To a large extent, most people—and enterprises—organize their plans into three main areas: (1) things they must do; (2) things they ought to do; and (3) things they would like to do or would be nice to have, but are not necessities and arguably are luxuries.

As an example, consider the notion of a parent planning a child’s education. It is generally accepted that parents “must” take steps to have their children educated at least through the high school level—to a large extent, it is the law. Most agree that they “ought” to have their kids attend a school that helps ensure students’ safety and provides an environment that prepares students to continue their education at a college or university, if they want. It would be “nice” if the school(s) provides strong programs in areas of special interest to the student—be it arts, athletics, student politics, etc.—and happens to be a nearby public school, as opposed to a private school that requires a lengthy daily commute.

During the past three decades, communications have undergone a rapid transformation that has seen wireless communications evolve from a luxury to a necessity for most in society.

As a young reporter for a newspaper in a Dallas suburb, I remember a city council member in the late 1980s and early 1990s argue that students should be prohibited from carrying cellular phones on public-school campuses. His reasoning was that cellular phone service was so expensive that the only students with both the need to have a mobile phone and the money to pay for one were kids working for drug dealers. In addition, students that really needed to make a call could always find a landline phone in the school office or a nearby pay phone.

This position may sound crazy, but it was not simply dismissed at the time. When the council member first announced his position, mobile phone use was limited largely to the wealthy few who could afford a service that offered spotty coverage at best. However, as prices dropped and coverage improved, cellular phones became more mainstream, and parents wanted their kids to have them, so they could communicate things like dinner plans and when they needed to be picked up from after-school activities.

Today, the wireless evolution/revolution has had a massive impact on the way we communicate. There are more wireless devices in the market than people on the planet, with many users having more than one device.

In short, wireless technology—be it Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular or land mobile radio (LMR), which is used by public safety and many other enterprises—is the method that is used most for both voice and data communications. In a growing number of circumstances, wireless is the only option, because wireline service is no longer ubiquitous indoors. About 40% of U.S. households do not have a wireline phone, according to the FCC. Meanwhile, pay phones are about as rare as 8-track tapes and VCRs.

As a result, wireless connectivity indoors is no longer “nice” to have or something that “ought” to be done; today, it is a “must,” if only to ensure that people can call for help in case of an emergency—a notion that the FCC recognized when it adopted new 911 rules designed to bolster indoor location accuracy information from wireless devices. It is—as the title of this eBook suggests—an “imperative.”

But wireless indoor coverage always has been a challenge. Radio signals lose strength as they encounter physical obstacles, whether it is in the form of a mountain, a dense forest or a man-made structure, like a high-rise office building or an apartment complex.

Making the challenge more difficult are advances in the energy efficiency of buildings. The designs and materials used to keep buildings warm in the winter and cool in the summer, while using less power, also are significantly more resistant to radio signals. In these energy-efficient buildings, the idea that radio signals from an outdoor tower consistently will be able to penetrate inside a building to provide indoor coverage—particularly coverage that does not drain battery life from a device—no longer is realistic.

Instead, a more reliable approach is to design coverage inside a structure. When designed effectively, an in-building coverage solution will deliver a better radio signal to a wireless device, which typically results in better audio quality for voice applications, better throughput speeds for data applications and longer battery life for the user’s device. It also has potential to deliver much better location data from the device, including much-anticipated vertical—or “Z axis”—information.

From a public-safety perspective, good indoor coverage for customers and first responders provides multiple benefits during an emergency response.

Initially, strong commercial indoor coverage lets consumers who are indoors dial 911 to report an emergency via their cellular phone—the device they are most comfortable using, and it should provide better location information in the near future. This can save valuable time in circumstances when seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

Once first responders are on the scene, a good indoor public-safety system allows firefighters, law enforcement and EMS to communicate better and more efficiently using LMR voice today, with the potential to leverage Band 14 LTE and transmit sensor data via myriad technologies in the near future. This data capability includes the ability to track the location of first responders, as well as monitor their health via biometric technology.