FirstNet ‘public-safety entity’ definition should be broad, but prioritization policies must be clear

It should be emphasized that defining something as a public-safety entity only gives it the right to be considered for priority access on the FirstNet system; it does not mean that priority access will be guaranteed or even will be granted on a regular basis. Those decisions will be handled internally via policies that FirstNet—presumably in cooperation with public safety—will establish (a debate that promises to be very lively, and the subject of many future columns).

It is at this policy level that FirstNet should make a clear delineation which entities can expect prioritized service on a day-to-day basis—with traditional public safety leading the way—and which entities (or which particular communications from a given entity, as we have discussed before in this space) typically will be treated as a secondary user that is subject to being throttle or preempted on the network, so that user can make appropriate plans.

My hope is that FirstNet establishing such clear policies will alleviate the fears that FirstNet somehow might emerge as a major competitor to commercial wireless carriers. We don’t need a government-funded entity like FirstNet duplicating commercial services; however, FirstNet could have a potential role as a provider of mission-critical communications services that traditionally are unmet by the “best effort” services from commercial carriers.

However, it is important that FirstNet provide public safety with access to the widest possible range of communications, which it then can prioritize based on established policies and the circumstances surrounding a given incident. Particularly with critical-infrastructure entities, it is important that their public-safety-related communications be part of the FirstNet system, so they are served from the FirstNet core, which will allow their communications to be prioritized more easily and dynamically with those of public safety.