responders use the systems that have been purchased. Federal audits
usually are not performed at a level of detail that identifies the specific uses of federal grants by
the ultimate recipients of the funds.
Because new technologies that might benefit public safety communications are being developed
and deployed almost exclusively within the commercial sector, one of the considerations for
improving governance of emergency communications deployments might be how to manage
partnerships between the commercial sector and state and local agencies. In a publicly traded
23 Based on a summary of federal programs provided by SAFECOM, at http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/
rdonlyres/132003E7-6C43-4E15-97D6-A2A4E5A2704F/0/GrantProgramsforSAFECOMWebsite.pdf.
24 See Appendix C. Links to relevant SAFECOM and FEMA grant program documents are available at
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/grant/default.htm. Information on OEC grants is at http://www.dhs.gov/
xopnbiz/grants/gc_1288707294166.shtm.
25 Information on JAG programs is at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/jag.html; a link to COPS programs is at
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=46.
26 Information on BTOP grants is reported in NTIA, The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, “Overview of
Grant Rewards,” posted December 14, 2010, at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/
NTIA_Report_on_BTOP_12142010.pdf.
27 Update on 911 activities, letter to the President of the Senate from the NHTSA Administrator, December 16, 2010,
http://www.911.gov/pdf/2010_%20Report_to_Congress-Biden_Letter.pdf.
28 P.L. 108-498, Sec. 104, “Sec. 158, “(b) “(1); 118 STAT. 3987-3988.
29 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004, 120 STAT. 22-23.
30 CRS, Congressional Distribution Memorandum, “Federal Funding of State and Local Emergency Communications
Projects,” June 10, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
corporation, governance is provided by the board of directors and senior management, who must
satisfy the expectations of shareholders and financial markets as well as assure compliance with
rules and regulations. A public-private partnership might therefore meld public and private
methods of governance. This in turn might lead to a closer examination of the federal role in
providing governance and funding. For example, to capture the full advantages from innovation
and cost-saving economies of scale, some say transfers of new commercial technologies to public
safety agencies should occur on an on-going basis, not as episodic one-time transactions. Federal
grants, however, tend to provide for single projects, within a limited timeframe, and may lose
some of this efficiency.
Other sources of funding in addition to federal grants are available for the building and operation
of communications systems. Given the many potential sources of funds available to states and
communities, it is debatable whether rules attached to federal grants can be used to drive a
process that would coordinate the construction and operation of a seamless, nationwide network
to serve first responders and other emergency personnel.
Decision Making and Planning Authority
As with federal grant programs for emergency communications, multiple federal agencies are
involved in planning and decision-making guidance for state, local, tribal, and regional agencies.
Although a number of federal programs provide support for state and local activities, there
appears to be little coordination among these agencies in carrying out their separate programs.31
Federal Involvement
Congress has separately and specifically given authority to DHS and to the FCC to act on behalf
of public safety. In the case of DHS, authority includes planning and implementing public safety
communications solutions and setting requirements to coordinate and support specific goals, such
as interoperability and a national communications capability.32 Within DHS, the Office of
Emergency Communications manages statewide planning and coordination for interoperable
communications and administers compliance with the National Emergency Communications
Plan.33 FEMA participates in emergency communications planning as part of its state and regional
efforts for hazard mitigation and response and recovery.34
The FCC has several pertinent mandates from Congress, such as an obligation to “promote safety
of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication,”35 and requirements
regarding the assignment of radio frequencies for public safety use. The FCC created a Public
31 At least two major reports from the Government Accountability Office have documented the lack of coordination:
Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder
Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-963T, July 20, 2004 at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04963t.pdf, and
Emergency Communications: Vulnerabilities Remain and Limited Collaboration and Monitoring Hamper Federal
Efforts, GAO-09-604, June 2009 at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09604.pdf.
32 Discussed in detail in Appendix C.
33 Information about the Office of Emergency Communications is at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/
gc_1189774174005.shtm.
34 For additional information on FEMA programs, see CRS Report RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program: Overview and Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy and Natalie Keegan.
35 47 U.S.C. §151.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau in 2006 to consolidate its many programs oriented toward
public safety.36 This bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau jointly administer the
Public Safety Broadband Licensee, the chosen license-holder for the public safety broadband
frequencies at 700 MHz.37 The FCC also oversees the activities of 55 Regional Planning
Committees that administer spectrum assignments for mission-critical voice networks in the 700
MHz band.38
Other federal agencies with decision-making responsibilities for public safety planning and
investments include the NTIA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
For example, the Public Safety Communications Research program is a joint effort between
NIST’s Office of Law Enforcement Standards and the NTIA.39
State and Local Involvement
Every state has one or more agencies that plan for public safety, homeland security, and
emergency communications. Most states have a Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC)40
to administer its Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP). SCIPs are written to
conform with federal guidelines and requirements, such as the NECP, and provide guidelines and
goals. DHS describes SCIPs as “locally-driven, multi-jurisdictional, and multi-disciplinary
statewide plans to enhance emergency communications.”41 State coordinators are encouraged to
promote a “coordinated practitioner-driven approach” through a “collaborative statewide
governance structure.”42 Not all grants are coordinated through the SCIP, however. Many
earmarks and some grants have been awarded directly to an agency within a town, city, or county
for a specific purpose identified by the recipient. A review of federal, state, and local grants
programs seems to indicate that most purchasing decisions for emergency communications
equipment occur at the county43 level, often based on an approved equipment list provided by the
state or by a regional buyers cooperative.44
36 See http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/about-us/.
37 Spectrum is segmented into bands of radio frequencies and typically 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. The 700 MHz band includes radio frequencies from 698
MHz to 806 MHz. Current plans for the public safety broadband network would use frequencies already assigned to
public safety, at 763-768MHz and 793-798 MHz.
38 Frequencies at 769-795 MHz and 799-805 MHz.
39 “Report from the Field: Advancing Public Safety Broadband Communications,” posted December 30, 2010, at
http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/node/695.
40 See “Statewide Interoperability Coordinators” at http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1286986920144.shtm.
41 See “Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans” at http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/
gc_1225902750156.shtm.
42 Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide Communications Interoperability at
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/rdonlyres/24F10648-2642-42F3-8305-B29315F833BF/0/
EstablishingGovernanceGuide.pdf
43 Parishes and independent cities are considered counties for most statistical purposes. The Bureau of the Census
identifies 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the United States. Some states, however, have curtailed
responsibilities for counties. Massachusetts, for example, has transferred governing authority from most counties to the
state or to townships.
44 The Congressional Research Service is researching state, county, and local reports on expenditures for emergency
communications equipment and has collected this information for 20 states.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Planning and decision making for emergency communications at the local and county level is
often separated by function. Some actions may be coordinated through a planning board, or one
office, such as the sheriff’s office, will be designated for emergency planning. Federal and state
programs may provide specific goals and a framework for coordination. It appears, however, that
funds are disbursed and authority is typically dispersed according to the administrative structure
of the county, city, or town. There is a great deal of variation across the country but, generally,
state officials manage communications for statewide systems, such as the state highway patrol,
and local officials manage local public safety services.
Commercial Involvement
In its National Broadband Plan and other documents, the FCC has advocated some form of
public-private partnership between public safety agencies and wireless carriers that would include
sharing responsibility for planning and decision making. The decision by the FCC to advocate a
shared network for wireless communications was centered on two conclusions: (1) that a network
with national coverage would best meet public safety needs for robust communications
capabilities, information, and interoperability; and (2) that sharing spectrum and network
facilities with commercial users would benefit public safety through economies of scale in
building, equipping, and operating the network, by providing access to additional spectrum in
times of large-scale emergencies, and by offering new sources of funding, among other benefits.
Arguments in favor of building a network exclusively for public safety revolve around the
shortcomings of current commercial wireless services such as poor availability, inadequate
coverage in rural areas, lack of security features, and absence of priority access. Also, public
safety representatives have frequently expressed concerns in testimony before Congress about
sharing authority with a commercial partner.45
Final decisions by policy makers about the number, location, and type of network (local, state,
regional, national) are likely to have a significant impact on commercial participation in a public
safety broadband network or networks. Although most public safety representatives object to any
sharing arrangement that would allow commercial partners to dictate access to capacity, in
general they have advocated leveraging public safety spectrum resources through agreements
with commercial partners. The scope of these agreements is undecided. Some agencies envision a
national network governed primarily by the Public Safety Broadband Licensee; some prefer
linking state and regional networks, with regional boards taking the lead; others assume the
solution will be a system of multiple local, county, and state systems similar to what is in place
for existing public safety radio systems.46
45 Hearings with testimony on the PSBN include Senate, Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation,
“Safeguarding our Future: Building a Nationwide Network for First Responders,” February 16, 2011; House of
Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, “Public Safety Communications: Are the Needs of Our First
Responders Being Met?,” March 30, 2011, and House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, “Using Spectrum to Advance Public Safety, Promote Broadband,
Create Jobs, and Reduce the Deficit,” April 12, 2011; House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, “Creating an Interoperable Public Safety Network,” May 24,
2011.
46 The range of positions among public safety officials and their expectations from the federal government cited here
were reiterated at a hearing on March 30, 2011. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, “Public
Safety Communications: Are the Needs of Our First Responders Being Met?”
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
To maximize the benefits of commercial involvement, the National Emergency Number
Association (NENA) in 2009 proposed consolidating the Public Safety Broadband License with
the D Block, to be auctioned to commercial operators who would be required to develop public
safety enterprises to provide the needed network.47
Role of the Emergency Response Interoperability Center and the Public Safety
Spectrum Trust
As part of its initial planning for a Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN),48 to facilitate
interaction between the public and private sectors, the FCC required the creation of a not-for-
profit corporation, the Public Safety Broadband Licensee (PSBL) to hold the license for spectrum
assigned for public safety broadband. This corporation is presently governed by its Board, the
composition of which is largely determined by the FCC, with the participation and oversight of
two FCC bureaus. As originally envisioned by the FCC, the PSBL would be contractually bound
to work with one or more commercial partners to develop a broadband network for public safety
use. The FCC awarded the administration of the PSBL to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust
(PSST). 49 To work with the PSBL, the commercial sector, and other stakeholders, the FCC
created the Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) within the FCC Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau in April 2010.50 ERIC was 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.51
The national license currently assigned to the PSST for a broadband network is for 10 MHz
within the 700 MHz band.52 Until plans are finalized for the PSBN, the FCC has provided
conditional waivers for some agencies that wish to move forward with broadband network
deployment. Agencies in eight states, five counties or regions, and eight cities received waivers,
which required them to meet network requirements as specified by the FCC. The FCC then
approved agreements for 20 of the waiver recipients to lease spectrum from the PSST to cover
their planned areas of operation.53 Transferring spectrum management rights to these jurisdictions
effectively assigned much of the decision-making authority and funding responsibility to them
as well.
47 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, written testimony of Brian Fontes, CEO, NENA, at http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/
Hearings/Telecom/090924%20D-Block%20hearing/Testimony/NENA.pdf.
48 Discussed in Appendix B.
49 FCC, Order, P.S. Docket 06-229, released November 19, 2007, at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-07-199A1.pdf.
50 FCC, Order, PS Docket No. 06-229, released April 23, 2010, at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-10-67A1.pdf.
51 See http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/eric.html.
52 The license covers 10 MHz at 763-768MHz and 793-798 MHz and guard bands, to mitigate interference, at 768-769
MHz and 798-799 MHz.
53 The states are Alabama, Hawaii, Iowa, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon; the regions are Adams
County-Denver Airport (CO), Bay Area (CA), Mesa-TOPAZ (AZ), San Antonio (TX), and Wisconsin Counties; the
cities are Boston (MA), Charlotte (NC), Chesapeake (VA), Los Angeles (CA), New York City (NY), Pembroke Pines
(FL), Seattle (WA), and Washington (DC). Of these, Alabama was not issued a spectrum lease as it was not ready to
proceed.
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Based on FCC plans, however, ERIC and the PSST will do most of the planning for the PSBN;
future grants intended for the PSBN would have to be used in accordance with the network plans
developed by the FCC through ERIC. The FCC, therefore, would be the lead agency for grants
guidance, governance, planning, and some decision making for the PSBN. The level of decision-
making power that the FCC will be able to wield depends largely on the outcome of its
negotiations with the PSST and other public safety stakeholders, possibly bolstered or constrained
by congressional action.
Given the apparent expectations of many stakeholders that there will be commercial participation
in building and operating a nationwide network for public safety broadband communications, it
might be useful to develop specific guidelines for these partnerships at the beginning of the
network planning process. For example, it is not clear whether the PSBL will take the lead in
negotiations and contractual agreements with commercial partners or whether decisions regarding
these agreements will be left largely to states, or localities, as has been the case in the past.
Although the FCC would appear to have authority over the process of planning and decision
making for the PSBN, it may come under pressure from stakeholders, including Congress, to
share responsibilities. Collaborative decision making among a large number of stakeholders may
dilute efforts for an efficient, cost-effective, interoperable network, some say, without necessarily
representing the interests—or meeting the needs—of its users.
Cost Estimates
Building the network requires capital expenditures for infrastructure and operations centers,
wireless towers, radios, and other communications equipment. Covering on-going expenses
requires additional funding for software upgrades, maintenance, network operations, training to
use new equipment, and other recurring costs. For wireless communications, an important
infrastructure component is the network that links radio towers to communications backbones.
These networks, which usually operate over fiber-optic cable or microwave connections, are
typically referred to as backhaul.
In 1996, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee reported that the estimated value of the
installed base of nonfederal public safety communications networks was $25 billion, with a useful
life of 15 years.54 Most of the networks in place at the time operated on analog frequencies.
In recent years, the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) has reported on
interoperable communications expenditures in at least two of its biennial reports.55 These reports
provide summaries of responses to questionnaires sent to NEMA’s members. In 2006, NEMA
reported that states estimated that it would cost a total of $7 billion to achieve state-wide
interoperability for national coverage or to reach levels required by each state’s homeland
security strategy. The average expenditure, per state, for states providing estimates of their
projected costs, was reported to be $160 million.56 In 2008, NEMA reported that the states’
estimates of the cost of providing interoperable communications nationwide had risen to a total of
54 Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, September 11, 1996, Appendix C–ISC Final Report,
p. 285, at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/pubsafe/pswac_al.pdf.
55 National Emergency Management Association, biennial reports available at http://www.nemaweb.org. The reports do
not always provide the number of states responding to specific questions.
56 NEMA 2006 Biennial Report, p. 26.
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
$12 billion since the 2006 report. Obstacles to achieving interoperability that were cited in the
report include rapidly changing technologies that require repeated and costly investments; lack of
cooperation among jurisdictions; and a lack of expertise and resources for proper planning.57 The
2010 Biennial Report carried no information about interoperable communications.
Wireless Networks
In 2008, when the FCC proposed a public-private partnership to build a public safety broadband
network, the cost was estimated in public comments filed with the FCC at from $18 billion to as
much as $40 billion.58 These projected costs did not include radios. The network would have been
largely built by the purchaser of a commercial spectrum license, known as the D Block, allocated
for that purpose. The planned auction of the D Block failed.59
In 2010, the FCC again proposed to auction the D Block, under new rules that would include
sharing infrastructure with a separately funded and managed Public Safety Broadband Network.60
Although the FCC did not provide details of how the D Block would be auctioned, it did prepare
estimates of the cost to public safety if infrastructure was shared. These estimates were based on
assumptions that include (1) 95% of the towers used in the PSBN would be shared with
commercial operators; (2) backhaul would be shared and paid for separately; (3) the new network
would be data and video only; and (4) LTE would be the wireless technology used. The FCC
concluded that the “total present value of the capital expenses and ongoing costs for the network
over the next ten years is approximately $12-16 billion.” Of this, $6.5 billion would be for capital
expenditures. The cost of radios is not included.61 The FCC also provided an estimate for building
a stand-alone public safety network. Instead of $6.3 billion in capital expenditures for building
and equipping tower sites, a stand-alone network would cost $12.6 billion. Additional
investments of $3.1 billion would be required for backhaul and operations centers, bringing the
total estimated investment to $15.7 billion.62 The total present value for both capital expenses and
operating costs over ten years for a stand-alone network might be $34.4 billion to $47.5 billion.63
Both the incentive-based and stand-alone network cost estimates are based on 44,800 cell sites.
Costs might be reduced if pre-existing public safety sites for cellular network connections can be
57 NEMA 2008 Biennial Report, p. 17.
58 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 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.
59 Additional information is provided in Appendix B, “Proposals for Spectrum Assignment.”
60 See Appendix B. The D Block frequencies at 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz are adjacent to the PSBL.
61 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,
http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-omnibus-broadband-initiative-%28obi%29-technical-paper-broadband-
network-cost-model-basis-for-public-funding-essential-to-bringing-nationwide-interoperable-communications-to-
americas-first-responders.pdf.
62 Ibid., Exhibit 6.
63 Ibid., Exhibit 7.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
used and might be increased if networks are operated by multiple jurisdictions, leading to
inefficient redundancies.
Network Size Impacts Cost
Communications capabilities generally available for the emergency response community tend to
be more costly than commercial solutions. Although some of the added cost can be attributed to
unique requirements such as operability in extreme weather conditions, much of the higher cost
comes from limited production runs in an industry otherwise characterized by aggressive policies
to achieve economies of scale.
To take advantage of economies of scale and provide efficiency in investment, operating costs,
and spectrum use, among other benefits, the Governing Board of the National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)64 has recommended the adoption of a national network
with a small number of core networks for public safety broadband.65 In its conceptual model,
NPSTC has placed seven distributed core networks within the continental United States to
provide national coverage and necessary system redundancy.66 NPSTC has stated that this
national network architecture approach would be less costly than any of the “network of
networks” architectures that have been proposed by numerous public safety officials. According
to NPSTC,67 the cost of the extra capital needed to build a network of networks would be
“unnecessarily expensive.” One nationwide network “will cost the least amount to manage,
maintain, and upgrade.” NPSTC also observed that “recurring costs to manage and refresh a
network, over the long term, will be the largest cost component regardless of configuration.”
According to NPSTC, coordinating the funding and installation of system upgrades across
multiple networks would be difficult and inconsistencies could lead to operability and
interoperability problems.
Network Capacity Impacts Cost
A cost analysis based on research done at Carnegie Mellon University provides alternative
scenarios using different assumptions about the type of public safety communications network to
be built.68 For example, three scenarios are considered for a public-safety-only network built on
10 MHz of spectrum and for a public-private-partnership network using 20 MHz of spectrum.
The three operational scenarios are (1) voice only; (2) data only; and (3) voice and data.
The estimates are derived from assumptions about network traffic, capacity, and technical
parameters that lead to an estimate of the number of cell sites needed for each type of network.
Costs are estimated based on the cost of building and operating the expected number of cell sites
64 NPSTC is a federation of associations whose mission is to improve public safety communications and
interoperability through collaborative leadership, http://www.npstc.org/index.jsp.
65 NPSTC Position Paper, http://www.npstc.org/documents/
NPSTC%20Position%20BB%20Network%2020110310.pdf.
66 NPSTC, National Broadband Network Conceptual Design, March 3, 2011, http://www.npstc.org/documents/
20110301%20EPC-RAN%20Drawings%20FINAL%20w%20notes.pdf.
67 Quotes are from NPSTC Position Paper, op.cit.
68 “Quantifying the Costs of a Nationwide Public Safety Wireless Network,” by Ryan Hallahan and Jon M. Peha,
authors’ version at http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/rhallaha/papers/quantifying_costs_of_PS_network.pdf. Also
published in Telecommunications Policy, October 2010.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
needed for each scenario. Deployment costs are those associated with the installation and
operation of cell sites and do not include other network components such as mobile switching
centers. The estimates use values of $500,000 per cell site for deployment and $75,000 per cell
site, annually, for operating costs. The cost of buying, maintaining, or upgrading radios is not
included. Also, the estimates for a public-safety-only network are based on 10 MHz of available
spectrum; no analysis was done for a public-safety-only network using 20 MHz. The cost analysis
yielded an estimated investment of $11.1 billion to deploy a voice and data network on 10 MHz
of public safety spectrum. The comparable estimate for a public-private network on 20 MHz is
$9.7 billion. The White House has, in some documents, assumed an investment of $10 billion is
needed to deploy a wireless broadband network for public safety using 20 MHz of dedicated
spectrum.69
Table 1. Network Scenarios and Estimated Costs
(In millions of dollars)
Public Safety
Public-Private-
Network Scenario
Only
Partnership
Voice Traffic Only
Total Number of Cell Sites
3,700
10,300
Upfront Deployment Cost in Millions
$1,900
$5,200
Operating Cost in Millions/Year
$280
$770
10 Year Total Cost in Millions
$3,400
$9,400
Data Traffic Only
Total Number of Cell Sites
18,200
19,000
Upfront Deployment Cost in Millions
$9,100
$9,500
Operating Cost in Millions/Year
$1,400
$1,400
10 Year Total Cost in Millions
$16,600
$17,300
Voice and Data Traffic
Total Number of Cell Sites
22,200
19,400
Upfront Deployment Cost in Millions
$11,100
$9,700
Operating Cost in Millions/Year
$1,700
$1,500
10 Year Total Cost in Millions
$20,300
$17,700
Source “Quantifying the Costs of a Nationwide Public Safety Wireless Network” by Ryan Hal ahan and Jon
M. Peha, authors’ version.‘
Network Infrastructure: Wireless Backhaul and NG9-1-1
Wireless communications over the airwaves come to earth through towers and switches that link
them to telecommunications and Internet networks. As telecommunications technology evolves
from voice traffic over the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) to data traffic over the
69 “The Benefits of Transitioning to a Nationwide Wireless Broadband Network for Public Safety,” The White House,
released by the Office of the Vice President, June 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/
publicsafetyreport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Internet and Internet-like networks, the nature of network support for wireless traffic is also
changing. To take advantage of IP-enabled technology, some states and communities have built
their own links to backbone networks to supplement or replace network access through
commercial carriers. Other communities have built their own networks because commercial
carriers were not providing service to their area. Where these networks are in place or are being
developed, IP-enabled public safety technologies are often making the transition to these
networks. The networks can be designed to support NG9-1-1, emergency alerts, and wireless
network backhaul, as well as the broadband communications needs of government agencies and
the general public.
Studies published by the Department of Transportation in 2008 estimated the cost of providing
911 services for several scenarios over a life cycle extending from 2009 through 2028. One group
of assumptions would maintain the existing 911 infrastructure. Cost estimates for two different
scenarios supporting that assumption set cumulative investments in “acquisition and
implementation” at $9.3 billion and $13.1 billion, depending on the assumptions and the weight
given to them. Similarly, cumulative “operations and maintenance” costs were estimated at
$46.4 billion and $65.8 billion.
Another set of assumptions was developed to estimate costs for building a new NG9-1-1 network
as a stand-alone network. The estimates were $8.7 billion and $9.1 billion in cumulative
investment, and $51.1 billion and $49.2 billion in operating costs.70 The estimates for new,
NG9-1-1 systems do not take into account how much those costs might be reduced by sharing
infrastructure. Most states, however, do plan on sharing network infrastructure among multiple
users. A number of BTOP grants, for example, have been made for the construction of multi-
purpose broadband networks that include 911 services and backhaul for first responder radios.
Radios
In addition to cooperation for sharing network resources, the FCC has anticipated that
commercial partners would lead, and fund, the development costs of the radio technologies that
will operate within the frequencies assigned to the Public Safety Broadband License and the D
Block. The participation of commercial carriers in developing and deploying crucial radio
components 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. The latest radios developed for public safety by
DHS, designed to operate on multiple bands, are estimated to cost between $4,000 to $6,000.71
Among the many unresolved debates surrounding the development of a broadband wireless
network for public safety use is the feasibility of expecting the new network to carry both data
and voice traffic. Commercial LTE networks will in the immediate future use existing voice-data
70 U.S. Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems, “Next Generation 9-1-1 System Initiative:
Final Analysis of Cost, Value, and Risk,” March 8, 2009, pp 57-58 and 62-64, at http://www.its.dot.gov/ng911/pdf/
USDOT_NG911_4-A2_FINAL_FinalCostValueRiskAnalysis_v1-0.pdf.
71 Department of Homeland Security, S&T Snapshots, Command, Control, and Interoperability, “The Beginning of the
End of the Single-Band Radio for Public Safety,” October 20, 2009, at http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/
gc_1258141690101.shtm. In testimony on March 30, 2011, Mr. Gregory Simay, At-Large Director, Los Angeles
Regional Interoperable Communication System estimated the cost of a broadband network radio at over $7,000, House
of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, “Public Safety Communications: Are the Needs of Our First
Responders Being Met?”
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
networks (primarily third-generation networks, 3G) to provide the voice component for LTE (4G)
devices. This is not considered a viable option by most public safety officials, as the 3G networks
do not support a number of features considered essential for public safety voice communications.
Many of these features are dependent on radio-to-radio (off-network) communications that today
require assigning channels for exclusive use. Some radio communications experts argue that LTE-
based solutions for public safety’s needs can be developed and adapted rapidly. Others believe
that the process of integrating voice and data will be difficult and slow, taking perhaps decades.
Some public safety officials believe it is not possible for all their needs to be met by a single,
unified network and that separate radios and networks for separate functions are the solution.72
Competition and Cost
The FCC has concluded that proprietary technologies have hampered the effective development
of public safety radios and curtailed interoperability, based on findings provided to Congress in
response to an inquiry from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2010.73 In April
2011, the Committee wrote to the FCC with a list of questions about the selection of equipment
vendors by those agencies that have received waivers to begin building parts of the PSBN.
Questions related to policy issues raised in this report include the possible impact of proprietary
broadband technologies on
network and device equipment costs borne by public safety relative to commercial costs;
the ability for public safety to benefit from innovation in wireless technologies;
the likelihood of terminated product lines or new mandatory releases that result in unique
costs to public safety relative to commercial technologies;
public safety interoperability at the application, devices, and network levels among networks
provisioned by different vendors;
the ability of public safety users to enter into partnerships with commercial wireless
providers;
competition in the public safety communications equipment market; and
the FCC’s National Broadband Plan finding that encouraged incentive-based partnerships
with a variety of commercial operators.74
The FCC responded to this letter in mostly general terms, citing, for example that the waiver
process is in its early stages.75 The FCC response noted that issues similar to those raised by the
Committee letter are being examined in the Interoperability Further Notice of Proposed
72 Obstacles to developing an integrated voice-data device for first responders are discussed in “LTE Support for
Mission Critical Voice for Public Safety,” by Andrew M. Seybold, Public Safety Advocate e-newsletter, June 19, 2011,
at http://andrewseybold.com/2532-lte-support-for-mission-critical-voice-for-public-safety.
73 Dated July 20, 2010, http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100726/Letter.FCC.07.26.2010.pdf.
74 Dated April 11, 2011, http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Letters/112th/042011FCC.pdf.
75 Dated May 19, 2011. The FCC has allowed some public safety agencies to begin building broadband networks by
waiving some of their existing rules concerning spectrum allocation. FCC, Order, released December 10, 2010, PS
Docket No. 06-229.
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Rulemaking.76 The FCC’s primary focus has been to develop rules to ensure technical
interoperability nationwide for the public safety broadband network, even if proprietary
technologies are used. The FCC reply noted that, of the 20 waiver recipients, only two had
selected a vendor, and another eight were in the process of identifying and selecting a vendor. The
FCC does not require waiver recipients to use competitive bidding because it does not oversee the
procurement practices of state and local governments.
Network Access
The FCC has based its planning and cost projections on the assumption that there will be a
nationwide network administered by a single license-holder. Meanwhile, states and localities have
continued to apply to the FCC for waivers that would permit them to obtain sub-licenses from the
PSST and commence building their own networks. Any IP-enabled network, however, can
support virtual private networks in wired or wireless infrastructure. The most important
consideration for assured access, therefore, is not network ownership but network availability,
permitting the uninterrupted transfer of communications to an operational link when part of a
network fails. Sharing infrastructure between public safety and commercial license-holders, as
proposed by the FCC, would lower costs and increase national availability by providing access to
commercial networks. A nationwide public safety network, with a small number of operational
cores operated by and for public safety agencies, as proposed by NPSTC, would increase network
availability and facilitate cost-saving measures for participating public safety agencies. Turning
over network construction and operations to the commercial sector, as NENA has proposed,
might lower costs even further but might also limit public safety access, unless strict rules for
meeting capacity needs are in place. If multiple jurisdictions build their own public safety
broadband networks, not only might the total cost of providing capacity increase significantly but
also available capacity might be diminished because of the added complexity of coordinating
interoperable access. The choice of design for the network, therefore, may have an impact on the
amount of funding and the length of time needed to construct an interoperable network that can
be accessed nationwide.
Once governance and decision-making authority can be conclusively decided, it may be possible
to provide the nation not just with a plan, but with a network design that provides a more solid
basis for cost estimates and for plans for funding. States and localities, for example, might benefit
from a better sense of their future financial obligations in the construction and operation of a
broadband network that is to provide access to public safety agencies across the country.
Public safety agencies have multiple obligations to build or upgrade, and equip, other networks.
The costs of building and maintaining a new data network, therefore, are some fraction of total
obligations to assure emergency communications capabilities. Based on information about the
cost of existing systems and estimates of future costs, the construction of this new network
represents a significant investment for all participants.
76 FCC, Public Notice, “Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on Increasing Public Safety
Interoperability by Promoting Competition for Public Safety Communications Technology,” PS Docket No. 10-168,
released August 19, 2010, http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1556A1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Financial Resources
Although there are many ways that the federal government might encourage improvements in
emergency communications, such as tax incentives or cash awards in technology contests, most
federal financial support has come from grants and congressionally directed funding. Other
sources of funding for emergency communications include appropriations from state and local
budgets, financing from government bonds, grants from private foundations, lease-purchase
agreements with equipment suppliers, and sources of recurring revenue such as fines, user fees,
surcharges, and state and local sales and property taxes. At the local level, funds are often
collected through bake sales, fish fries, fund-raising drives, and other community-supported
efforts.
Testimony at congressional hearings and other public statements by public safety officials
indicate that many public safety agencies envisage setting up a partnership with commercial
network operators that would provide some form of revenue. How this would be accomplished
has been left vague. Possible models to generate revenue from public safety spectrum assets
include issuing secondary licenses to commercial partners, and network management techniques
that use advanced technologies to share spectrum.
The final decision as to how spectrum access might be divided up across an estimated 65,000
public safety agencies77 has not yet been made by the stakeholders. Some municipalities and
states may seek commercial partnerships that will provide access to public safety spectrum in
return for financial consideration. Resources provided by the commercial sector might include
access to their infrastructure and cash payments for spectrum leases. The value to commercial
operators of spectrum access would likely depend on the geographical coverage being offered by
the public safety licensee. Paradoxically, the areas where the spectrum is likely to have the most
value, such as urban areas, are also the areas where public safety agencies are most likely to need
spectrum capacity for their own use. Leased or shared spectrum in small or isolated communities
may have little commercial value.
The monetary value of spectrum licenses might also be captured for public safety
communications expenses by using the proceeds from commercial license auctions. Several
proposals, including proposed legislation,78 would designate all or part of the proceeds of some
auctions to funding public safety communications investments and operating costs. These
proceeds would be deposited in a special fund; grants administrators would be allowed to borrow
against anticipated future revenue so that grants could be provided immediately.
Congress has twice in the past acted to create special funds to receive and distribute revenue from
spectrum auctions for specific purposes. These funds represent a departure from existing law,
which requires that auction proceeds be credited directly to the Treasury as income.79 The Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171, Title III) required the auctioning of licenses for spectrum
used by television 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
77 Estimate reported in Progress Report to Congress on Emergency Communications, 2011, DHS, Office of Emergency
Communications, p. 7.
78 S. 28 (Rockefeller), S. 1040 (Lieberman), S. 911, as amended (Rockefeller), and H.R. 607 (King).
79 47 U.S.C. 309 (j) (8) (A).
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
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.
Current law prohibits the FCC from considering potential spectrum revenue in planning auctions
of spectrum licenses,80 yet high auction yields may be necessary to sustain the proposed grant
programs. Furthermore, although auctions of spectrum licenses are an effective solution for
implementing today’s wireless technologies, spectrum management policies might change to
accommodate the technologies of tomorrow, with less reliance on auctions as a policy tool. It may
be that additional congressional oversight is required to assure that the maximum national value is
obtained from national spectrum assets.
Using revenue generated by the sale of radio frequency spectrum to fund wireless networks might
increase the proportion of federal money available for one-time investments in infrastructure and
therefore the federal role in decision making. This, however, might require transferring authority
from states and communities to federal agencies, leading to a greater level of federal participation
than is currently the case. States and localities might be hard pressed to muster the resources
needed to participate. Additional funding sources, such as private sector investment, may need to
be considered as plans for the proposed network move forward, some say.
Managing Radio Frequency Spectrum
Decisions about the assignment and management of the spectrum resources available to public
safety agencies often provide the boundaries for making other decisions, such as choices for
technology, governance, and funding. For example, within the 700 MHz band, 24 MHz has been
assigned for public safety use, of which 10 MHz is currently designated for a new broadband
network.81 Networks primarily for mission-critical voice communications are being constructed
separately on 12 MHz of public safety’s allotment within the 700 MHz band. Construction of
these voice networks, referred to as narrowband networks, is being coordinated largely between
states and counties, with counties and major cities typically taking responsibility for building on
the spectrum assigned to them for that purpose.
Figure 1 represents part of the upper 700 MHz band, indicating the frequencies assigned for
public safety and adjacent commercial licenses. The accompanying legend provides the key to the
type of license and the amount of spectrum associated with that spectrum. For example, reading
from the left, the first band represents 11 MHz of the C Block, which is for commercial purposes.
The C Block allocation is in two 11-MHz assignments, at 746-757 MHz and at 776-787MHz. The
D Block has two assignments of 5 MHz each; these are contiguous with the two assignments for
the Public Safety Broadband License. The D Block frequencies have not yet been auctioned or
otherwise assigned. Assigning the 10 MHz D Block for the Public Safety Broadband Network
would increase the broadband network’s coverage to 20 MHz. Not all spectrum blocks in the 700
MHz band are shown in Figure 1; other commercial licenses are in Bands A and B in the lower
part of the band.
80 47 U.S.C. 309 (j) (7) (B).
81 2 MHz has also been assigned to the PSBL as guard bands, to protect against radio traffic interference.
Congressional Research Service
18
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Figure 1. Public Safety and the D Block
Source: Federal Communications Commission, Revised 700 MHz Band Plan for Commercial Services.
Public safety officials, commercial network experts, and the FCC are generally in agreement that
LTE technology should be required for the new PSBN. Part of the challenge for network
developers will be to coordinate the development of public safety requirements for LTE with
commercial LTE standards development.
Coordinating development of 700 MHz band standards among network participants provides an
opportunity to maximize the benefits inherent in IP-enabled networks for the safety of the general
public. For example, it is possible to create smart phone applications that can link personal
mobile devices to emergency command centers, integrating information from those devices into
an action plan for response and recovery. The first first responders—the people at the site of a
disaster—can be enabled to participate proactively in the response. The feasibility of using
crowd-sourced communications to provide information to emergency management command
centers is being tested by a program undertaken jointly by the Los Angeles County Homeland
Security Advisory Council and the Annenberg Innovation Lab:82 the CrisisConnection Project.
The CrisisConnection Project, as described by Professor Gabriel Kahn, a faculty associate at the
Innovation Lab who is leading the development team,83 will encourage businesses and others in
the Los Angeles area to download a smart phone app or register a cell phone number. When a
disaster strikes, a user can snap a photo of damage, such as a downed power line from a storm or
a collapsed building in an earthquake. A geo-location function then pinpoints where and when the
photo was taken. That information is uploaded onto a network. A mapping function places the
photo on a map accessible from the World Wide Web. Other information, such as the names of
82 According to its website, the Annenberg Innovation Lab, based within the Annenberg School for Communication
and Journalism at the University of Southern California, fosters innovation through collaborative projects with other
University departments, public institutions and the private sector; see http://www.annenberglab.com/about.
83 As described in an e-mail to Congressional Research Service on April 18, 2011. The team consists of computer
science students from the Viterbi School of Engineering at the University of Southern California.
Congressional Research Service
19
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
people who were able to exit a building before it collapsed or whether a city street is still
receiving its water supply, can also be uploaded. All the information is aggregated onto one map.
Fully implemented, the data might help emergency situation managers determine where to most
effectively deploy emergency medical service personnel, firefighters, HazMat teams, utility repair
crews, or other response and recovery personnel, as appropriate. As a situation stabilizes,
evaluations about evacuation routes, shelters, and other post-disaster services could be expedited
and information disseminated through emergency alert systems. The site can be used to support
local 911 call center operators and link to NG9-1-1 networks for broader coverage.
The scope of such life-saving measures would be greatly facilitated by effective network-to-
network wireless communications. For example, federal policy regarding access to the LTE
networks being built in the 700 MHz band might include requirements to leverage these spectrum
assets for a nationwide emergency communications grid that meets the safety needs of the public
at large.
One the goals of effective spectrum management is to create opportunities for the development of
innovative technologies. Wireless technology transforms air into desirable services, providing an
engine for economic growth and development. The evolution of public safety communications
has lagged behind the commercial sector and the military in receiving the benefits of recent
innovations. By providing access to desirable spectrum in the 700 MHz for public safety
purposes, Congress has provided an opportunity not only for increased network capacity but also
for increased innovation in emergency communications technologies.
Technology
Separately, public safety agencies across the country are investing in public safety
communications infrastructure for other technologies on other frequency assignments. In addition
to the proposed LTE data network at 700 MHz, there are other networks operated by public safety
agencies on dedicated spectrum: narrowband networks on frequencies below 512 MHz; a separate
narrowband network using spectrum at 700-800 MHz; and ultra-wideband, short-range networks
at 4.9 GHz.84 Public safety also uses unlicensed spectrum for local voice and data networks.
These networks and other communications solutions have been built separately, use different
technologies, and support different radios.
The commercial sector, meanwhile, has begun the transition to operating almost exclusively on
IP-enabled networks such as LTE. Wireless carriers around the world are installing LTE networks
for consumers and planning for the next generation of LTE: LTE Advanced.85 LTE Advanced
technologies will be able to operate across noncontiguous spectrum bands, thereby increasing
channel widths for greater capacity and performance. Most experts agree that LTE Advanced will
facilitate the transition to new technologies by making it easier and less expensive to phase out
older infrastructure.
84 Ultrawide band provides broadband capacity but is only effective for short-range communications, for example, in
deploying bomb-detection robots or monitoring sensors and cameras in a burning building. In the commercial sector it
is widely used to provide wireless connectivity in homes.
85 Also known as 3GPP Release 10, see http://www.3gpp.org/LTE-Advanced.
Congressional Research Service
20
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Many experts in advanced communications technology believe that the push to IP-enabled
technologies is likely to bring about the convergence of commercial, military, and emergency
response (federal and nonfederal) technologies on common, interoperable platforms. In this view,
compatible communications devices will be differentiated by applications developed by
stakeholders to meet their mission needs. Infrastructure, spectrum, and mobile devices will be
sharable, and it is envisaged that sharing will be encouraged.
Networks
The military is linking many of its communications through IP-enabled networks,86 similar to
plans by the public safety community for investment in first responder LTE devices and NG9-1-1.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has used the term internetwork to refer to the IP-enabled
networks that drive its Global Information Grid (GIG) for network communications.87 The
internetwork, also known as the Convergence Layer, provides analysis and organization of
communications activity to facilitate transport. The communications layer that provides the entry
and distribution links to services supported by the internetwork is referred to as the Link and
Transport Layer by DOD. An Emergency Communications Grid, similar to the military’s GIG,
might use a common IP-enabled network structure to connect with any type of IP-enabled system,
network, or device to support a wide range of services. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2. Emergency Communications Grid
Source: Based on Department of Defense Global Information Grid Architectural Vision; vision for a net-centric, service-
oriented, DoD enterprise, prepared by the DOD CIO, June 2007.
DOD’s internetwork is the equivalent of public safety wireless backhaul, NG9-1-1 network
connectivity, or any other network connection that serves the public interest. The Emergency
Communications Grid shown in Figure 2 can also send out emergency alerts to endangered
populations,88 capture information from sensors, manage the Smart Grid to prevent power
86 Department of Defense Global Information Grid Architectural Vision; vision for a net-centric, service-oriented, DoD
enterprise, prepared by the DOD CIO, June 2007, http://cio-nii.defense.gov/docs/GIGArchVision.pdf.
87 Ibid., Figure 8, p. 22.
88 FEMA and the FCC have announced the introduction of the Personal Localized Alerting Network (PLAN) that can
deliver geo-targeted text alerts to enabled smart phones. PLAN is the implementation of the Commercial Mobile Alert
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
outages, and support other response and recovery actions. In nonemergency mode, the shared
internetwork serves as the conduit for the daily workload of communications. The Emergency
Communications Grid represents a unified approach to assuring access and interoperability
among all types of communications devices and applications, but it is not envisioned as a single
network. The internetwork would be a convergence of many IP-enabled networks that support all
the necessary devices and provide the needed links to the Response and Recovery level.
Radios
The United States Army is adapting commercial wireless technologies to operate with military
networks, expanding the range of available devices and applications.89 It has initiated a project,
Multi-Access Cellular Extension (MACE), to capture innovation in the commercial marketplace
because the “commercial marketplace continuously introduces new technologies, replete with
greater capabilities and faster data rates, which could prove beneficial to the military.” The vision
for MACE is intended to unify commercial technologies with military needs.
The developers of MACE contend that it will support cellular communications over smart phones
as well as links through cellular base stations to tactical systems. In demonstration pilots, mesh
networking90 is to be used to test seamless operation in WiFi/cellular environments even when a
cellular base station is not available.91
One example of a smart phone app being tested in a MACE demonstration is the mapping of
Improvised Explosive Device locations. Similar to the CrisisConnection project described in the
preceding section, the smart phone camera would take a picture at the site of an explosion and,
using location technology, pinpoint it on a map of the area. This information would be used in
planning routes to be taken through the area.92
The MACE strategy, and other Army Research and Technology initiatives that are augmenting
commercial solutions to work in the military environment, may also be applied for public safety
response and recovery efforts. The developers of MACE have identified a number of parallels
between tactical military deployments and first responder deployments. For example, military
divisions and public safety personnel both need robust communications technology to provide:
situational awareness, chain-of-command and network management functions, authentication and
access control, and data security—at a low cost.
(...continued)
Service as required by the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act (WARN Act), P.L. 109-347, Sec. 603 (a). FCC
Fact Sheet, http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cmas.pdf.
89 U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, U.S. Army Communication-Electronics Research ,
Development and Engineering Center, Multi-Access Cellular Extension Demonstration Project.
90 Mesh networks operate over linked radio nodes facilitated in part by a mesh router. The nodes can form ad hoc
networks, as needed, and operate without cell towers. The mesh network serving the City of Minneapolis is widely
credited with expediting response and recovery, and saving lives after a bridge spanning the Mississippi collapsed into
the river on August 1, 2007. More recently, Japan’s mesh networks helped maintain communications after the
earthquake and subsequent tsunami in mid-March 2011.
91 House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities,
“Department of Defense Science and Technology Budget Request,” March 1, 2011, written statement of Dr. Marilyn
Freeman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology.
92 “Can You Hear Me Now? Vice Chief of Staff Attends Army Communications Demonstration,” by Sharon Rushen,
RDECOM CERDEC Public Affairs, March 10, 2011, at http://www.cerdec.army.mil/news/comms_demo.asp.
Congressional Research Service
22
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Migration to Commercial Technologies
The military model may not be readily transferable to public safety, however. The approach being
taken by the U.S. military is to set up structures that incorporate commercial technologies and
innovation into existing tactical systems. Public safety communications do not have a similar
system on which to build. The new narrowband and broadband networks for public safety will,
according to testimony, be incompatible with each other and with other networks for the
foreseeable future. Only a small part of the existing public safety infrastructure is expected to be
usable in the development of new networks at 700 MHz. The military is planning to use
commercial technologies to expand the capabilities of its existing communications base, public
safety agencies, on the other hand, may need to use commercial infrastructure as well as
technologies. Using commercial infrastructure to support public safety apps would emulate
MACE’s plan for melding commercial and military technologies to capture the benefits from
innovation and cost-efficiencies.
There is a generally recognized need to move to technologies that use Internet protocols in order
to improve service and reduce operating costs. Because IP-enabled technologies are radically
different from those of most of the emergency communications systems currently in place, the
transition provides opportunities to surmount existing barriers to change. Just as access to the
Internet has revolutionized business and social cultures worldwide, access to IP-enabled networks
is likely to reshape the command-and-control hierarchy of first responders, and the ways they use
and pay for communications systems.
Public safety communications may be closed off from vital new technologies unless solutions are
found to incorporate and foster change. Communications technology for public safety, as for the
military, needs to be regularly refreshed by innovations and cost-saving efficiencies developed by
a competitive commercial sector, according to some experts.
Conclusion
Since 9/11, the technologies that might provide effective and efficient communications for public
safety needs have evolved more quickly than the organizational structures of the agencies that
plan for, use, and manage these technologies. The rapid transition to broadband communications,
for example, has widened the gap between practice and expectation; how public safety agencies
have managed their communications assets in the past may not be a good model for how they
should be managed in the future.
The differing needs and budgets of communities, counties, states, and the federal government
may lead to disagreement as to where decision-making and planning authority should reside. As
local and state systems expand into regional and national networks, some of the decisions about
investment and resource allocation may have to be centralized, in order to capture important
economies of scale.
Policy and legislative debates on emergency communications during the 111th Congress centered
on funding for infrastructure and access to radio frequency spectrum. Spectrum is a valuable
resource that can be allocated for noncommercial use or licensed and sold to generate revenue for
the Treasury. Because spectrum license auctions generate new revenue that can be applied to
deficit reduction, debates over spectrum allocation are likely to be far-ranging. The broader and
Congressional Research Service
23
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
more problematic policy issues for the 112th Congress include questions regarding technology
transfer, cost containment, and sustainable funding.
There are a number of possible paths forward for federal policy. One approach might be to return
to the pre-9/11 era, when the federal government left most planning and purchasing decisions to
state and local governments, and federal and nonfederal network managers negotiated reciprocity
agreements, separately and independent of each other.
Proposed bills currently before Congress take a different approach. They would depend on federal
grant guidance and rule-making to bring about needed changes. The bills would help to move
public safety agencies away from the incremental development of narrowband voice networks to
next-generation IP-enabled networks that fully support voice, data, and video transmissions. They
all would assign the D Block license to the Public Safety Broadband Licensee for a new
broadband network. S. 28, S. 1040, and H.R. 607 would give the FCC a central role in decision-
making and planning for network construction. S. 1040 and H.R. 607 would include DHS in
planning efforts and assign to it the responsibility for program grants. S. 28, S. 911, as amended,
and H.R. 2482 would give grant-making authority to the NTIA. Funding for the grants would
come from auctioning spectrum licenses; loans to grants programs could be substantial, based on
expected auction proceeds. S. 911, as amended, and H.R. 2482 would create a new not-for-profit
corporation that would plan for and develop a nationwide network.
The FCC has proposed using its spectrum allocation authority to leverage a public-private
partnership that would collaborate in providing public safety and consumer services. The FCC’s
objective is similar to DOD initiatives, such as MACE, intended to manage the convergence of
commercial and military innovation in communications technology.
The NENA proposal for a commercial network supporting public safety enterprises would likely
have fostered the costs savings and other benefits such as those described for MACE but did not
address public safety community concerns such as an unwillingness to cede authority and
concerns about network availability and reliability.
To summarize, current proposals and discussions offer two different categories of management
structure and philosophy.
• Collaborative efforts among existing public safety and federal agencies, with the
details of the relative responsibilities of multiple stakeholders not yet decided.
• Corporate governance with clearly defined responsibilities to meet the needs of
public safety stakeholders/customers.
Funding options include
• Federal funding, either through direct appropriations or through revenues
received from spectrum auction proceeds that are diverted from the U.S. Treasury
to a fund from which sums are appropriated for the public safety broadband
network, as designated by Congress.
• Payments from the commercial sector, either in cash or in kind, for access to
public safety networks and spectrum capacity.
• Borrowing, from the federal government or the private sector.
• Private sector investment.
Congressional Research Service
24
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Without a strong governance structure, it appears that providing federal grants may not guarantee
that federal goals will be achieved. Assuming clear delineation of structure, responsibility, and
accountability, a corporate structure might be in a better position to attract funding from
commercial investors than a collaborative structure governed by a combination of federal, state,
and possibly other government agencies. A not-for-profit corporation created for the purpose of
serving public safety communications needs might provide a strong governance structure for
meeting those goals but might become overly dependent on federal government financing and
support. Such a corporation might be considered a moral hazard if commitments from the federal
government were seen as protecting the company from the consequences of poor decisions and
from the need to be competitive.
A federal corporation structured to attract private investment might, however, be a viable means
for surmounting the barriers to building a public safety network such as those described in this
report.93
93 Possible organizational structures to facilitate the building of a public safety network are discussed in CRS Report
RL34054, Public-Private Partnership for a Public Safety Network: Governance and Policy, by Linda K. Moore, pp6-7.
Congressional Research Service
25
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Appendix A. Legislation in the 112th Congress to
Improve Emergency Communications
Bills in the 112th Congress seek to overcome the barriers to providing state-of-the-art wireless
technology for emergency communications: the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation
Act (S. 28, Rockefeller), the Broadband for Public Safety Act of 2011 (S. 1040, Lieberman), the
Strengthening Public-safety and Enhancing Communications Through Reform, Utilization, and
Modernization (SPECTRUM) Act (S. 911, Rockefeller, as amended), and the Broadband for First
Responders Act (H.R. 607, King), the Public Safety and Wireless Innovation Act (H.R. 2482,
Dingell), and parts of Title II of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (S.Amdt. 581 of S. 1323, Reid).
Other proposals to improve communications capacity and capability that would address issues
such as technology transfer and cost containment are also being considered.
Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act, S. 28
Under this proposal, governance of a public safety broadband network would be shared by
several agencies. S. 28 would require the formation of an advisory board with which the FCC
would consult.94 Annual appropriations through 2018 would be authorized for the Emergency
Response Interoperability Center to carry out its responsibilities as established in the bill.95 The
NTIA would be responsible for administering the grants program for network construction, in
consultation with the FCC, which would define project requirements.96 The FCC would
administer a separate maintenance and operation reimbursement fund. It would require annual
status reports from license-holders.97 The Comptroller General would be required to perform
audits of the construction fund and the maintenance and operation fund.98
S. 28 would empower the FCC to take “all actions necessary” to ensure the deployment of the
public safety broadband network.99 It would determine whether spectrum licenses would be
national, regional, or statewide, which would influence sharing of decision-making powers,100 and
would authorize partnerships with commercial interest to build a state’s public safety broadband
network.101 It would set standards for, authorize, and to some extent supervise requests for
proposals to build networks.102 The bill would establish specific requirements concerning network
build-out in rural areas,103 and requirements for assistance from the General Services
Administration.104
94 S. 28, Sec. 107.
95 S. 28, Sec. 105 (f).
96 S. 28, Sec. 202 (a), (b) and (d).
97 S. 28, Sec. 105 (b) (1) (G).
98 S. 28, Sec. 209.
99 S. 28, Sec. 101.
100 S. 28, Sec. 102 (b) (3).
101 S. 28, Sec. 105 (b) (1) (D).
102 S. 28, Sec. 105 (c).
103 S. 28, Sec. 105 (d).
104 S. 28, Sec. 207 and Sec. 208.
Congressional Research Service
26
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Sources of revenue would come from the proceeds of commercial spectrum auctions, as described
in the bill,105 and from fees or other income from secondary users of public safety spectrum.106
Auction proceeds up to $11 billion would be divided between a Construction Fund and a
Maintenance and Operation Fund, established by the act.107 Proceeds above $11 billion would go
to “growth-enhancing” infrastructure projects.108 An antidiversion prohibition would require that
any funds for public safety programs made available through provisions of the act would be spent
in accordance with FCC guidelines.109
S. 28 would direct the FCC to reallocate the D Block to public safety use110 and to determine the
assignment of licenses.111 It would set up rules to govern the authorization of secondary access, if
any, for those licenses.112 The FCC would also establish rules for public safety to access
commercial spectrum and infrastructure, including roaming and priority access.113 It would
determine whether the public safety licenses now designated for narrowband network use might
be used for broadband technologies and set the requirements for this usage.114 Within five years
of the enactment of the act, the FCC would be required to report to Congress on how public
safety agencies are using public safety spectrum allocations and whether more spectrum should
be made available.115
The FCC would set technical and operational rules for the network116 and, with NIST, develop
standards necessary to ensure interoperability, security, and functionality. 117 The bill would
require a GAO report on incorporating satellite communications into the broadband network.118
To capture spectrum license auction revenues, S. 28 would extend the auction authority from the
end of FY2012 to FY2020. In addition to specifically requiring an auction of at least 25 MHz of
spectrum from frequencies between 1675 and 1710 MHz and spectrum between 2155 and 2180
MHz, the bill would give authority to the FCC to organize and conduct voluntary auctions.119 The
FCC has specifically requested this authority primarily so that it may provide financial incentives
to television broadcasters as part of a plan to repurpose some of the broadcaster spectrum
holdings.
105 S. 28, Sec. 204.
106 S. 28, Sec. 104 (a) (5).
107 S. 28, Sec. 201 (a).
108 S. 28, Sec. 204 (b).
109 S. 28, Sec. 210.
110 S. 28, Sec. 102 (a).
111 S. 28, Sec. 102 (b).
112 S. 28, Sec. 104.
113 S. 28, Sec. 106.
114 S. 28, Sec. 103.
115 S. 28, Sec. 205.
116 S. 28, Sec. 105.
117 S. 28, Sec. 105 (e).
118 S. 28, Sec. 206.
119 S. 28, Sec, 204.
Congressional Research Service
27
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
SPECTRUM Act, S. 911 as amended, and H.R. 2482
As amended by a substitute amendment and other amendments, S. 911 and its companion bill,
H.R. 2482, would create a private, no-profit Public Safety Broadband Corporation to provide
governance for a nationwide interoperable network for public safety communications.120 The
board of directors of the corporation would include the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland
Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or
their designees. Eleven nonfederal members would also sit on the board.121
The corporation would be tasked with deploying and operating the nationwide network according
to provisions established in the bills.
The bills would create a Public Safety Trust Fund that would receive proceeds of auctions of
commercial spectrum licenses, including federal spectrum repurposed for commercial use, as
described in the bill.122 The Public Safety Broadband Corporation would receive grants through
the fund. The bills would require a grant to the corporation of $11.75 billion, of which at least
$10.5 billion would be available for the radio network and at least $1.25 billion would be
available to develop the standards and technology for the network’s evolved packet core.123 A
State and Local Implementation Fund of $250 million would be created to distribute grants from
the fund for the purpose of connecting to the nationwide network.124
The bills would direct the FCC to reallocate the D Block to public safety use and to assign it and
the existing public safety broadband license to the newly created corporation.125 The bills would
also authorize the FCC to allow narrowband spectrum to be used flexibly, including for public
safety broadband communications.126
The Public Safety Trust Fund would be required to provide grants to NIST for research and
development for various purposes as required by the bills, including for public safety needs.127
The fund would also be used for wireless communications research to be undertaken by the
National Science Foundations and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).128
To capture spectrum license auction revenues, the bills would extend the auction authority from
the end of FY2012 to FY2021.129 The bills would also authorize the FCC to conduct incentive
auctions.130 At least 5%, but no more than $1 billion of auction proceeds, would be available for
an Incentive Auction Relocation Fund. These funds would be available to facilitate the voluntary
relinquishment of spectrum licenses. The bills also identify radio frequencies that are to be made
120 H.R. 2482, Sec. 202.
121 H.R. 2482, Sec. 203.
122 H.R. 2482, Sec. 401 (a).
123 H.R. 2482, Sec. 401 (b) (4).
124 H.R. 2482, Sec. 401 (b) (3).
125 H.R. 2482, Sec. 101.
126 H.R. 2482, Sec. 102.
127 H.R. 2482, Sec. 401 (b) (5).
128 H.R. 2482, Sec. 401 (b) (6).
129 H.R. 2482, Sec. 301.
130 H.R. 2482, Sec. 303.
Congressional Research Service
28
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
available for auction and would require the NTIA to make available at least 15 MHz of
contiguous government-occupied spectrum between the 1675 to 1710 MHz band within one year
of enactment of the bill.131
Budget Control Act of 2011, Title II, S.A. 581 of S. 1323
S. 1323, as amended, would require the creation of a Public Safety Broadband Corporation, to be
established in a “subsequent statute.” The corporation would establish a national network for a
secure, interoperable broadband network for public safety use.132
The bill would create a Public Safety Trust Fund that would receive proceeds of auctions required
by the bill. The fund would provide $7.0 billion to the Secretary of Commerce to make available
for the corporation to fulfill responsibilities described in the bill. Release of the funds would be
contingent on approval of the corporation’s business plan by the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and
the Attorney General.133
The bill would direct the FCC to reallocate the D Block for use by public safety entities.134 The
bill would also authorize the FCC to allow narrowband spectrum to be used flexibly, including for
public safety broadband communications.135
The Public Safety Trust Fund would be required to make funds available to NIST for a research
program for public safety communications. Up to $300 million would go to NIST, upon approval
by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. If less than $300 million is provided to
NIST, the remainder would go to the Public Safety Broadband Corporation.136
To capture spectrum license auction revenues, the bill would make the FCC’s auction authority
permanent.137 The bill would also authorize the FCC to conduct incentive auctions if consistent
with the public interest.138 No more than $1 billion of auction proceeds would be available for an
Incentive Auction Relocation Fund for incentive auctions.139 The bill would require the NTIA to
make available at least 15 MHz of contiguous government-occupied spectrum between the 1675
to 1710 MHz band within one year of enactment of the bill.140 Additional frequencies are also
identified for possible auction.141
131 H.R. 2482, Sec. 302.
132 S.A. 581, Sec. 243 (b).
133 S.A. 581, Sec. 243 (b).
134 S.A. 581, Sec. 241.
135 S.A. 581, Sec. 242.
136 S.A. 581, Sec. 244.
137 S.A. 581, Sec. 224.
138 S.A. 581, Sec. 222 and Sec. 223.
139 S.A. 581, Sec. 245.
140 S.A. 581, Sec. 226.
141 S.A. 581, Sec. 226 (b).
Congressional Research Service
29
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Broadband for Public Safety Act of 2011, S. 1040
Under S. 1040, governance would come primarily from grants administration. DHS would
administer grants programs set up through the creation of a Construction Fund.142 DHS would
also administer a Maintenance and Operation Fund.143 The Comptroller General would be
required to perform audits.144 The FCC would retain its power to establish the roles and
responsibilities of the PSBL.145 The bill would expand the Board of Directors of the PSBL,
mandating the appointment of representatives from over 40 associations listed in the bill and
allowing for the election of additional members.146
S. 1040 would require each state to provide information about its plans for deployment of the new
network;147 the plans would be submitted to DHS and the FCC for joint review and approval.148
Grants could be applied to improvements and new infrastructure to meet public safety
requirements for networks in the 700 MHz band, the 800 MHz band, or the 4.9 GHz band.149 The
OEC would advise construction grant recipients on best practices and would provide guidance of
project implementation.150
The Construction Fund and the Maintenance and Operation Fund would receive proceeds from
spectrum license auctions, as designated in the bill.151 The first $5.5 billion from designated
auctions would be deposited in the Construction Fund.152 Auction proceeds in excess of $5.5
billion, up to $11 billion, would go to the Maintenance and Operation Fund.153 Auction revenues
above $11 billion would be applied to deficit reduction.154 Any unspent money in the
Construction Fund would be transferred to the Maintenance and Operation Fund at the conclusion
of the construction phase; the end of the construction phase would be determined by DHS.155 Any
revenue from sharing, leasing, or sublicensing access to the public safety spectrum licenses or
infrastructure would be deposited in the Maintenance and Operation Fund.156
The FCC would be directed to reallocate the D Block for public safety use and assign the license
to the PSBL.157 The PSBL would be permitted to authorize providers of public safety services to
construct and operate wireless broadband public safety networks on its spectrum holdings.158 The
142 S. 1040, Sec. 203, (a).
143 S. 1040, Sec. 204.
144 S. 1040, Sec. 205.
145 S. 1040, Sec. 106.
146 S. 1040, Sec. 106 (1) and (2).
147 S. 1040, Sec. 105 (a).
148 S. 1040, Sec. 105 (b).
149 S. 1040, Sec. 203 (b) (1) and (2).
150 S. 1040, Sec. 203 (e).
151 S. 1040, Sec. 202 (b).
152 S. 1040, Sec. 202 (b) (1).
153 S. 1040, Sec. 202 (b) (2).
154 S. 1040, Sec. 201 (b) (3).
155 S. 1040, Sec. 202 (c).
156 S. 1040, Sec. 103 (a) (3) (C).
157 S. 1040, Sec. 102.
158 S. 1040, Sec. 103 (a) (1).
Congressional Research Service
30
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
FCC would be required to authorize shared use, sublicensing, or leasing, provided that public
safety services receive priority access to the network.159 Spectrum allocated for public safety use
at 4.9 GHz would be opened to restricted sharing with commercial users.160 The FCC, in
consultation with NIST, DHS, and others, would also set rules for interoperability between public
safety and commercial networks and for roaming.161 Upon enactment of the bill, the FCC would
be required to end the renewal of public safety licenses between 170 MHz and 512 MHz except
under circumstances specified in the bill.162 Within three years, the GAO would be required to
submit a report to Congress identifying public safety spectrum holdings that could be reassigned
through auction and the likely cost of such a migration.163 The FCC would be required to submit a
report to Congress on how public safety agencies are using public safety spectrum allocations and
whether more spectrum should be made available.164 Within five years, the FCC and other
stakeholders would be required to provide a recommendation to Congress regarding the transfer
of communications systems below 512 MHz to public safety licenses in the 700 MHz and 800
MHz bands.165 Funding for this migration might be made available from the Maintenance and
Operation Fund.166 The bill would mandate that all federal law enforcement agency
communications not operating on commercial networks transfer to frequencies in the 700 MHz
and 800 MHz bands, within ten years of the date of enactment of the bill.167
The bill specifies minimum requirements to be established by the FCC for the broadband
network.168 DHS, in consultation with NIST, shall establish standards to meet the public safety
requirements developed by the FCC.169 The FCC, in consultation with DHS and the NTIA, would
be required to issue a report and order on the use of IP-enabled networks to achieve
interoperability.170
To capture spectrum license auction revenues, S. 1040 would extend the auction authority from
the end of FY2012 to FY2020.171 An auction of at least 15 MHz of contiguous spectrum from
frequencies between 1675 – 1710 MHz would be required within a year of enactment of the
bill.172 Additional frequencies are identified for auction not later than January 31, 2014.173
159 S. 1040, Sec.103 (a) (3) (A).
160 S. 1040, Sec. 207 (c).
161 S. 1040, Sec. 103 (a) (4).
162 S. 1040, Sec. 207 (b)
163 S. 1040, Sec. 207 (d).
164 S. 1040, Sec. 207 (d) (2).
165S. 1040, Sec. 207 (b) (2).
166 S. 1040, Sec. 207 (b) (3).
167 S. 1040, Sec. 207 (a).
168 S. 1040, Sec. 103 (a) (2).
169 S. 1040, Sec. 104.
170 S. 1040, Sec. 208.
171 S. 1040, Sec. 206 (c).
172 S. 1040, Sec. 206 (a).
173 S. 1040, Sec. 206 (b).
Congressional Research Service
31
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Broadband for First Responders Act, H.R. 607
H.R. 607 would expand the Board of Directors of the PSBL, mandating the appointment of
representatives from 40 associations listed in the bill and allowing for the election of additional
members.174 The licensee would be required to submit a report to Congress on network plans.175
The Comptroller General would be required to perform audits.176
The FCC would establish the rules for public safety service providers to construct and operate a
network on determination by the PSBL that this action would expedite network deployment.177
DHS would administer grants programs set up through the creation of a Construction Fund and a
Maintenance and Operation Fund.178
The act would create a Construction Fund and a Maintenance and Operation Fund to receive
proceeds from spectrum license auctions.179 The first $5.5 billion from designated auctions would
be deposited in the Construction Fund, with the balance going to the Maintenance and Operation
Fund.180 Appropriations of up to $5.5 billion would be authorized to supplement auction revenue,
if needed to reach a total of $11 billion.181
H.R. 607 would direct the FCC to reallocate the D Block to public safety use and permit access to
the public safety broadband spectrum and infrastructure to other providers.182 The bill would
require a public safety agency statement of requirements that would enable nationwide
interoperability and roaming across any communications system that used public safety spectrum,
as defined in the law.183 The bill would mandate the transition from narrowband systems below
512 MHz to networks operating on public safety frequencies in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz
bands.184 The FCC and other stakeholders would be required to provide a detailed plan for the
transition.185
The FCC would set technical and operational rules for the network186 and, with NIST and others,
set requirements to ensure interoperability, security, and functionality. 187 DHS, with NIST, would
take the lead in developing standards to meet these and other requirements.188 The FCC, in
174 H.R. 607, Sec. 104.
175 H.R. 607, Sec. 102 (b) ‘(b) ‘(2) ‘(C).
176 H.R. 607, Sec. 205.
177 H.R. 607, Sec. 102 (b) ‘(b) ‘(2) ‘(A).
178 H.R. 607, Sec. 202 (a) (1) (A); Sec. 203; and Sec. 204.
179 H.R. 607, Sec. 202 (b).
180 H.R. 607, Sec. 202 (b) (1) and (2).
181 H.R. 607, Sec. 202 (e).
182 H.R. 607, Sec. 102 (a) and (b) ‘(b) (2) (A).
183 H.R. 607, Sec. 103 (a).
184 H.R. 607, Sec. 207 (a).
185 H.R. 607, Sec. 207 (c).
186 H.R. 607, Sec. 102 (b) ‘(b) ‘(2) ‘(B).
187 H.R. 607, Sec.103 (a).
188 H.R. 607, Sec. 103 (b).
Congressional Research Service
32
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
consultation with DHS and the NTIA, would be required to issue a report and order on the use of
IP-enabled networks to assist interoperability.189
To capture spectrum license auction revenues, H.R. 607 would extend the auction authority from
the end of FY2012 to FY2020.190 The GAO would be required to submit a report identifying the
frequencies below 512 MHz used by public safety agencies that should be reassigned for auction
as commercial licenses.191 The bill would require the recovery of spectrum at 420-440 MHz and
450-470 MHz for auction and encourage the FCC to reconfigure spectrum to increase the value of
these bands.192 Some of this spectrum is currently assigned for amateur radio use.
189 H.R. 607, Sec. 210.
190 H.R. 607, Sec. 208.
191 H.R. 607, Sec. 207 (b).
192 H.R. 607, Dec. 207 (d).
Congressional Research Service
33
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Appendix B. Proposals for Spectrum Assignment
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)193 is the only federal agency to propose a
national network for public safety communications infrastructure and to take action to plan,
implement, and fund it. The FCC has proposed a public-private partnership to build a broadband
network to benefit public safety. 194 Its proposal would incorporate obligations into auction rules
for a commercial network operator that would provide for a shared, national network using public
safety and commercial frequencies at 700 MHz. Planning for the network would be conducted on
a nationwide basis. To create the partnership, the FCC provided for two national licenses of 10
MHz each. One license was assigned to a Public Safety Broadband Licensee (PSBL). The 10-
MHz license held by the PSBL is part of the 24 MHz originally assigned to public safety. The
other license—designated the Upper Block D, or D Block—was scheduled for auction in 2008 to
a commercial provider. At the auction, the FCC’s requirements could not be met by any bidder.
The failure to find a commercial partner to work with the public safety license-holder effectively
reset the planning process to zero. The FCC decided to include an assessment of public safety
broadband needs as part of its preparation of a national broadband plan, as required by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.195 With a public notice released September 28,
2009,196 the FCC sought information about current and potential future use of broadband in public
safety communications.
As stated above, after the auction of the D Block failed in early 2008, the FCC issued a new
request for comments on how to restructure the auction to provide a network that would meet
public safety needs. This led to a host of new suggestions on how to use the spectrum. The FCC’s
choices, however, are constrained by provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that require
it to auction the D Block. Many of the options proposed to the FCC might therefore require
Congress to amend the act or to introduce other enabling legislation.
Comments filed with the FCC197 have opened debates about alternative courses of action.
Although there are a number of different proposals, each in some way addresses the question of
whether it will be public safety representatives or commercial owners and network operators that
control the decision-making process. The following is a summary of proposals under discussion
and possible agency or legislative actions that might be needed to implement them.198 Other
options may be proposed or developed.
193 The FCC manages spectrum access for commercial and other nonfederal uses. The National Telecommunications
and Information Administration is responsible for overseeing spectrum used by federal agencies.
194 FCC, Second Report and Order, July 31, 2007, WT Docket No. 96-86 and Third Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, released September 25, 2008, PS Docket No 06-229, http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-08-230A1.pdf. Additional comments have been sought through other mechanisms and the docket remains open.
195 P.L. 111-5, Division B, Title VI, Sec. 6001 (k) (1), 123 STAT. 515.
196 FCC, NBP Public Notice # 8, Additional Comment Sought on Public Safety, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity
Elements of National Broadband Plan, DA 09-2133, released September 08, 2009, GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-
137, at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2133A1.pdf.
197 PS Docket No. 06-229.
198 Proposals for building a new network and assigning spectrum were the topic of a hearing held by the House
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
34
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Auction the D Block to Commercial Interests
• Agree to new rules for a D Block auction that satisfy the key goals laid out by the
FCC for a shared network that benefits both public safety users and commercial
interests. The D Block might be auctioned as a single, national license or as many
licenses assigned to specific geographic areas. The FCC has the authority to
structure such an auction under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
including the amendments provided by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. This
approach was recommended by the FCC.
• Auction the D Block without any obligations to share with public safety. Public
safety agencies could eventually add broadband applications to communications
systems built in the 24 MHz of frequencies originally assigned to them. The FCC
has the authority to facilitate this decision.
• Auction the D Block without any obligations to share with public safety and
“give” the auction proceeds to public safety, possibly by transferring it to an
existing grants program. One program that has been mentioned is the Public
Safety Interoperable Communication (PSIC) grant program set up by a provision
in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Congress might choose to amend the
provisions for grants in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 or it might choose to
create new legislation specifically for the distribution of the D Block auction
proceeds. In either case, the cost of new authorizations would be scored by the
Congressional Budget Office. Except where Congress has provided for
exceptions, the Communications Act of 1934 states that, as a general rule,
auction proceeds are deposited in the U.S. Treasury.199
Assign the D Block to Public Safety Licensees
• Assign the D Block to the Public Safety Broadband Licensee to administer as
part of plans for a nationwide, interoperable broadband network for public safety.
Because the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 included the D Block frequencies
among those that the FCC was required to auction, it appears that Congress must
amend the law in order for this particular option to be exercised.
• Assign the D Block to the Public Safety Broadband Licensee for administration
and provide federal grants to state, local or regional agencies to build and operate
the network. This approach, which would include spectrum license auctions as a
source of revenue, has been endorsed by the Obama Administration and is
included in its 2012 Budget.200
• Assign the D Block to state, local, or regional network managers. These would
negotiate with commercial partners on how to build, operate, and fund a shared
network. This action would require agreement among the participants on how to
assure nationwide interoperability of the separate networks. The Public Safety
Broadband Licensee would provide matching sub-licenses for its spectrum
holdings in those areas.
199 47 U.S.C. 309 (j) (8) (A).
200 Office of Management and Budget, The Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2012, Appendix: Other Federal Agencies,
Federal Communications Commission (p. 1227 et seq.).
Congressional Research Service
35
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
• Combine the D Block with the existing public safety broadband license and
award the license to a new not-for-profit corporation set up for the purpose of
building and administering the public safety broadband network. Funding sources
for the network would be a mix of federal and private sector investment.
Auction the D Block and the Public Safety Broadband
Network Licenses
• Combine the 10-MHz D Block with the 10-MHz Public Safety Broadband
License and auction the newly created 20-MHz block, with sharing requirements
similar to some of those considered by the FCC for the D Block auction. Funds
from the auction proceeds might go to public safety through a program
established for that purpose. In addition to legislation that would establish the
funding program, Congress might need to amend language in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 that directed the FCC to assign 24 MHz from the 700 MHz
band to public safety.
Congressional Research Service
36
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Appendix C. 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. Grants for emergency communications have been used to purchase equipment that
facilitates interoperability, for planning, and for training.
Congress first addressed the issue of emergency communications interoperability in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 by providing additional radio frequency spectrum that would allow for
interoperable networks. Provisions intended to improve interoperable functions in public safety
networks were included 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) might develop a national public safety communications capability as required by the
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 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),201 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),202 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.
201 47 U.S.C. §309 (j) (14).
202 Additional information at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/public-safety-spectrum/700-MHz/regional-planning.html.
Congressional Research Service
37
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
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.203
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.204 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.205 SAFECOM
continued to operate as an entity within the OIC, which assumed the leadership role.
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
Acting on recommendations made in 2004 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.206
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),
203 Notably, P.L. 107-296, Sec. 232, 116 STAT. 2159 and Sec. 502, 116 STAT. 2213.
204 “Homeland Security Starting Over With SAFECOM,” Government Computer News, June 9, 2003.
205 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (2), 118 STAT. 3843-3844.
206 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States, Washington: GPO, 2004, p. 397.
Congressional Research Service
38
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
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.207 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.208
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;
• 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.209
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).
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, 2009,210 and created a fund to receive spectrum auction proceeds and disburse
207 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303, 118 STAT. 3843 et seq.
208 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304, 118 STAT. 3847-3848.
209 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 118 STAT. 3843 et seq.
210 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3002 (a) (1) (B). The deadline was later extended through June 12, 2009, by the DTV Delay Act,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
39
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
designated sums to the Treasury and for other purposes,211 including a grant program of up to $1
billion for public safety agencies. The fund’s disbursements were to be administered by the
NTIA.212 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 FY2010.213 However, the 109th Congress, in its closing hours, passed
a bill with a provision requiring that the grants program receive “no less than” $1 billion to be
awarded “no later than” September 30, 2007.214 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.215
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.216
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.217 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.218 The program, as announced, was to provide $968,385,000 in
funding for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories.219 The announcement of
the top-level, statewide allocations met the September 30 deadline set by Congress. The states
were required to submit brief descriptions of envisioned projects and how grant requirements and
guidelines would be met. One of the requirements was that states must have a Statewide
Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) that has been approved by DHS’s Office of
Emergency Communications. Actual expenditure amounts are reported as states tap their
allocations. Under current law, the states and eligible territories have until the end of FY2011,
with a possible extension to 2012, to use the funds made available to them.220
(...continued)
P.L. 111-4, Sec. 2 (a) (1).
211 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004, 120 STAT. 22-23.
212 P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006, 120 STAT. 24-25.
213 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.
214 P.L. 109-459, Sec. 2.
215 P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Title XXII, Sec. 2201, 121
STAT. 537 et seq.
216 MOU at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/psic/PSICMOU_Executed_2-16-2007.pdf.
217 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.
218 Press releases at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1184783934669.shtm and http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
ntiahome/press/2007/PSIC_071807.pdf.
219 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.
220 FEMA, Grants Program Directorate, Information Bulletin No. 337, November 23, 2009, at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
psic/IJ/wv.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
In 2010, an audit by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Department of Commerce,
provided PSIC grant amounts and drawdowns by state through March 31, 2010. At that time the
drawdowns amounted to 31% of the $968.4 million made available through the PSIC program.221
The OIG has undertaken audits of PSIC grants in nine states that provide some information on
how the grant money is being used.222
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.223
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.224
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 nonproprietary standards for
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 (NECP) 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
221 NTIA, Second Annual Assessment of the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program, Final Report
No. OIG-11-001-A, October 7, 2010, at http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2010/OIG-11-001-A.pdf.
222 See http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/National-Telecommunications-and-Information-Administration.aspx?YearStart=
01/01/2010&YearEnd=12/31/2010 and http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/National-Telecommunications-and-Information-
Administration.aspx?YearStart=01/01/2009&YearEnd=12/31/2009. The states are Texas, Florida, Massachusetts,
California, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Nevada, New York, and Arkansas.
223 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.
224 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1805, 120 STAT. 1439.
Congressional Research Service
41
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
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.225 The completed National Emergency Communications 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.226
To support its vision 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. 227 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.228 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.
Regional Emergency Communication Coordination
In P.L. 109-295, Congress directed the OEC to coordinate with the Regional Emergency
Communication Coordination (RECC) Working Groups established by FEMA.229 These groups
were to 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.”230 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. Although the
RECCs might be an effective conduit for interaction to develop policies and plan for shared
infrastructure, they are currently used primarily as a forum for FEMA’s Disaster Operations
Directorate to relay guidelines and orders. Based on the role of RECCs as assigned by the
225 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1803, 120 STAT. 1437-1438.
226 DHS, National Emergency Communications Plan, July 2008, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
national_emergency_communications_plan.pdf.
227 “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.
228 Op. cit., Agreements on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable Communications.
229 P.L. 109-295, Title VI, Sec. 671(b), “Title XVIII, “Sec. 1805, 120 STAT. 1439.
230 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, http://www.npstc.org/meetings/GB_Carney_RECC%20Briefing_090208_NPSTC.ppt.
Congressional Research Service
42
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
National Emergency Communications Plan, their focus will be 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. Nonfederal 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
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 2008.231
The NECP sets three goals for levels of interoperability232
• 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.233 Each of these objectives has “Supporting Initiatives” and milestones.
231 DHS, National Emergency Communications Plan, July 2008: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
national_emergency_communications_plan.pdf.
232 National Emergency Communications Plan, “Executive Summary,” p. ES-1.
233 Ibid., “Executive Summary,” p. ES-2.
Congressional Research Service
43
.
Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations
Author Contact Information
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
lmoore@crs.loc.gov, 7-5853
Congressional Research Service
44