Panelists note public-safety benefits in LTE standard, cite work that needs to be done

However, despite all of the promise of LTE standards for public-safety functionality—it will be some time before the technology is able to provide first responders with standards-based solutions in key areas, Kidner said.

“Actually, you can’t build a standardized, critical-communications LTE network today,” he said. “Even when Release 12 is issued, it says ‘group call enablers’ at the transport level. The actual group-call functionality is still to be standardized.

“So, standards are lagging behind what you want and what industry is giving you. So, let’s stick with standards. Release 13 of LTE is frozen, and that includes things like push to talk. It doesn’t include things like group data, which in our world is extremely useful, so I can send a color picture of this missing child to 500 radios, so it will appear on the screen of their radios. You can’t do that with LTE [today]. You have to make 500 different calls. There’s a lot to be done.”

Beyond the standards work, public-safety representatives seek greater reliability and hardening than often is practiced by commercial carriers, according to Ryan Burchnell, CTO of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motorized Vehicles.

“When I led a contingent into Waveland, Miss., after [Hurricane] Katrina, a lot of the tower sites were still viable, but they didn’t have power–they had a two-hour battery backup,” Burchnell said. “A lot of the radio sites and cellular sites could have been used, but they weren’t designed for public-safety grade.

“By comparison, most of our LMR sites are on a 7-day or 14-day power backup—many propane, some diesel-fueled—but that’s what public safety expects. That’s 7 to 14 days of backup power generation at every site, not just some sites. That’s a big challenge to industry, because that’s not the model that you build. But it is what public safety expects.”

Another key challenge in deploying a public-safety LTE network is providing in-building coverage, according to Alan Perdue, executive director of the Safer Buildings Coalition. Once again, a big problem is money. Solutions that meet public safety’s needs exist, but there are questions about who should pay for their deployment and maintenance—public safety, building owners, commercial carriers or some combination of these groups.

No matter what choice is made on the economic side, it is important that lawmakers and insurance companies deliver a clear message that providing in-building coverage—not only for public safety, but also for members of the general public, so they can call 911 during times of emergency—is no longer a luxury, but a communications necessity, Perdue said.

“I think you’re going to see in-building coverage become a life-safety system—it already is, just like fire-alarm systems and sprinkler systems,” Perdue said. “We are having some discussions with the insurance industry, both from the property-protection standpoint and the liability situation. When someone has a building, they know they have a problem, you have a known solution, and you don’t take action to deal with that, what are the consequences?

“So, we’re having those discussions to see how we can get them to the table.”