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

For instance, at the heart of this next-generation architecture for first responders is the ability to share information between 911 centers and first responders in the field. Given this, it doesn’t make sense to have FirstNet—representing those in the field—take one approach to cybersecurity and for the PSAPs each state to have 50 different cybersecurity strategies that may not match up with FirstNet. Instead, some sort of comprehensive approach to cybersecurity is needed that applies to everyone in the public-safety realm.

Maybe the federal government establishes the cybersecurity standards, which are implemented at a state or regional level—perhaps by teams serving both 911 and FirstNet, instead of having separate cybersecurity entities. Or, my guess is that people a whole lot smarter than me would devise even better ideas.

Similar discussions should occur in other areas, including regulatory, funding, operational and privacy issues. The point is to have rational discussions about which approaches make the best sense for first responders and the citizenry they protect, based on which level of government is best equipped to handle a particular responsibility.

Some will say that I am being naïve and that trying to get the right people in the room would be too difficult and that politics are too complex. They probably are correct.

But I believe we should try to identify the appropriate roles for everyone in this next generation of first-responder communication in a reasoned, comprehensive manner, instead of leaving these all-too-critical safety issues to the siloed decisions of local, state and federal lawmakers and judges that inevitably will conflict with one another.