By Robert Gurss

Much of what Congress, the FCC and other federal agencies attempt to do in the realm of public safety telecommunications policy is to promote efficiency and enhanced capabilities, such as interoperability, broadband radio communications and Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1). In the private sector, these goals would be pursued in the interest of profits, potentially opening the door to capital investments to turn the goals into reality (assuming a competitive marketplace). However, the government sector obviously lacks a profit motive and must appropriate funds purely on the basis of improving the public good. That simple reality sometimes gets lost when telecommunications policy is being made.

NG9-1-1 provides a good example. Tremendous effort is going into improving policies, developing standards and encouraging best practices for NG9-1-1. Much of that has been captured in a recent report from the FCC’s Communications, Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC, www.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric). Kudos to all of the government, association and industry folks who have worked on that and other NG9-1-1 efforts.

The missing link in the broader NG9-1-1 discussion is funding. Everyone may agree that NG9-1-1 is needed and may even agree on what it should look like. It can’t happen, however, unless the funding structure for 9-1-1 is overhauled and new funding mechanisms developed. That cruel fact sometimes gets lost, whether unintentionally, due to the huge scope of NG9-1-1 issues, or intentionally, to sweep a difficult problem under the rug.

The 700 MHz broadband debate is a similar issue, although funding solutions are finally being considered by those who control the purse strings. Securing the necessary spectrum and developing technical, operational and governance procedures have been (and continue to be) huge tasks. Fortunately, many in Congress and the Obama administration now realize that they must also provide substantial funding to help make a national public safety broadband network a reality and not just the subject of endless policy debates in D.C.

Another policy initiative that could be stymied by funding problems is narrowbanding. The concept, initiated in the 1990s, is for public safety and other land mobile radios in frequency bands below 512 MHz to convert to more efficient “narrowband” equipment. Funding was an original consideration in choosing a long-range deadline, with the hope that normal equipment replacement cycles would provide users with the necessary narrowband radios before the 2013 deadline. However, that foresight didn’t anticipate the economic downturn of recent years that drastically reduced tax revenues for many state and local governments, and postponed equipment upgrades. The obvious lesson: Even a well-developed plan to address funding issues can be defeated by unforeseen economic factors.

Telecommunications policy makers must consider the financial consequences of their decisions. They need to avoid high-minded policy actions that will fail without substantial sources of funding, and they need to be flexible to address unanticipated problems in raising the necessary funds. “Unfunded mandates” are simply unwelcome.

Those with primary funding authority (Congress, state legislatures, etc.) obviously need to place a high priority on public safety communications. It’s far less visible and more difficult to understand than simply adding uniformed personnel, squad cars and pumper trucks. Without effective communications, otherwise well-funded first responders would be left in the dark. Radio equipment, PSAP technology and trained communications personnel don’t appear out of thin air.

The problem, of course, is that public expenditures are difficult in the best of times, let alone when tax revenues are plummeting. Hopefully, the economy is now on the upswing, and tax revenues will slowly increase in future years. However, even then there will be the inevitable debates over what is for the public good and how to prioritize resources. All too often those debates become ensnared in partisan battles and other political disputes that have little to do with the underlying issue.

The answer—or at least part of the answer—is for public safety communications personnel and such organizations as APCO International to continue the ongoing effort of educating policy makers to the importance of public safety communications. That education must include the fact that the best intended policy initiatives are of little value without the necessary funding to turn great ideas into reality.

I’ll get off of my soapbox now and return to more “mundane” issues next month.

About the Author
Robert Gurss is APCO’s regulatory counsel and an attorney with the telecommunications law firm of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth PLC. Contact him at 202/236-1743, or at either [email protected] or [email protected].

Originally published in Public Safety Communications magazine, Vol. 77(04), April 2011.