Responses to FirstNet public notice reveal little consensus on ‘public-safety entity’ definition

While such statements were consistent with utilities’ responses to FirstNet’s first public notice, multiple utilities expressed concerns with the logistics and operational practicalities associated with the notion of subgroups of a utility being deemed eligible as a public-safety entity.

“FirstNet’s proposed interpretation of the Act would require ad hoc authorization of utility workers before they would be allowed to use the NPSBN,” the Southern Company noted in its response. “Even if it were feasible to authorize thousands or tens of thousands of utility workers on an ad hoc basis, as FirstNet proposes should occur, doing so could endanger public safety by creating time-consuming impediments for utility workers to access the real-time data necessary for essential mission-critical, group decision-making during a crisis.

“Moreover, electrical-driven emergency response activities are not periodic events requiring episodic attention, but commonplace occurrences that demand constant contact between first responders and utility workers at all levels. Contacting the local electrical utility is standard operating procedure for most firefighters nationwide; most utility providers have strong relationships with emergency response providers and often help train workers to avoid some of the more common types of electrical emergencies.”

As in the first-notice proceeding, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) and most government entities expressed support for the FirstNet interpretation.

“The NPSBN is envisioned as a way to help solve communications interoperability problems that have occurred historically, because users are on different spectrum bands, deploy different technology and/or have governance limitations,” the NPSTC filing states. “This improved interoperability is likely only if those with whom first responders need to communicate prior to—and during—an incident can be assured access on the network.

“Broadening the eligibility as FirstNet has proposed will allow public safety the benefit of having other individuals, groups of individuals and—in some cases—organizations, with whom it needs to communicate on the same network.”

NPSTC also noted potential financial benefits that FirstNet—and public safety—could realize with the implementation of the broader public-safety-entity definition.

“Also, to the extent eligibility on the network is broadened, the cost per user can be reduced,” the NPSTC filing states. “It is clear that user fees will be necessary to sustain and maintain the NPSBN. Given today’s tight overall state and local budgets—with an ever-expanding array of services expected by the general public—public-safety departments must be especially good stewards of every dollar in their respective budgets. That will also apply as departments participate as users on the NPSBN.”

Multiple state and local jurisdictions generally expressed support for FirstNet’s revised interpretation, but many noted that state and local entities should play prominent roles in determining which non-traditional public-safety entities should qualify, as well as how any prioritization/preemption schemes are implemented. Some also indicated that they favored the broader definition included in the first public notice more than the third-notice interpretation that calls for the identification of relevant subgroups of organizations.