Search

Congress included provisions in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96) for planning, building, and managing a new, nationwide, broadband network for public safety communications, by creating the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). The act allocated 10 MHz of additional radio frequency spectrum to accommodate the new network and required that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assign a license to FirstNet, comprising the newly designated frequencies and 10 MHz previously assigned to states by the FCC for public safety use. In addition, the act designated federal appropriations of over $7 billion for the network and other public safety needs. These funds are provided through new revenue from the auction of licenses to the commercial sector in other spectrum bands. The establishment of FirstNet is an important step toward reaching what has been a national goal since September 11, 2001: the provision of interoperable communications for first responders. The immediate goal for FirstNet is to provide a broadband network to carry data, although it will provide an option for voice communications as well. Mission critical voice communications, which require higher levels of quality of service, will, in most states, be available only over Land Mobile Radio (LMR) networks operating on narrowband frequencies that are under the jurisdiction of state and local public safety agencies. States will likely need to continue to invest in and maintain their narrowband networks and may at the same time be obliged to fund some part of the state build-out for FirstNet. The cost of constructing and maintaining a nationwide network is estimated by many experts to be in the tens of billions of dollars over the long term. The cost of acquiring core network elements needed to provide required functions nationwide is estimated at under $10 million; most of the cost for FirstNet is in deploying and maintaining towers and related infrastructure in states and communities. The law anticipates that some of these costs will be covered by partnerships that permit commercial access to FirstNet's spectrum. How much of the benefit of these partnerships will accrue to FirstNet and how much will be available to the states for state-owned and operated networks in their jurisdictions is unknown. Information available to the public indicates that FirstNet intends to discourage states from building and operating their own networks within FirstNet, in part by limiting the amount of spectrum available for this purpose. FirstNet has taken the position that state autonomy in network design decisions and management will jeopardize FirstNet's ability to provide a network that meets its coverage and service goals. In seeking economies of scale and cost savings for its own business model, however, FirstNet may be transferring costs and risks to states. In the long term, these costs may hinder state and local investment in services generally categorized as the Internet of Things. The governance model chosen by FirstNet is a federalized, centrally planned and directed network, bolstered by federal procurement practices that limit states to a consultative role. A risk in choosing this model is that states may consider the federal presence excessive and cease to cooperate with FirstNet, jeopardizing the purpose of the network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The convergence of wireless telecommunications technology with the Internet Protocol (IP) is fostering new generations of mobile technologies. This transformation has created new demands for advanced communications infrastructure and radio frequency spectrum capacity that can support high-speed, content-rich uses. Furthermore, a number of services, in addition to consumer and business communications, rely at least in part on wireless links to broadband (highspeed/high-capacity) infrastructure such as the Internet and IP-enabled networks. Policies to provide additional spectrum for mobile broadband services are generally viewed as drivers that would stimulate technological innovation and economic growth. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96, signed February 22, 2012) contained provisions in Title VI that expedite the availability of spectrum for commercial use. The provisions in Title VI --also known as the Public Safety and Spectrum Act, or the Spectrum Act--included expediting auctions of licenses for spectrum designated for mobile broadband; authorizing incentive auctions, which would permit television broadcasters to receive compensation for steps they might take to release some of their airwaves for mobile broadband; requiring that specified federal holdings be auctioned or reassigned for commercial use; and providing for the availability of spectrum for unlicensed use. The act also included provisions to apply future spectrum license auction revenues toward deficit reduction; to establish a planning and governance structure to deploy public safety broadband networks, using some auction proceeds for that purpose; and to assign additional spectrum resources for public safety communications. Increasing the amount of spectrum available to support new mobile technologies is one step toward meeting future demand for mobile services. This report discusses some of the commercial and federal spectrum policy changes required by the act. It also summarizes new policy directions for spectrum management under consideration in the 113th Congress, such as the encouragement of new technologies that use spectrum more efficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today's 911 system is built on an infrastructure of analog technology that does not support many of the features that most Americans expect to be part of an emergency response. Efforts to splice newer, digital technologies onto this aging infrastructure have created points of failure where a call can be dropped or misdirected, sometimes with tragic consequences. Callers to 911, however, generally assume that the newer technologies they are using to place a call are matched by the same level of technology at the 911 call centers, known as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). However, this is not always the case. To modernize the system to provide the quality of service that approaches the expectations of its users will require that the PSAPs, and state, local, and possibly federal emergency communications authorities invest in new technologies. As envisioned by most stakeholders, these new technologies-collectively referred to as Next Generation 911 or NG9- 1- 1-should incorporate Internet Protocol (IP) standards. An IP-enabled emergency communications network that supports 911 will facilitate interoperability and system resilience; improve connections between 911 call centers; provide more robust capacity; and offer flexibility in receiving and managing calls. The same network can also serve wireless broadband communications for public safety and other emergency personnel, as well as other purposes. Recognizing the importance of providing effective 911 service, Congress has passed three major bills supporting improvements in the handling of 911 emergency calls. The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-8 1) established 911 as the number to call for emergencies and gave the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate many aspects of the service. The most recent of these laws, the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-283), required the preparation of a National Plan for migrating to an IPenabled emergency network. Responsibility for the plan was assigned to the E-9 11 Implementation Coordination Office (ICO), created to meet requirements of an earlier law, the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-494). Authorization for the ICO terminated on September 30, 2009. ICO was jointly administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The FCC has included recommendations for advancing NG9- 1-1 as part of the National Broadband Plan it presented to Congress on March 16, 2010. It has proposed that the FCC take on an expanded role in assuring that NG9- 1-1 services meet future consumer expectations for broadband-based communications. Congress may evaluate whether additional actions are needed on its part in order to support a cohesive policy for transitioning to NG9- 1-1. Other types of citizen-activated emergency calls are handled in call centers. Increasingly many calls for assistance are placed by dialing 211. The number has been provisionally designated for community information and referrals. Service levels and response times for 211 calls would benefit from a transition to IP-enabled networks and in many cases could share infrastructure with 911 networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective emergency response is dependent on wireless communications. To minimize communications failures during and after a crisis requires ongoing improvements in emergency communications capacity and capability. The availability of radio frequency spectrum is considered essential to developing a modern, interoperable communications network for public safety. Also critical are (1) building the network to use this spectrum and (2) developing and deploying the radios to the new standards required for mobile broadband. Beyond recognition of these common needs and goals, opinions diverge on such issues as how much spectrum should be made available for public safety broadband communications, how communications networks should be configured, who should own them, who should build them, who should operate them, who should be allowed to use them, and how they might be paid for. Three bills that would increase the amount of radio frequency spectrum assigned for public safety use have been introduced. The bills would require that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) transfer a spectrum license intended for commercial use, known as the D Block, to the license-holder for adjacent frequencies already assigned to public safety, known as the Public Safety Broadband License. The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2010 (H.R. 5081, Representative King) deals primarily with reassignment of the D Block. Two Senate bills contain similar provisions for spectrum assignment and would add a number of new provisions, including using the proceeds of future spectrum auctions to fund the needed network (S. 3625, Senator Lieberman and S. 3756, Senator Rockefeller). The development of public safety radios for broadband would be expedited by companion bills H.R. 5907 (Representative Harman) and 5. 3731 (Senator Warner). Public safety operations would benefit from the radio-development initiative regardless of the eventual assignment of the D Block. Congress may consider additional legislation or oversight to meet desired levels of emergency communications performance. Among the actions that Congress might take, those dealing with governance and funding are often cited by public safety officials and others as the areas most in need of its consideration. Many have recommended that, for the proposed broadband network projects to go forward on a sustainable footing, funding sources need to be identified for investment and operating expenses over the long term. To ensure the resources are wisely used, some analysts point to the primacy of putting in place a well-grounded but flexible governance structure. The debate on spectrum assignment has in recent months dominated the attention of Congress and other policy makers. Meanwhile, several states and urban areas including the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston, and the State of Mississippi have submitted detailed plans for building the nation's first broadband networks that might serve as a practical framework for evaluating policy options. These plans, developed according to FCC requirements, share many common features. Notable from a policy point of view are several recommendations that provide a common theme in these early submissions. These may be summarized as: (1) sufficient funding is essential; (2) networks that either cover an area designated as eligible for Urban Area Security Initiative programs, or cover a regional area-that is, large and/or densely populated areas-are more efficient to build, operate, and govern; (3) several critical technologies and standards, such as for radios, must be developed before the networks can be fully effective; (4) some form of governing sur-structure must be in place to assure uniformity of core operations while allowing for local customization of public safety applications; and (5) collaboration with commercial partners is important for mustering all the skills and knowledge resources needed for developing the leading-edge broadband networks that are the goals of the submitted plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The convergence of wireless telecommunications technology with the Internet Protocol (IP) is fostering new generations of mobile technologies. This transformation has created new demands for advanced communications infrastructure and radio frequency spectrum capacity that can support high-speed, content-rich uses. Furthermore, a number of services, in addition to consumer and business communications, rely at least in part on wireless links to broadband backbones. Wireless technologies support public safety communications, sensors, smart grids, medicine and public health, intelligent transportation systems, and many other vital communications. Existing policies for allocating and assigning spectrum rights may not be sufficient to meet the future needs of wireless broadband. Deciding what weight to give to specific goals and setting priorities to meet those goals pose difficult tasks for federal administrators and regulators and for Congress. A challenge for Congress is to provide decisive policies in an environment where there are many choices but little consensus. Among the spectrum policy initiatives that have been proposed in Congress in recent years are: allocating more spectrum for unlicensed use; auctioning airwaves currently allocated for federal use; and devising new fees on spectrum use, notably those managed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The National Broadband Plan (NBP), a report on broadband policy mandated by Congress, has provided descriptions of perceived spectrum policy issues to be addressed by a combination of regulatory changes and the development of new policies at the FCC. Following up on recommendations in the NBP and guidance from the Administration, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in October 2010 issued a plan to make additional spectrum available for wireless broadband. The NTIA advises the Administration on spectrum policy as well as other matters and is responsible for managing federal spectrum resources. The FCC is responsible for the management of commercial spectrum and other non-federal spectrum resources. Many of the initiatives discussed in FCC and NTIA plans would require close cooperation between the two agencies. The FCC and the NTIA have requested assistance from Congress to carry out their recommendations. For example, both have requested that the Communications Act of 1934 be amended to permit incentive auctions. Such authority would enable spectrum license-holders to return spectrum for auction, with the expectation of receiving part of the proceeds as partial compensation for its market value and to cover the costs associated with relinquishing the asset. Although most spectrum license auction revenues are deposited as general funds, Congress has passed laws, such as the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, that permit the proceeds to be used for other purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]