Urgent Matters

Federal R&D money for public-safety LTE should be accelerated


UC Editor Donny Jackson discusses the need to accelerate the distribution of research & development money for the public-safety LTE network, particularly as it applies to mission-critical voice.

Can a dedicated public-safety LTE network provide mission-critical voice functionality to first responders? If so, when can it be expected and under what conditions?

These may be the most perplexing and significant long-term questions facing public safety, because the answers will dictate whether cash-strapped agencies should plan on their current LMR systems being their last — or whether agency budgets for the next several decades (or forever) need to include upgrades to LMR networks.

This is not a new revelation — the topic has been addressed in numerous Urgent Communications articles and webinars during the past year, and we certainly don't have a monopoly on the subject. While these discussions have fostered some tremendous insights and spirited debate, the fact is that no one really knows whether mission-critical voice over LTE is a practical option, particularly in rural areas. This needs to change, as soon as possible.

Mind you, there are vendors and consultants that have conducted their own analyses of the situation and offered various viewpoints, which provide some interesting perspectives and are valuable. However, these opinions often are discounted because (1) they are based on projections, and (2) many believe that the conclusions are skewed by business interests — i.e., that LMR companies are too negative regarding LTE mission-critical voice for self-preservation reasons, while the cellular industry is more bullish on LTE than it should be.

What is needed is an independent assessment of the situation, supported by facts based from both laboratory results and real-world network experiences, not just projections based on models generated by simulation software.

The good news is that Congress approved spending $135 million in research-and-development (R&D) money for public-safety broadband applications, which would include mission-critical voice and a plethora of data applications that would make the network more attractive to potential first-responder customers. The bad news is that this R&D funding likely will not be available for several years.

This is bad timing, for several reasons. Public-safety entities — many of which recently rebanded or narrowbanded their existing LMR networks — do not want to spend millions of dollars on a new or upgraded LMR system if LTE can provide the same mission-critical-voice functionality. On the other hand, no one wants a first-responder agency to depend on LTE voice if it cannot meet mission-critical standards.

Also caught in the middle are vendors, which are left in limbo as potential public-safety customers try to make long-term decisions while looking into a hazy crystal ball. This situation promises to get worse over time, not better, as uncertainty continues.

Finally, the issue extends to the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) board that will oversee the deployment of a nationwide public-safety LTE network. If the LTE network can provide mission-critical data and voice, it should be pretty simple to make a business case for public-safety entities to join the network — and it will be easier to make a case for Congress to provide additional funding for the initiative, if necessary.

But if the LTE network provides only mission-critical-data functionality, FirstNet's task to attract users could be more challenging, because public-safety entities would have to maintain their LMR networks for voice communications. In addition, the design of a voice-and-data network (and devices) may be different than the design for a data-only network.

With this in mind, accelerating the R&D money for public-safety broadband would be very helpful in the near future, instead of waiting years to begin this critical work. It is important that independent research be conducted as soon as possible to provide the industry with some clarity on the mission-critical-voice question and develop the kind of data applications that will be compelling to first-responder agencies participating in the broadband initiative.

What do you think? Tell us in the comment box below.

Discuss this Blog Entry 2

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 28, 2012

I'm wondering if we aren't taking a truly rational look at LTE and its capabilities. We know the primary reason for selecting LTE at the outset was because of its high capacity and ability to carry multiple data streams. Voice over LTE or VoLTE is really an add-on that would be a nice-to-have as it does reduce the amount of equipment a responder would need and allows convergence of devices. But has anyone really begun to look at the impact VoLTE would have on the ability of a network with limited bandwidth to carry all the desired services during a major incident? When the network capacity is reached, what service or services should be throttled or even suspended? Should it be voice or the elimination of some data streams? We need to really step back and take a hard look at what we expect out of this network. We know that in order to have seamless coverage, a single site will not have the full 20 MHz of bandwidth, that bandwidth has to be allocated among the nodes on teach site and with adjacent sites. That will put a significant limit on the amount of traffic a single site can handle because the available bandwidth will be limited.

on Nov 29, 2012

As a end user of Pubic Safety radio communications and have a working knowledge as a Amatuer Radio operator, I am not one who is keen in relying on third party communication providers to ensure my safety when I press on that PTT button.

Too many times, I've seen trunk radio systems become overwhelmed or fail in a disaster as we are sharing radio frequencies with other agencies or districts through the use of "talkgroups" and "zones". Now they are talking about the use LTE systems for Public Safety communications? using cell sites for relaying traffic makes for a scary experience as an end user. This as there are too many layers involved with the combination of both computer and RF and also landline cable, or microwave relays just to send my voice traffic to a dispatcher.

I am of the belief that line of sight RF communications by way of a conventional repeater is by far the best way for a public safety end user to reach his or her's dispatch center. I can accept the concept of narrowband digital. But not the concept of Public Safety sharing the same RF frequencies and sites as the cellular phone users. This will be a disaster if faced with a major event and communications systems become overwhelmed or fail..

All being said, I would rather be back to using a VHF lo band, analog radio on simplex before I would ever want to be dependent on a LTE system to reach my dispatch during an active shooter scenario!!!

Post new comment
or register to use your Urgent Communications ID
What's Urgent Matters?

Insights from Donny Jackson concerning the most important news, trends and issues.


Donny Jackson

Donny Jackson is editor of Urgent Communications magazine. Before joining UC in 2002, he covered telecommunications for four years as a freelance writer and as news editor for Telephony magazine....
Blog Archive

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies.