FCC, Industry Officials Tackle Wireless Technology Role In Homeland Security

“Finding some ubiquitous alert warning system that takes advantage of all technologies, [including] broadcast, satellite, wireless, IP, whatever the mechanism is and maybe trying to prioritize who gets the message first - that’s what I'd like to have in 5 years,” said FCC Dir.-Office of Homeland Security Jim Dailey. He said the FCC launched an NPRM on emergency alert systems last fall and “uniform throughout the responses was the need for a better alert warning system in the country.”

Syniverse Technologies CEO Edward Evans said to achieve that goal the industry needed “ubiquity, complete interoperability and open standard, and more spectrum.” “You['ve] got to have bigger pipes to get everything down,” he said: “We don’t have enough interoperability between our networks to deliver ubiquitous messages.” “The key word there is integration,” said the Dept. of Homeland Security’s John Grazes: “There are a lot of technologies out there, but bringing them all together in an integrated way, so that you can truly ensure that people get a message is going to be a difficult thing to do.”

Expectations are “a huge challenge” facing wireless carriers emergencies, said Evans. He said wireless would figure more prominently in public safety, but voiced concern about “the level of expectation that we set in a public about our ability to deliver a message to 280 million people in the United States within 5 seconds. Today we are not going to be able to do that. We probably won’t be able to do that tomorrow [or] in the next 3 or 4 years.” For example, he said, wireless voice communication was “pretty spotty” in Manhattan: “What was working is BlackBerry and SMS devices, because the penetration levels of those devices were significantly lower than of the voice devices; therefore their networks were able to handle the capacity.”

The wireless industry is “essential” to deploying E- 911, “because it’s delivering the service to the consumer,” E9-1-1 Institute Exec. Dir. Gregory Rohde said: “The irony about E-911 is that as technology develops and more Americans [have] cellphones… it strains the 911 system to a greater degree and in many respects it makes it less secure than it was before.” He said there was still “a long way to go before we'll see wireless E911 implemented.” Rohde said both the industry and public safety spurred implementation of E911. “One of the lessons we've learned is that we have a greater chance for success if there is a cooperation between carriers and PSAPs as opposed to a hostile relationship,” he said.

The FCC has done “a very good job” on E-911 implementation, Rohde said: “I say that very sincerely because the FCC has taken 911 very seriously.” But he said he hadn’t seen any leadership from “the rest of executive branch. 911 has not been a federal priority in the executive branch of the government recently.” For example, he said the Dept. of Homeland Security budget didn’t allocate funds for 911. “We need to see more on other areas of the federal government, but I think the FCC is doing a good job and I commend it for that,” Rohde said.

Dealing with network congestion in an emergency may be a big problem for wireless carriers. “The concern is when you need services and there is a disaster, there is going to be network congestion, Grazes said: “I think in the future, some developments will have to occur in these areas like SMS and there needs to be some areas other than voice explored.” An audience member asked what was stopping the FCC from dedicating spectrum strictly to public safety use to eliminate congestion.

“Procedurally, nothing is stopping the FCC from doing that,” FCC Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Ed Thomas responded: “But practically there are a lot of questions.” For example, he said, “If you are going to allocate some spectrum [for public safety], who are you taking it away from? Say the 90 MHz that will be auctioned off next year for advanced wireless services. Obviously, if you reduce that by any number and make it available to public safety, that’s something that is not going to be available for advanced wireless services.” Another question is whether “there enough spectrum in public safety to crunch something out in public safety band in order to do that. And 3rd and most importantly, is it good public policy? And you can imagine that this would start a significant public debate.”

Thomas asked if privatizing public safety functions, for example delegating them to a cellular carrier, could resolve interoperability problems. He clarified: “This can be done without any regulation.” Evans said there were “certainly some benefits that could come out from privatization,” but his “concerns” were “where does the spectrum come from, what does the technology look like that supports that and are you in fact creating something that will add another layer of complexity down the road that doesn’t have interoperability with the 170 million other people that are out there today? There are probably more questions there than answers.” Dailey said such ideas presented “multiple issues.” One of them, he said, is that “public safety community is a very closed entity and they want to own their equipment and frequency and be a sole use of it… I don’t see the public safety community clamoring for the wireless industry to come and solve their problems for them.”

Rohde said privatization was a good idea. “Collaboration between public and commercial entities in the area of spectrum is something to see more in the future as opposed to less,” he said: “Spectrum is not growing and for us to meet the needs on both commercial and the public side, we have to find more ways of working together.” Rohde said with respect to “new” spectrum, the FCC could help: “Perhaps, if the FCC writes the auction rules for that spectrum as well as for 3G, you could look at who you provide incentives to in auction proposals and that would include addressing some of these issues where somebody who’s got spectrum would make some of it available to public safety needs.”

“It seems to me there is always an option to say, ‘Set some spectrum aside,'” Thomas responded: “But even if the FCC did that, somebody has to build the radios and pay for them; they have to be distributed ubiquitously. And you look at that and say ‘Wait a minute. Is there an easier way that’s a win-win situation?'” Thomas said there was a lot of “underused” public safety spectrum in the U.S. “One of the primary reasons for that is that the radios aren’t available,” he said. Another problem was that upgrading equipment was often a community’s lowest budget priority, he said: “Those problems have to be solved.”

“The issue is not just spectrum but also process,” CTIA Asst. Vp-Regulatory Policy & Homeland Security Christopher McCabe said: “Getting to the point where you will have CIA agreeing how they speak to FBI and to the first respondents” could be difficult, because “they don’t want to be told what to do.” McCabe said spectrum was “one of the easier elements of this, it’s retrofitting back to existing technologies. But more importantly is establishing a process by which to do this. It goes beyond just spectrum and it’s not a simple solution.” Said Dailey: “It’s really a matter of legacy systems.” He said the FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force had offered “numerous things that can be done to reduce the bandwidth requirements to use the spectrum more efficiently. And all it takes is money and time.”

“There is no question that public safety uses old, inefficient radios due to economic restrains,” Thomas said. “The problem is, how you can fund PS so they can more effectively use the spectrum they have? And after you finish that, then you ask whether they use spectrum efficiently and if there is enough spectrum.” - Susan Polyakova