Public-safety groups disagree on ‘public-safety entity’ definition, including utility usage of FirstNet
What is in this article?
Public-safety groups disagree on ‘public-safety entity’ definition, including utility usage of FirstNet
Two key public-safety communications organizations—the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) and the National Public-Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC)—express opposing views on the subject of whether critical-infrastructure entities such as utilities should be considered public-safety entities that could be eligible for priority access to the 700 MHz broadband system being built by FirstNet.
In a proceeding designed to explore legal interpretations impacting FirstNet, APCO stated that it “must strongly disagree” with the notion that an electric utility could be considered a public-safety entity. In contrast, NPSTC—a coalition of public-safety communications groups, including APCO—expressed support for a broader interpretation of “public-safety entity” than the traditional definition of fire, EMS and law-enforcement departments.
“Some utility’s day-to-day operations—such as meter reading—may be more secondary, but during a major incident, utilities may rise up to an emergency-support level,” the NPSTC response states. “Even within the public-safety category, the same individual may warrant a higher priority at some times than at others. The requisite prioritization for a given user can vary across different incidents and even at different times within the same incident.”
This position aligns with the interpretation of a public-safety entity that was proposed by the FirstNet legal staff—the FirstNet board has not yet taken a position on the matter publicly—in the proceeding. In a public notice, the FirstNet legal staff proposed that an “entity may offer other services in addition to a non-de minimus amount of public-safety services and still qualify as a public-safety entity” and that “an electric utility could come within the definition of public-safety entity.”
But APCO officials believe such interpretations are incorrect, noting that Section 337 of the Communications Act defines public safety services as services “the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health or property” and that it was not the intent of federal lawmakers when they created FirstNet in 2012.
“An electric utility, or any equivalent entity, does not fall within the definition of public-safety entity,” the APCO filing states. “Any conclusion to the contrary would be a plainly wrong reading of the Act’s provisions, and a stark departure from Congress’s intent to create a dedicated network for first responders.
“If Congress intended a broad definition of the kinds of entities that would be considered ‘public-safety entities,’ it certainly could have mentioned groups like utilities, highway departments, or building inspectors, etc., rather than reference existing statutes with language like ‘sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health or property’ and ‘emergency-response providers.’
Public-safety representatives lobbied Congress for several years to reallocate 10 MHz of prime 700 MHz spectrum—known as the D Block—for public-safety use. In 2012, Congress reallocated the D Block, established FirstNet and dedicated $7 billion in funding for the buildout of a nationwide broadband system.
APCO and NPSTC both claim to
APCO and NPSTC both claim to represent a broad cross-section of public safety entities, however, they hold dramatically opposing positions regarding Firstnet. This calls into question their claim that they truly represent public safety. Perhaps FirstNet should give more credence to the comments filed by individual jurisdictions and public safety agencies rather than national groups that claim to represent them. If APCO and NPSTC cannot reach agree on such basic issues, do they truly represent the interests of public safety?
The very legitimate argument
The very legitimate argument of whether utilities or others should be allowed to operate on FirstNet will, in reality, succumb to the fact that without the revenue from other than public safety users there is no way that FirstNet can be financially viable.
It is sad that first responders will have to accept this compromise but that is the consequence of a flawed program that seems to ignore the realities it faces.
As to the utilities, they seem to be functioning fine without FirstNet and if FirstNet never comes into being they will continue to operate and evolve their technology using other resources.
As a member of the PSST
As a member of the PSST [predecessor to FirstNet], I sought to include transportation and utilities in the definition as these entities are oftentimes crucial to the response [and most definitely the recovery] to a large scale incident….this is consistent with the definition found in DHS legislation…as noted above, these entities can be given a much lower priority during the response when life safety is paramount, but a higher priority during recovery…in any event, they need to be on the network…also as pointed out above, adding these two groups will only make the network more viable from a financial standpoint…a reality we must all face….
The voices in APCO seem to
The voices in APCO seem to not be on the front lines of emergency response. Just look at an Incident Action Plan or an ICS Form 209 of a large scale incident and see the myriad agencies operating to mitigate the danger. If the plan is to integrate the best resources, there needs to be a common operational picture to orchestrate the response. What if the emergency IS the power grid? I know I want to have access to information about what is going on. In 1992, I was deployed to the Northridge Meadows Apartment collapse when the power suddenly re-energized in the complex starting fires. Our USAR team deployed to Christchurch, NZ where our Structural Specialists were in high demand to categorize building damage before rescuer entry. The point is, responders are responders. Some go first normally. But many others act in concert.
Its so blatantly clear to
Its so blatantly clear to anyone who was involved that the current APCO staff leadership is either ignoring, or honestly doesn’t know, that APCO and the broad Public Safety Alliance coalition and supporters, of which NPSTC and so many were a part of, most definitely viewed the “public safety community” more broadly both on principle and practically for sustainment. The current APCO staff leadership wase not there when it happened. Indeed, Verizon about flipped their lid with PSA’s leadership over their position to include a broad swath of federal personnel within the “public safety and first responder” eligible user community for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN) to include DoD’s 100,000-to-200,000 eligible users (i.e. fire, police, investigators, emergency response). It’s hard to believe they don’t know that they are not reflecting the truth. It seems that they are instead are attempting to revise recent history to reflect their own well known, long established personal views.
At this time it really
At this time it really doesn’t matter what NPSTC or APCO think or how far apart their views are. The status of all commercial and government entities who charge for their services is already codified in the FCC Rules, specifically 90.523 Eligibility, paragraph (d):
(d) Paragraphs (a) and (b) notwithstanding, no entity is eligible to hold an authorization for a system operating in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz frequency bands on the basis of services, the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health or property, that such entity makes commercially available to the public.
Note the first 5 words “Paragraphs (a) and (b) notwithstanding,” of the existing rule. The 700 MHz public safety band is clearly NOT open to all state or local government entities. Any private or government-owned gas or electric, fresh or waste water utility system that bills the public for their products or services is not eligible to hold a 700 MHz narrowband authorization. A transit system or taxi company that transports the public and collects farebox revenues is not eligible. Telephone and cable TV systems, whether they are considered to be common carriers or not, are not eligible to apply for a 700 MHz authorization. A local government fire/EMS agency who contracts with property owners for property protection responses, or bills injured persons on the street or their insurance companies for EMS transport charges is not eligible to hold a 700 MHz authorization. Even a 9-1-1 district who bills wireline or wireless users via a surcharge on their monthly bill and might want to construct or fund on an ongoing basis a 700 MHz radio network is probably not eligible to hold an authorization under the current wording.
The FCC has stated that where an agency is NOT eligible to hold a authorization to operate on 700 MHz, they are still permitted to operate mobile and portable radios on the interoperations channels where the 700 MHz infrastructure authorization is held by a properly qualified government entity.
This paragraph is also specifically incorporated into the 4.9 GHz rules at 90.1203 and applies to all base-mobile and fixed PTP applications in that band.
I’m not taking sides here, just pointing out what the existing rule allows or prohibits. If there is now strong disagreement with what the original writers proposed or what the FCC wrote in response, one or more user groups or readers need to petition the FCC for a rule change.