Federal-state-local talks today could enable better, smoother public-safety communications transitions in the future

Two weeks ago, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler—a Democrat—called on the Republican-controlled Congress to provide federal funding for next-generation 911 (NG911) deployment and cybersecurity initiatives. While few would dispute the need for such resources to make NG911 ubiquitous across the country—as opposed to the patchwork-quilt level of 911 capabilities under current funding models—many observers questioned whether Wheeler’s request is politically or fiscally realistic.

Still, Wheeler’s speech again raised the issue of the federal government’s appropriate role in 911, an arena that traditionally has been regulated at the state level.

Finally, there is FirstNet, the federal initiative to build a nationwide broadband network for public safety. Congress already has allocated $7 billion in federal funds to the project, as well as 20 MHz of spectrum that is worth several billions of dollars more.

There are tons of questions about FirstNet, but the long-term plan is for the LTE-based system to provide broadband service and—someday—a mission-critical voice offering to first responders throughout the nation. Whether FirstNet eventually would replace today’s many public-safety land mobile radio (LMR) networks is unknown; right now, the focus is just on getting a request for proposal (RFP) released by the end of the year.

But FirstNet is another example of the federal government getting involved in an area that previously was handled at the state and local levels—in this case, public-safety communications in the field.

Thus far, I believe these initiatives are handling the federal-state question as well as possible, with TFOPA having significant state representation and FirstNet officials exhausting considerable resources to consult with states and territories. However, neither of these federal entities really has the authority to look at the big picture for public-safety communications.

What role should the federal government play in public-safety communications? It’s a question that should be asked. More important, it’s a question that needs to be answered. And it will get answered, one way or another.

My fear is that, despite the best efforts of those involved, the current path of handling all of the federal-state relationship questions in individual technology silos will lead to multiple ad-hoc decisions by regulatory agencies, state legislatures, Congress, and—of course, when disputes inevitably arise—state and federal courts.

If this occurs, it promises to be inconsistent, messy and confusing, with accusations of “power grab” tactics likely being directed at virtually everyone involved in the debate, at one point or another.

It doesn’t have to be this way, and it should not be this way. As we gain clarity about the cost, structure and operational requirements of both next-gen 911 and FirstNet, now would be an ideal time for a body of federal, state and local representatives to sit at a table and talk about the most appropriate roles for each level of government in the public-safety-communications landscape.

No one wants the U.S. to turn into a national police state, and I’m pretty sure Congress doesn’t want to pay for public safety everywhere. But the reality is that there are certain things that each level of government—local, state and federal—can do better than the other.