Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Code Amendments - Public Wireless Radio Comm (2/23/2009) �fy DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 30, 2009
TO: Greg Taylor, Chair
Members of the Public Safety Committee
FROM: Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator !�'- "
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Watts, Development Services Director(x-7218)
SUBJECT: Public Safety Wireless Communication
In-Building Coverage Code Amendments
ISSUE:
Should new city code amendments be adopted to require minimum standards for
adequate wireless communications within new buildings?
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends adoption of new city code amendments to require minimum
standards for adequate signal coverage for public wireless communication within new
buildings. Proposed code amendments would be subject to a public hearing and
additional Council committee review prior to consideration of adoption by Council.
City staff recommends adoption of new city code amendments to require minimum
standards for adequate signal coverage for public wireless communication within a
variety of new buildings, but mainly those taller than three stories. Expansions of existing
buildings by 20% or more may also require compliance depending on building type.
Proposed code amendments would be subject to a public hearing and additional Council
committee review prior to consideration of adoption by Council.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Effective and interoperable wireless communications are critical to the success of public
safety operations. One specific area of wireless communications that has become
increasingly important to public safety professionals is providing adequate wireless
communications while operating inside buildings. To resolve this issue, several cities
across the country have adopted ordinances requiring new buildings to provide technical
improvements to improve in-building wireless communications for public safety
operations. There are costs associated with the implementation of signal booster systems
which most building owners naturally resist, so local codes and ordinances have become
the vehicle to provide a balance between public necessity and private interests.
e
Wireless Communication
Page 2 of 3
January 30,2009
Public safety wireless communications has evolved to wireless systems which are highly
dependent upon handheld or `handset' communications. The use of handsets provide
user mobility into any location an individual may go, such as in-buildings, basements,
tunnels and other places older mobile radio usage was not practical or possible.
Operation of wireless equipment requires a radio path between the handset and the rest of
the communications system. Radio signals are greatly reduced when passing through
earthen barriers and dense construction materials, making in-building and underground
wireless communications unreliable or impossible without taking additional actions.
Radio signals may be re-distributed within obstructed areas by the use of special coaxial
cables, fiber optics, passive antennas, and distribute antenna systems; however, these
signals usually require amplification to overcome the losses of the distribution system to
be effective. The most common solution involves the use of special amplifier devices
called `signal boosters' by the Federal Communications Commission, who has federal
jurisdiction of the use of such devices. Other terms such as 'bi-directional amplifier' or
`BDA' are industry jargon for signal boosters, all meaning the same device.
In-building solutions have costs based on the system design. The type of system required
for a building is based on many factors. Each building situation and required solution is
unique, and providing generalized cost estimates for in-building solutions can be
misleading. However, based on market research, specific costs can be provided for
specific cases. Each building and situation varies, and requires a tailored in-building
solution. The examples and information provided below describe only "order of
magnitude" data and should not be used to guide cost estimation for any particular
building.
For example, a 45,000 square foot floor of a building could be covered with 300 feet of
radiating coaxial cable installed above a dropped ceiling. Material cost for this type of
installation is approximately$4,020, while labor cost is approximately$1,210, for a total
cost of$5,230. As another example, a bi-directional amplifier(BDA) system could be
installed in a 200,000 square foot area, such as a warehouse, with various sections
partitioned from one another. To provide wireless communications coverage for public
safety personnel, a system for this building would cost approximately $33,000. These
estimates use typical values for materials and labor costs. Cost will vary depending on
the manufacturer of the materials and location of installation. All buildings are unique,
and the cost of a solution depends largely on the size, shape, and floor plan of the
building, along with the materials used in construction and its proximity to a radio site.
Solutions for large buildings in urban environments are much more complex and costly.
As a rule, in-building communications ordinances may not be applied to buildings
retroactively. Therefore, these ordinances impact only those buildings constructed after
the law becomes effective, and in some jurisdictions, are also relevant in cases which an
existing structure undergoes any modification that increases its size by a certain
percentage, typically 20 percent, of its square footage area. This can create an issue
regarding the treatment of buildings that were built prior to the passage of the ordinance.
Wireless Communication
Page 3 of 3
January 30, 2009
It is important to note that many older structures do not present as many hurdles for
wireless communication coverage as new buildings. Modern materials, such as reflective
window glass or steel-reinforced concrete used in the construction of high-rise buildings,
cause attenuation of radio signals, presenting added challenges to providing a universal
wireless solution for a community.
Cc: Renton City Councilmembers
Denis Law,Mayor
Jay Covington, CAO
Kevin Milosevich,Police Chief
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief
Suzanne Dale Estey, Economic Development Director
attachment
4-4-150 WIRELESS PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO IN-BUILDING
COVERAGE
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to provide minimum standards to insure a reasonable
degree of reliability for emergency services communications from within certain
buildings and structures within the city to and from emergency communications
centers. It is the responsibility of the emergency service provider to get the signal to
and from the building site.
B. APPLICABILITY
This Section applies to new construction peiiiiits issued after the effective date of this
Section. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued to any structure if the
building fails to comply with this Section.
C. BUILDING RADIO COVERAGE
Except as otherwise provided no person shall maintain, own, erect, or construct, any
building or structure or any part thereof, or cause the same to be done which fails to
support adequate radio coverage for City emergency services workers, including but
not limited to firefighters and police officers. For purposes of this Section, adequate
radio coverage shall mean that the in-building radio coverage is sufficient to pass the
testing procedures set forth in this Section.
D. EXCEPTIONS
This Section shall not apply to the following:
1. Existing buildings or structures.
2. Single family residential buildings.
3. Structures that are three stories or less without subterranean storage or parking.
Construction of three stories or less including subterranean storage or parking
shall be exempt except for the subterranean areas.
4. Wood-constructed residential structures four stories or less without subterranean
storage or parking.
5. Buildings constructed prior to the implementation of this section shall not be
required to comply with public safety radio coverage provisions of this Section.
However, should exempted structures undergo renovation, restoration, significant
modification or provide an addition in area greater than twenty percent (20%) of
the footprint of the original structure, exemption from the provisions of this
Section shall not apply.
E. ADEQUATE RADIO COVERAGE
A minimum signal strength of three (3.0) micro volts shall be available in 95% of all
areas of the building and 99% in elevators (measured at the primary recall floor), stair
shafts and Fire Command Centers when transmitted from the Regional 800 MHz.
Radio System.
1
F. MINIMUM SIGNAL STRENGTH
A minimum signal strength of one (1.0) micro volts received by the Regional 800
MHz. Radio System when transmitted from 95% of all areas of the building and 99%
in elevators (measured at the primary recall floor), stair shafts and Fire Command
Centers.
G. FREQUENCY RANGE
1. The frequency range which must be supported shall be public safety frequency
spectrum as determined by the Regional Radio System operator in all areas of the
building. Measurements in-buildings for the purpose of this ordinance shall be to a
portable radio of the type the City and the 911 system then currently utilize. The
City's Development Services Director may designate alternate methods of measuring
the signal level, which satisfy appropriate levels of public safety grade coverage.
2. The amplification system must be capable of future modifications to a frequency
range subsequently established by the City of Renton. If the system is not capable of
modification to future frequencies, then a new system will need to be installed to
accommodate the new frequency band.
H. TESTING PROCEDURES
1. When an in-building radio system is required, and upon completion of installation,
it will be the building owner's responsibility to have the radio system tested to ensure
that two-way coverage on each floor of the building is a minimum of ninety-five (95)
percent. All testing shall be conducted by a technician in possession of a current FCC
license, or a technician certified by the Associated Public-Safety Communications
Officials International (APCO) or the Personal Communications Industry Association
(PCIA). All testing shall be done in the presence of the special inspector for the City.
Each floor of the building shall be divided into a grid of approximately twenty (20)
equal areas. A maximum of two (2) nonadjacent areas will be allowed to fail the test.
In the event that three (3) of the areas fail the test, in order to be more statistically
accurate, the floor may be divided into forty (40) equal areas. In such event, a
maximum of four (4) nonadjacent areas will be allowed to fail the test. After the forty
(40) area test, if the system continues to fail, the building owner shall have the system
altered to meet the ninety-five (95) percent coverage requirement.
2. The test required by this Section shall be conducted using a portable radio of the
type the City and the 911 system then currently utilize. A spot located approximately
in the center of a grid area will be selected for the test, then the radio will be keyed to
verify two-way communications to and from the outside of the building through the
911 system. Once the center spot has been selected, prospecting for a better spot
within the grid area will not be permitted.
3. The gain values of all amplifiers shall be measured and the test measurement
results shall be provided to the building owner, and shall be kept on file with the
building owner in the building. The measurements can be compared and verified
each year during the owner's annual tests, as provided herein. In the event that the
2
measurements results became lost, the building owner shall notify the chief of police,
who will cause police department personnel to rerun the acceptance test to re-
establish the gain value.
4. When an in-building radio system is required, the building owner shall cause a
technician in possession of a current FCC license, or a technician certified by the
Associated Public-Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) or the
Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA), to test all active components
of the system, including but not limited to amplifiers, power supplies and backup
batteries, a minimum of once every twelve (12) months. Amplifiers shall be tested to
ensure that the gain remains the same as that found upon initial upon initial
installation and acceptance. Backup batteries and power supplies shall be tested
under load for a period of one (1) hour test period, in the opinion of the testing
technician, the battery exhibits symptoms of failure, the test shall be extended for
additional one (1) hour periods until the testing technician confirms the integrity of
the battery. All other active components shall be checked to determine that they are
operating within the manufacturer's specifications for the intended purpose. The
technician shall prepare a written report documenting the test findings, and the
building owner shall provide the Development Services Director with a copy with ten
(10) days of the completing of testing.
5. Each owner shall submit at least one field test, or as determined by the
Development Services Director, whenever structural changes occur to the building
that would materially change the original field performance tests by a consultant
approved by the Development Services Director. The performance test shall include
at minimum a floor plan and the signal strength in various locations of the building.
I. AMPLIFICATION SYSTEMS ALLOWED
1. Buildings and structures which cannot support the required level of radio coverage
shall be equipped with a radiating cable system and/or an internal multiple antenna
system with FCC type accepted bi-directional 800 MHz amplifiers, or systems
otherwise approved by the City Development Services Director in order to achieve
the required adequate radio coverage.
2. If any part of the installed system or systems contains an electronically powered
component, the installed system or systems shall be capable of operating on an
independent battery system for a period of at least twelve (12) hours without external
power input. The battery system shall automatically charge in the presence of external
power input.
3. Amplification equipment must have adequate environmental controls to meet the
heating, ventilation, cooling and humidity requirements of the equipment that will be
utilized to meet the requirements of this code. The area where the amplification
equipment is located also must be free of hazardous materials such as fuels, asbestos,
etc. All communications equipment including amplification systems, cable and
antenna systems shall be grounded with a single point ground system of five (5) ohms
3
or less. The ground system must include an internal tie point within three (3) feet of
the amplification equipment. System transient suppression for the telephone circuits,
ac poser, radio frequency (FR) cabling and grounding protection are required as
needed.
4. A public safety radio amplification system shall include filters to reject
frequencies below 851 MHz and frequencies above 860 Mhz by a minimum of 35 dB.
5. The following information shall be provided to the Development Services Director
by the builder: A blueprint showing the location of the amplification equipment and
associated antenna systems which includes a view showing building access to the
equipment, and schematic drawings of the electrical, backup power, antenna system
and any other associated equipment relative to the amplification equipment including
panel locations and labeling.
J. APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
No amplification system capable of operating on frequencies used by the Regional
800 MHz. Radio System shall be installed without prior coordination and approval of
the radio system licensee (Valley Communications) and any such system must
comply any standards adopted by the King County Regional Communications Board.
K. NONCOMPLIANCE
After discovery and notice of noncompliance, the building owner is provided six
months to remedy the deficiency and gain compliance.
L. PENALTIES
Any person violating any of the provisions of this Section shall be subject penalties in
accordance with the general penalty provisions of Renton Municipal Code Section 1-
3-1. In addition, any building or structure which does not meet the requirements set
forth in this ordinance is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and the City may, in
addition to seeking any other appropriate legal remedy, pursue equitable remedies to
abate said nuisance in accordance with provision of Renton Municipal Code Section
1-3-3.
M. SEVERABILITY
If any subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Section is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
4
'cY
0
-wNTO
City of Renton
PUBLIC INFORMATION HANDOUT
February 23, 2009
Public Safety Wireless Communication In-
Building Coverage Code Amendments
For additional information, please contact: Ion Arai,Assistant Planner; City of Renton
Planning Division; (425)430-7270
ISSUE:
Should new city amendments be adopted to require minimum standards for
adequate wireless communications within new buildings?
BACKGROUND:
• Effective and interoperable wireless communication is critical to public
safety operations
• Providing adequate in-building wireless communication has become a
greater concern for public safety professionals
• Over the past few years a number of local jurisdiction have implemented
In-Building Wireless ordinances
o City of Bellevue (2004)
o City of Kirkland (2003)
o City of Mercer Island (2004)
• Current issues with in-building wireless communication
o Radio signal transmission signals are weakened by earthen
barriers and dense construction materials —thus reducing the
reliability of wireless communication in certain in-building and
subterranean levels
o Older structures do not present as many hurdles for wireless
communication than new structures due to modern materials such
as reflective window glass or steel-reinforced concrete
• Current solutions with in-building wireless communication
o Special coaxial cables
o Fiber optics
o Passive antennas
o Distribute antenna systems
o Signal booster (bi-directional amplifier)
• Issues with system design
o No one type of system fits all needs — making it difficult to estimate
cost impacts for predictability
o Given examples show only two cost estimate scenarios
• Affected buildings by the potential ordinances
o In-building communication ordinances would not be applied
retroactively
o Some existing buildings that would undergo a modification that
exceed 20% of its square footage
SUMMARY OF THE ORDIANCE REQUIREMENTS
• Require minimum signal strength coverage areas: 95% of the building
area and 99% for elevators, stairwells and Fire Command Centers
• Define minimum signal strength
• Define frequency range for public safety radio
• Identify coordination and approval needs from Valley Communications
and King County Regional Communications Board
• Information concerning the system shall be provided to the Development
Services Director
• Define testing parameters
o Define testing technicians requirements
o Identify the city official to observe inspection
o Define testing procedures and passing thresholds
o Identify record keepers and information location
o Define in-building radio system requirements, testing procedures
o Define amplification systems that would be allowed
o Define battery life requirements
o Set public safety radio amplification frequency filters
o Define grounding procedures
RECOMMENDATION:
• Staff recommends the adoption of a new city code amendment that would
require minimum standards for adequate signal coverage for public
wireless communication within new buildings
• Staff recommends that following would be exempt from the public safety
in-building wireless communication ordinance:
o existing buildings and structures
o single-family residential buildings
o structures 3 stories or less without subterranean storage or parking
o structures 3 stories or less with subterranean storage or parking —
only the subterranean areas would not be exempt
o wood construction residential structures four stories or less without
subterranean storage or parking
o renovated existing structures that modify or add an area less than
20% of the footprint of the original structure
Marrh 16, 2009 "gimpy Renton City Council Minutes N../ Page 82
Planning& Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report
Committee recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to remove restrictive
CED: Release of Restrictive covenants affecting the parcel located at 621 SW Grady Way, and further
Covenants Request, WSADA recommended that the full Council authorize the release of the covenants.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning: Land Use Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report
Application Expiration Date recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt an ordinance to
Extension extend the period of validity of land use and subdivision applications for an
additional two years beyond the standard expiration dates set by City Code. This
would give applicants from four to seven years to complete projects rather than
the typical two to five years currently stipulated in RMC 4-8 and 4-9. This
extension is in additional to any other time extensions possible in the Code.
This extension will apply to all land use and subdivision applications that are
valid as of the ordinance's effective date and would apply to all future
applications submitted until December 31, 2010. This new code section would
automatically sunset on December 31, 2010, unless a new ordinance is adopted.
The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be
presented for first reading.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Councilmember Parker commented that this action will allow developers and
others citizens constructing projects within the City the opportunity to extend the
projects because of the current economic situation.
Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chair Taylor presented a report recommending
Public Safety: Wireless adoption of City Code amendments that would require minimum standards for
Communication In-Building adequate signal coverage for public wireless communication within new
Coverage Standards buildings, with the following exemptions:
c A yo • Existing buildings and structures
• Single-family residential buildings
• Structures 50,000 square feet in size or less without subterranean storage or
parking
• Structures 50,000 square feet in size or less with subterranean storage or
parking- only the subterranean areas would not be exempt
• Wood construction residential structures four stories or less without
subterranean storage or parking
• Renovated existing structures that modify or add an area less than 20 percent
of the footprint of the original structure.
The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be
presented for first reading.
Councilmember Taylor clarified that the ordinance is undergoing State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)review and will be presented for reading and
adoption as soon as the review period is over.
MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL COUNCUR
IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
'NNW ,I11100
APPROVED BY
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE REPORT
Date 3-16- ao0
March 16, 2009
Wireless Public Safety Radio Communication Reception Concerns
Referred March 11, 2002
The Public Safety Committee recommends the adoption of a city code amendment that would
require minimum standards for adequate signal coverage for public wireless communication
within new buildings, with the following exemptions:
• Existing buildings and structures
• Single-family residential buildings
• Structures 50,000 square feet in size or less without subterranean storage or parking
• Structures 50,000 square feet in size or less with subterranean storage or parking—only the
subterranean areas would not be exempt
• Wood construction residential structures four stories or less without subterranean storage or
parking
• Renovated existing structures that modify or add an area less than 20% of the footprint of the
original structure
k The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for
first reading.
C
Gre hair
7 '
Don Persson, Vice Chair
��CrIQ- rico� by I Qo�
�a * :jai-a
Marcie Palmer, Member e_ Drdina c�
res�n d - r
w`'II n°f f l Q(''r
-�i sf rfeaQ�^5
C: Neil Watts,Development Services Director �� A royal 1r5-S
Alex Pietsch,Community&Economic Development Administrator SE
l7 ri l or 30)
'tome Name
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
February 23, 2009 Council Chambers
Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL OF RANDY CORMAN, Council President; GREG TAYLOR; RICH ZWICKER;
COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERE; KING PARKER; DON PERSSON; MARCIE PALMER.
CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer;
ATTENDANCE ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk;
ALEX PIETSCH, Community and Economic Development Administrator;
TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; GREGG
ZIMMERMAN,Public Works Administrator; IWEN WANG,Finance and
Information Services Administrator; JENNIFER HENNING, Current Planning
Manager; ION ARAI, Assistant Planner; FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY
SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR I. DAVID DANIELS and DEPUTY CHIEF
ROBERT VAN HORNE, Fire Department; DEPUTY CHIEF TIM TROXELL,
Police Department.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION Mayor Law announced that the special presentation from King County Parks
King County: Lake to Sound regarding the Lake to Sound Regional Trail Update has been postponed.
Regional Trail Update
PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
Public Safety: Wireless accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to
Communication In-Building consider public safety wireless communication in-building coverage standards.
Coverage Standards Community and Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch introduced
Fite Associate Planner Ion Arai.
Mr. Arai stated that the ability of the fire department or the police department to
communicate within a building during an emergency situation is paramount and
wireless communications are critical to the success of public safety operations.
He remarked that wall thickness and subterranean areas such as parking garages
and underground storage facilities can degrade radio transmission signals. He
also remarked that dense construction materials such as steel and reinforced
concrete can also weaken signal strength.
Mr. Arai reported that the cities of Kirkland,Bellevue, and Mercer Island have
all recently adopted comparable ordinances regulating wireless communication
in-building coverage. He stated that there is not a"one size fits all"approach to
designing the telecommunication systems and pointed out that each situation
may have unique challenges. He also remarked that it is difficult to generalize
cost estimates due to the unique nature of each design.
Mr.Arai reported that the types of buildings impacted by the proposed
regulations are new construction and existing buildings that are modified or
renovated by more than twenty percent. He stated that the City will have to
define in-building radio system requirements and testing procedures,the type of
amplification systems allowed, and certification requirements for technicians.
Mr. Arai stated that the proposed ordinance will define minimum signal
strength, require minimum signal strength coverage areas, define frequency
range for public safety radio, require coordination with and receive approval
February 23, 2009 Now, Renton City Council Minutes `""' Page 52
from regional government communication boards, and requires the submittal of
system design information to the Development Services Director.
Mr. Arai reported that the following structures will be exempt from the proposed
regulations: Existing building and structures; single-family residential
buildings; structures three stories or less without subterranean storage or
parking; structures three stories or less with subterranean storage or parking
(exempting only the subterranean areas); wood construction of residential
structures four stories or less without subterranean areas; and renovation of
existing structures less than twenty percent of the original structure.
Responding to Council President Corman's inquiry,Mr. Arai stated that existing
single story; large retail buildings would be exempt from the proposed
regulations. Community and Economic Development Administrator Pietsch
clarified that the exemption is for residential structures that are three stories or
less and any new commercial buildings would be required to meet the proposed
regulations.
There being no public comment it was, MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED
BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED.
MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL SUSPEND
THE RULES AND PRESENT THE COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING
THIS MATTER FOR COUNCIL ACTION. CARRIED.
Public Safety Committee Chair Taylor presented a report regarding public safety
wireless communication in-building coverage. Discussion ensued regarding the
clarification of three story structures as residential or commercial(or both),
declaring large retail stores as not exempt, rewording the report, and sending the
report back to the Public Safety Committee for further clarification. A motion to
adopt the report was withdrawn.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Howard McOmber(Renton) asked if any federal stimulus money will trickle
Citizen Comment: McOmber- down to Renton and if so will it be used for sidewalk and lighting improvements
Federal Stimulus Money in the Highlands. Chief Administrative Officer Covington stated that of the
federal stimulus money approximately$2 million in utility improvements is
expected for the Shattuck Ave. underpass project. Mr. Covington also
confirmed that preliminary recommendations regarding the Highlands will be
presented to Council at the upcoming Council retreat.
APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding
Planning&Development the St. Thomas Orthodox Church Conditional Use Permit appeal. The
Committee Committee heard this appeal on February 12, 2009. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11F,
Appeal: St Thomas Orthodox the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which
Church Conditional Use consists of,but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report,the Notice of
Permit, Christman, CU-08-102 Appeal, and submissions and presentation made by the Parties.
The subject property is located on 11651 SE 188th St. in Renton,WA. The
applicant sought a conditional use permit ("CUP")to renovate an existing
mechanical shop building on the property to a worship/study center called the
St. Thomas Orthodox church. There are also two separate residential buildings
located in the same property,but those remain unaffected by the CUP.
The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing regarding the CUP on October 21,
2008. In its original report, City staff had recommended denial of the CUP
applicable based on conflicts and incompatibility issues. However, on the day
•
The Issue
Proposed Code Amendment: Should Renton require minimum
Wireless Communication standards for adequate wireless
In-Building Coverage communication within new
buildings?
Justification Recent Comparable
Local Ordinances
• Wireless communications are critical to
public safety operations
• Signal transmission difficult due to wall • City of Kirkland (2003)
thickness and subterranean areas • City of Bellevue (2004)
• Dense construction materials can • City of Mercer Island (2004)
reduce radio signal transmission
strength
• Newer construction uses dense
materials
Types of In-Building Wireless System Design Issues
Communication Solutions
• Special coaxial cables • No"one type fits all"template—each
• Fiber optics situation can have unique challenges
• Passive antennas • Difficult to generalize cost estimates
• Distributed antenna systems due to the unique nature of each design
• Signal boosters (bi-directional amplifier)
Types of Buildings Impacted by Ordinance Requirements
Regulation
• New construction • Defines minimum signal strength
• Existing buildings with modifications • Requires minimum signal strength coverage
areas
that exceed 20% • Defines frequency range for public safety radio
• Unaltered existing buildings would not • Coordination with and receive approval from
be affected regional govt.communication boards
• Submittal of system design information to
Development Services Director
Defining Testing Parameters Exempt Structures
• Existing buildings and structures
• In-building radio system requirements and
testing procedures and thresholds • Single-family residential buildings
• Types of amplification systems allowed • Structures 3 stories or less w/o subterranean
storage or parking
• Testing technicians certification requirements • Structures 3 stories or less w/subterranean
• Battery life requirements storage or parking
• Public safety radio amplification frequency • Wood construction of residential structures 4
filters stories or less w/o subterranean areas
• Renovation of existing structures less than
20%of the original structure
Recommendation
• Open public hearing
• Staff recommends that the Council
adopt of a code amendment requiring RE N T O N
minimum standards for adequate signal
coverage for public wireless
communication within new buildings
'p‘i Lilo SG�eT�f. (d(l e$5 eo Kl ktt el 4(Cc r/4-7-7 agenda Item No.: Vo
CI
Id�`(' ' " 0°ve NTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING
SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET
(Page 1)
CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE
CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE
DATE: 2/13/ Z0 7 PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit
1 5
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
2 6
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
3 7
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
•
Topic: Topic:
4 8
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
400
(Continued from Reverse Side - Page 2)
RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING
SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET
CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE
CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE
PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit
9 13
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
10 14
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
11 15
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
12 16
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
held - a A3- aoo9
Na adopfed
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
February 23, 2009
Wireless Public Safety Radio Communication Reception Concerns
Referred March 11, 2002
The Public Safety Committee recommends amending city code to require minimum standards for
adequate signal coverage for public wireless communication within new buildings.
The Committee further recommends that the following be exempt from the new regulations:
• Existing buildings and structures;
• Single-family residential buildings;
• Structures three stories or less without subterranean storage or parking;
• Structures three stories or less with subterranean storage or parking (exempting only the
subterranean areas);
• Residential structures four stories or less constructed of wood without subterranean storage
or parking; and
• Renovated existing structures that modify or add an area less than 20%of the footprint of the
original structure.
Greg hair
Q7/—
Don Persson, ice Chair
Marcie Palmer, Member
C: Neil Watts,Development Services Director
Alex Pietsch,Community&Economic Development Administrator
�,J
CITY OF RENTON
461510.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 23rd day of
February, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the
seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057, to consider the following:
City code amendments to require minimum standards for adequate signal
coverage/reception for public wireless radio communication within new
buildings
All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral
comments regarding the proposal. Written comments submitted to the City Clerk by 5:00
p.m. on the day of the hearing will be entered into the public hearing record. Renton City
Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the
hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510.
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Published Renton Reporter
Friday, February 13, 2009
Account No. 50640
_5 '; �
RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 21,2002
TO: Council President Nelson
Council Members
VIA: Mayor Tanner
Ft--
FROM: Garry Anderson, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: 800 MHz Briefing—Public Safety Committee, April 8th
Attached please find an outline and supporting material for the 800 MHz briefing
scheduled for the
th
Public Safety Committee on April 8
4
Garry A derson
Chief of Police
T }
•
Public Safety Committee
800 MHz Briefing
April 8, 2002
A. 800 MHz COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
• King County Levy— 1992
• $57 million for public safety agencies
• Other governmental agencies encouraged to participate but were
responsible for own equipment acquisition
• Outcome was King County Regional System comprised of:
Seattle
King County
EPSCA (East King County Agencies)
Valley Communications (South King County Agencies)
B. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ISSUES
• Coverage not meeting user expectations
• Intermittent and/or non-reproducible audio interruptions ("drop offs")
• Radios not "roaming" as expected
• Interference from other wireless systems
• User understanding
C. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
STATES ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO ISSUES —EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
• American Public Safety needs more radio spectrum
• Public Safety Radio Interference
Caused by NEXTEL and other cellular systems
• Future 700 MHz systems will be similarly impacted if FCC doesn't
change regulations
• Canadian DTV
New 700 MHz bandwidth will be unusable if regulatory rules are not
coordinated
D. 107th CONGRESS COMMISSIONS GAO TO RESEARCH
• IACP seeking Congressional actions to set specific date for TV channels
vacate public safety channels
• IACP seeking Congressional action to require FCC to protect public
safety spectrum from commercial radio interference in both 700 and 800
band width
E.
"Cell phones Drowning out Police Radios"
(USA Today —3/12/2001)
"Cell-site Interference Worries Police, Fire Officials"
(The Oregonian —2/22/2001)
"County Investigates Delay of Radio Communications— Calls Overwhelm
County's System after Earthquake"
(South County Journal— 3/16/2001
"Emergency Calls Get Crowded Out"
(The Oregonian—8/5/2001)
F. NEXTEL'S BIRTH
• 1987 - Morgan Obrien, former lawyer for the FCC, launches Nextel's
precursor company
• Buys thousands of 800 MHz frequencies from taxi and tow truck
companies
• 1991 - FCC allows Obrien's company to use frequencies to build digital
network for wireless phones
• Same frequencies co-mingled with police and fire radio spectrum
• 28 States report interference
• Portland— 1 of every 3 radio transmissions interfered with
• Since 1999 — "hundreds" of police radio transmissions don't work
every day in King County, due to interference
• 21 of 28 States have identified NEXTEL as source of interference
.1110, Nome
G. "Fix has Focussed on 3 Main Activites
• Reducing wireless company tower signal strength, redirecting antennas,
using different frequencies
• Swapping Frequencies:
Separate the intertwined 250 frequencies into 2 separate blocks and
"guard" between frequencies for public safety and Nextel
• Buy new equipment
For More Information:
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International
(APCO) www.apcointl.org
Federal Communications Commission www.fcc.gov/wtb
NEXTEL www.nextel.com
King County Executive
Ron Sims
News Release
Date: March 9, 2001 Contact: Elaine Kraft (206) 296-4063
Sims, Hague Introduce and Receive Unanimous Approval on
Resolution for 800 MHz Public Safety Interference
at NACo Legislative Conference
King County Executive Ron Sims and Councilmember Jane Hague introduced a proposal to the
National Association of County Officials (NACo)that will address public safety concerns about
interference in the 800 Megahertz(MHz)public safety bands used by local law enforcement, fire
and emergency medical agencies.
"Cities and county public safety systems around the country—including here in King County—
have had occasional degraded performance of this essential communication system due-to
interference,"explained Executive Sims. "There are several technical factors that can cause the
problem to occur,but to the user it's just a"dead zone." The result can be a critical message in
an emergency situation that cannot be conveyed,which has potentially frightening impacts."
Sims' and Hague's motion requested the Federal Communications Commission aggressively
seek a multi-disciplinary planning effort targeted at a solution that may include a nationwide
band re-plan, localized band re-plans, system relocations, and funding to support any or all of
these efforts. It has been endorsed unanimously by the Technology&Telecommunications
Steering Committee, and will be fully ratified as an official NACo legislative policy position at
NACo's July annual convention.
The FCC divides the 800 MHz band into a number of segments that are then assigned to
particular categories of use. One such use is channels specifically designated for Public Safety
uses. Other assignments include private systems used in the manufacturing and business sector,
and carrier systems in the Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) and Enhanced Specialized Mobile
Radio (ESMR) categories. Nextel is the predominant provide' ui ESMR services nationwide and
has bought out numerous SMR licensees/operators to achieve a nationwide footprint for their
services.
Hague said that when public safety radios are in close proximity to such sites,the high signal
levels cause the public safety radios to either operate improperly or not at all. This creates a
"dead zone"where emergency personnel are left in an extremely dangerous situation. This is
caused by a combination of factors including intermodulation,receiver overload, transmitter
sideband noise and analog vus digital modulation schemes. She VA an incident such as this
occurred last year in Bellevue.
The FCC has recently pulled together a working group of representatives from public safety and
commercial interests to research the issue. The work group recently published a"best practices"
document that aids in understanding the issue and suggests ways to minimize,but likely not
eliminate the problems.
Several actions may be needed to fully resolve this issue and assure high-quality public safety
communications, Sims and Hague said. According to their proposal,the study would include but
not be limited to:
• Re-plan the 800 MHz band so there is greater spectrum separation between the public safety
bands and the carrier bands. This may not fully resolve the problem but may make some
significant improvements.
• Redesign so that their system topology and signal levels more closely match their carrier
counterparts. This approach would require significant financial resources that would exceed
the ability of the local governments that already made substantial investments in these
systems.
• A third possibility is to relocate either the public safety systems or the ESMR carriers out of
the 800 MHz band. Either of these would require even larger financial resources that would
be beyond the local governments or carriers ability to fund.
NACo is being asked to create a task force to research this issue and work in coordination with
the International Association of Chiefs of Police(IACP); the International Association of Fire
Chiefs (IAFC); and the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO).
All jurisdictions that have an 800 MHz system could eventually experience this problem to some
degree, and resolving it on its own could be extremely costly. While historically it has been
urban areas that have implemented this technology, there is a trend to larger integrated systems
serving multiple governmental services across urban and rural areas.
This release is also posted on the King County Executive's website at
http://www.metrokc._4ov/exec
Cell-site interference worries police, fire officials Page 1 of 4
r ,
x Warning
r � � � ' �ss Tsl3 E
*h X.•_TP �_.�. .tip .,...r Z d �t�,�!{f L`UV f8b
". it W .s
ror
Zeill r � � , News INSIDE
- NEWS •SPORTS•BUSINESS•LIVING•OP/ED•ENTERTAINMENT
» NewsFlash
►
» SportsFlash
►_ �" = °' '' » Oregonian
L"='3' » Metro+Suburbs Cell-site interference worries • o
► ;. ;.,_ p/Ed
police, fire officials » Obituaries
» Special Reports
►''r '?�' 'r,` »Traffic Cams
__-.�._- _ __.--..__ The towers and antennae serving wireless customers »Weather
sometimes block out emergency radios
►�� "`� Thursday, February 22, 2001
By Emily Tsao of The Oregonian staff
t rind tnt 3rz' TIGARD-- Public safetyofficials from Baton Roue La.,
Norm_: + Mote! Rouge,
to the island of Maui in Hawaii are starting to document an MUST CLICKS
My Newsletters alarming trend --dead zones created when police and fire
»Emailed scores radios are overwhelmed by signals from cell sites that »Weather
news and info you serve wireless phone customers. »Sports
want!
» Live Police Scanner
Our Advertisers Police agencies fear the worst will happen.Twice recently »Your H.S.Page
How to Advertise in Tigard, police officers faced armed suspects and were
About Us unable to radio for assistance. In Phoenix,Ariz., police MARKETPLACE
Job Opportunities and fire radios didn't work properly for three-quarters of a »Marketplace
Guide •Career Services
User
User Us mile around one Nextel cell tower. •Business&
User Agreement Professional
Privacy Policy •Financial&Legal
"The potential for a really catastrophic result exists," »E-stores
2001 Tigard police Capt. Gary Schrader said. "If an officer was »Coupons
OI gon »Yellow Pages
Live shot and he called for help and couldn't get medical
reserved assistance, it could result in the death of an officer »Maps
needlessly." CLASSIFIEDS
Many of the problems reported here and nationwide can drA,.,.,;:0Vitt4 �
be traced to cell sites, which include cell phone towers `-'
and antennae owned by Nextel. Its Oregon manager
Chris Panel said bluntly: "In the long term,this is going to
be an issue that will get worse."
Officials FT,':,:.:toring the problem on a national level do not
yet have a clear sense of the scope of the radio
interference. The conditions creating the problem can
change depending on the location and frequency of a cell
site and whether a fire truck or police car uses its radio as
it drives nearby.
A good example is outlined in a report for the Federal
Communications Commission prepared by the
Washington County dispatch system. The county's
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Cell-site interference worries police, fire officials.html 2/22/01
Cell-site interference worries police, fire officials Page 2 of 4
transmitting tower sits high atop Portland's Council Crest.
Four miles away is a fire station that would get garbled
signals because of a Nextel site just down the street.
Portable radios inside the station actually worked better
with its garage door closed because it helped block the
Nextel signals.
The report, prepared by Joe Kuran,technical systems
manager for the dispatch system, concludes that"as
Nextel adds sites to improve their coverage . . . public
safety deteriorates."
The insatiable consumer demand for wireless products
has created a problem unheard of a decade ago. In 1996,
Nextel operated just fewer than 1,000 cell sites across the
nation.Today the Reston, Va.-based company with
annual revenues exceeding $3.3 billion operates 12,500
sites and has 6.2 million customers. The company came
to Oregon in March 1997 and has about 80 cell sites in
the Portland area.
Some agencies have been able to pinpoint cell site
locations as the culprit. In King County,Wash., authorities
discovered that a cell site at a Seattle intersection was the
problem. Michigan State Police were able to ferret out one
specific frequency of a cellular company on the 800
bandwidth that was creating their dead zones.
But of the roughly 30 responses to a survey last fall by the
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials,
most agencies simply listed "Nextel"or"cellular sites"as
an interference source. Most of the agencies also
reported that their problem remains unsolved.
Nextel's vice president of government affairs Lawrence
Krevor said he doesn't think it is a widespread problem.
"But when it happens,"he said, "it is a very important
problem.We give it a high priority."
And like the Association of Public Safety Communications
Officials'survey showed, the interference can
theoretically come from different wireless providers.
The Federal Communications Commission began
allocating 800 megahertz frequencies in the 1970s.As
demand increased over the years, companies such as
Nextel were able to buy frequencies near ones reserved
for public safety agencies. Nextel and other wireless
companies are breaking no rules three decades later.
"The real culprit isn't Nextel,"said Nancy Jesuale,
Portland's director of communications and networking.
"The FCC is the culprit."
The FCC's deputy chief of the wireless communications
bureau Kathleen Ham said her agency is all too often the
scapegoat.
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Cell-site interference worries police, fire officials.html 2/22/01
Cell-site interference worries police, fire officials Page 3 of 4
r ,
"Back in the'70s,the then-commission thought it was
allocating in the best way for the uses of that day,"she
said. "We learned something from this, and we are trying
to ensure that it does not happen in other instances."
Last year,the FCC brought together commercial
providers and public safety officials to discuss the
problem. The group,which included representatives of
Nextel and the Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials, released a report in December
that suggests how both sides can work together to
minimize interference.
Some of the suggestions for private providers include
raising the height of cell tower antennas or
reprogramming the frequency so it does not clash with
police or fire, Nextel's Krevor said. Remedies for public
agencies include buying filtering devices or locating a
public transmitter by a Nextel or other commercial cell
site. Dual sites side by side prevent one signal from
overriding another, he said.
But upgrades and equipment can cost millions of dollars,
and most public agencies do not have those financial
resources, said RoxAnn Brown, director of Washington
County Consolidated Communications Agency.
Nextel officials say they will continue to try to resolve
interference problems. However, the company has
purchased the access rights to its 800 megahertz
frequencies and intends to use them.
"As the public requires more and more wireless, it will
require us to utilize all the frequencies we have paid for,"
Nextel's Panel said.
You can reach Emily Tsao at 503-294-5968 or by e-mail
at emilytsao@news.oregonian.com.
»Top »Print this page »Send to a friend
To subscribe to The Oregonian,click here
Copyright 2001 Oregon Live.All rights reserved.This material may not be
published,broadcast,rewritten,or redistributed.
TODAY'S HEADLINES
Thursday, Feb. 22, 2001
» Clinton relative receives pay for pardon work
» Cell-site interference worries police, fire officials
»A new drill: Portland police team trains for riots
»Assisted suicides hold steady
»Assisted suicides: One family's tale
» Library may join suit against Congress
» Panel issues 27 recommendations for Willamette
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Cell-site interference worries police, fire officials.html 2/22/01
southcountyjournal.com- County investigates delay of radio communications- Calls over.. Page 1 of 2
If Null hat'cnft told '°Iz)'family 'r'tiU'IC a C u>,A.,2'. '_ , z
'volt re not. Coady
Journal ENURE R LUTE.SHARE TOUR DECISION.
Sn
Home s outhcountyjournal. m
County investigates delay of radio communications-
Calls overwhelmed county's system after earthquake 1, )
- rc
2001-03-16 ,
by Dean A.Radford T r
Journal Reporter
S _
Emergency communications were delayed by critical seconds
during last month's 6.8-magnitude earthquake because calls
overwhelmed King County's emergency radio system. 12:_
During the initial 15 minutes after the quake,radio transmissions
between emergency personnel in different areas of the county were
sometimes delayed up to seven seconds. '
And for about two hours,frustrated users would get a"busy
signal,"meaning their call wasn't immediately assigned to a
channel.
"I wouldn't characterize it as a failure,"said Kevin Kearns,
manager of the county's Information and Telecommunications
z. Services Division.
"But everything didn't work right,either,'he said.He didn't hear
of any situations where the delays may have threatened someone's
life or safety.
•
Kearns briefed a County Council committee on the performance of
the 800 MHz radio system,which is the primary emergency
communications link for police,fire,emergency medical services,
public schools and public hospitals in the county.
County officials and Motorola,the system's maker,still are trying
to figure out why communications were lost briefly and why the
system couldn't handle the volume of transmissions.
Electronic components may have failed and inadequate training
may have led to some of the confusion.But the system might
simply be too small to handle a major disaster in the county.
"The assumptions that we made about capacity needs may not be
valid anymore,"Kearns said in an interview.
The size of the system is limited by the number of frequencies
available"and the amount of money the public wants to spend, he
said.Options include asking for more money to expand the system.
Harborview Medical Center in Seattle,the region's main trauma
center,was forced to use cell phones and standard telephones to do
http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/47656 3/16/01
southcountyjournal.com- County investigates delay of radio communications-Calls over.. Page 2 of 2
a quick suPilie of local hospitals to determine if they were NO
operating and how many patients they could treat.
But what should have taken a few minutes took about an hour,said
Johnese Spisso,Harborview's chief operating officer.
"Those first minutes are critical to get patient flow,"Spisso told
the County Council's Law,Justice and Human Services Committee
yesterday.
Kearns say the system's operators are not disregarding the
frustration felt by users.There was some confusion when users
heard what's described as a"honk"or a"bonk,"which means
there was no channel to use.
"They heard that damn honking sound when they wanted to talk,"
he said."The urgency to communicate is so high that they said
'this isn't working'and they went on to something else."
Dwight Van Zanen,fire chief for Maple Valley Fire and Life
Safety,said his department didn't experience"serious problems"
with the radio system.
"It functioned the way it was supposed to,for the most part,"he
said.
Other factors slowed communications,Van Zanen said.The
county's emergency 911 system was down for as long as 10
minutes while dispatch functions were switched over to the Sheriff
Office's three precincts.
Local dispatch centers also were overloaded,the Maple Valley fire
chief said.
Kearns said the county may create a miniature version of the radio
system to train users how to handle delays in accessing the system.
Current training,he said,"didn't put the right instincts in people's
minds."He points out,too,that no system will provide 100 percent
coverage to all users at once.
And there are few ways to test the entire system at once.
"We can't bring the system to its knees in order to test it,"he said.
Dean Radford covers King County.He can be reached at
dean.radford@southcountyjoumal.com or 253-872-6719.
South County Journal
600 South Washington,Kent WA 98032 R z
Hours:Monday-Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm
Phone:253-872-6600
Fax:253-854-1006
All materials Copyright 0 2001 Horvitz Newspapers,Inc. ,..
Any questions?See our contact page.
http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/story/htm1/47656 3/16/01
Seattle Times: Local N...: Quake revealed flaws in King County's new disaster radio syste Page 1 of 3
t"i:-1t .0 Ti -005Sintigth W FNACI
Coritact Us j' Cti 5e.rc r Archive_
if Local News Friday,March 16,2001,12:00 a.m.Pacific
Quake revealed flaws in King
County's new disaster radio system
MBA
SeautePacific by Chris Solomon
tk ty Seattle Times staff reporter
In the hours after the Feb. 28 earthquake,the people who
peAlliellk‘° needed to talk to each other the most-King County
firefighters,police and paramedics- frequently had trouble
with the radio system the county bought with disasters in
mind.
Those who use the system said the problems did not result in
life-endangering delays in responding to incidents, and its
operators said the problems are reparable. Yet the snafus
could have hampered emergency personnel's ability to help
the public had the quake been a true disaster.
"I haven't found a fire chief yet who said, 'Hey,we had good
communications,' " said Lee Soptich, chief of Eastside Fire&
Rescue,which serves more than 100,000 people in East King
County. Soptich said the concern was so great about the
inability to communicate seamlessly that Eastside Fire&
Rescue reverted to its old VHF radios for a few hours
"Communications is the primary consideration during a
disaster. If you don't have good communications,very few
other things flow well," he said.
The state-of-the-art radio system was intended to enhance
communication,not complicate it. Before its installation,
agencies such as police departments used UHF or VHF radio
frequencies and could not easily talk to one another.
The newer system,which voters approved in a$57 million
levy in 1992, allows agencies to stay in touch with their own
members and other agencies throughout the county.
More than 13,000 radios around the county, from those for
sheriffs deputies to firefighters at Snoqualmie Pass,now
have access to an 800-megahertz system.
.../gotoArticle?zsection id=268448406&text only=0&slug=radiol6m&document id=13427475 3/16/01
Seattle Times: Local N...: Quake revealed flaws in King County's new disaster radio syste Page 2 of 3
After the quake,the system was flooded with people trying to
talk-three to 10 times the normal amount of traffic
depending on the area of the county, according to the
system's managers.
Delays resulted. The average time users had to wait to speak
was less than one second in most areas,but in a handful of
cases the wait was as long as 12 seconds, said Brent Beden,
manager of radio-communications services for King County,
including police and fire communications in South King
County.
In essence,the troubles began because the computerized
system performed exactly as designed, said Alan Komenski,
operations manager for the Eastside Public Safety
Communications Agency.
When a police officer pushes a button on the radio and
speaks,the computer finds an idle spot on a channel and
holds it for the transmission.
The computer also ranks potential users by priority. When the
channels are temporarily full,the computer puts those who
want to talk on a waiting list,gives them a "bonk" =a sort of
busy signal - and then sounds another tone when there is
room to talk.
In their day-to-day work,police and other users rarely get a
busy signal. Many thought the system was overwhelmed or
perhaps broken down.
"Choke points" that had been inadvertently built into the
system's structure also made it harder for users within the
same area to talk to one another, Komenski said.
"I was one of the first ones waving my hands and yelling that
the radio system didn't work," said Jean Best,
communications operations manager for the King County
Sheriffs Office. "Even the best tool can be ineffective if
people don't know precisely how to use it."
While the confusion did not result in life-threatening delays
in going to emergencies, said those interviewed,they agreed
that the experience was a gift- a chance to work out kinks in
the system without lives in the balance.
Managers who were already re-examining the radio system
said they will likely tweak its structure and reprogram radios
over the next year or so.
Training people how to communicate properly over the radio,
especially in an emergency, and reminding them of what
Beden called "radio discipline" is under way in some
.../gotoArticle?zsection id=268448406&text only=0&slug=radiol6m&document id=13427475 3/16/01
Seattle Times: Local N...: Quake revealed flaws in King County's new disaster radio syste Page 3 of 3
virow "Nov
agencies.
"After the earthquake,the biggest problem was people getting
on the radio and seeing if it worked," he said. "We had
policemen getting on the radio and saying, 'Hey,was that an
earthquake? "
Chris Solomon can be reached at 206-515-5646 or
csolomon@seattletimes.com.
Copyright©2001 The Seattle Times Company
4z
[seattletimes.com home ]
[ Classified Ads I NWsource.com I Contact Us I Search Archive]
Copyright O 2001 The Seattle Times Company
0 Back to Top
.../gotoArticle?zsection id=268448406&text only=0&slug=radiol6m&document id=13427475 3/16/01
03/12/2001 -Updated 09:48 AM ET
Cell phones drowning out police radios
By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON—"One Adam 12."
"Car 54,where are you?"
The police radios.that popularized those refrains on TV cop shows worked as reliably as
quartz watches.In the real world,such dependability can be a matter of life and death.
"That's your lifeline;that's just a given," says Kansas City,Mo., detective Robert Blehm,
who took that popular image to heart.
But as Blehm and his partner,Derek McCollum,ran after a drug dealer at 4 in the
morning on Sept. 18, 1996,they got dead air when they tried to call for backup on their
new handheld radios.
As they cornered the suspect,he shot them both. Blehm—lying in the street,blood
gushing from his shattered right leg—tried calling again.Again nothing.
Finally,McCollum, shot in tie chest but still able to move,stumbled up the street until he
found a clear signal and summoned help.
The shooting victims were also victims of progress. The once-dependable police radio is
literally being drowned out by a torrent of information-age services, such as wireless
phones and instant messaging,that have made mobile communications available to
millions of Americans. Even as police,fire and emergency medical services upgrade to
pricey new radio systems,dozens of agencies—including those in Seattle; Portland,
Ore.;Denver,and Miami—face increasing interference from more powerful commercial
wireless services.
"This is a very big problem, and it's going to get worse"as cellular's customer base
grows, says Ron Haraseth of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials.
In Tigard,Ore.,recently,police twice were unable to radio for backup while facing
armed suspects because of cell phone interference.Part of the problem is the fact that
Kansas City's police force and others,beset by tight budgets and poor planning,have
been unable or unwilling to build sufficient infrastructure to support then ,.car,but more
terrain-sensitive systems.And many agencies simply find their new,feature-rich radios
tougher to use and more prone to breakdown.
In the 1960s and 1970s, "there weren't as many users,and systems were simpler,"says
Chuck Jackson of Motorola,the top maker of emergency-service radios. "There was a
microphone and a speaker,and you talked over it."
Some officials blame the Federal Communications Commission,which supervises the
airwaves,for not doing more to head off the current traffic jam.And experts say the
FCC's plan to divvy up a new band of radio spectrum—ostensibly to fix the problems—
may just replicate current congestion.
FCC critics,moreover,say that the agency,under pressure to wring as many billions of
dollars as possible from auctioning airwaves to commercial carriers,gives second-class
consideration to public-safety agencies that get the spectrum for free.The FCC says it
balances both interests.
However the blame is shared,the bottom line at street level is that the ongoing glitches
have caused an untold number of close calls,at least a few injuries and may have
contributed to the death of a police officer.
"It could mean life or death to police officers,firefighters and even citizens who are not
able to get prompt emergency service,"says Harlin McEwen,a retired police chief who
handles telecommunications issues for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Public-safety radios traditionally worked in the relatively uncrowded 400-megahertz
frequency band and lower.Interference was rare and came from taxis and other services
on nearby channels,whose conversations were brief.
But as metro populations swelled,police,fire and medical agencies lacked enough
channels to handle growth in their own ranks.The sprawl also complicated another
concern: Departments typically cannot communicate by radio with neighboring agencies
whose equipment works on different frequency bands.This still is a nationwide problem
during major fires and other disasters involving multiple jurisdictions.
To fix both problems,a growing number of agencies across the USA the past decade
have been upgrading to new equipment that works in the 800-megahertz band,which has
more capacity and allows more features.And neighboring communities often move there
in tandem,so they can communicate with each other.
Fix breeds new problems
But that slice of spectrum is the same space occupied by the exploding wireless industry.
And it brings its own'•;ada ;zes:
•Wireless interference.Much of the commercial interference with public-safety radios
comes from cell phones.And,for historical reasons,the cell phone company causing the
most problems is Nextel Communications.
}
Until recent years,Nextel operated a mobile radio service for taxis,truckers and others.
In the 1970s,the FCC interlaced Nextel's channels with those of other mobile radio
services,including public safety.It did so because it thought each organization's channels
were more vulnerable to interference from its other channels than from someone else's
channels.
It's not clear whether this belief was correct—the FCC had few resources for testing
back then.But the Iegacy is that in each market,dozens of police and fire channels abut
Nextel channels. For years,the layout caused few problems because both Nextel and
public-safety agencies used a radio system design: a handful of towers on hilltops
beaming wide-area signals.
Cell phones create coverage gaps
But in the mid-1990s,Nextel morphed into a national cellular phone company,which
required it to dot cities with dozens more towers.The result is that its transmissions now
can overwhelm relatively weak public-safety systems on nearby channels and create
coverage gaps that can reach a mile,especially near cell towers.
Other wireless phone providers, such as AT&T and Cingular Wireless,also cause
interference. But because their channels were granted in separate blocks,they wreak
havoc only where they meet public safety's block. "In almost every region of the country
we're hearing complaints,"says Mike Hunter,president of engineering firm RCC
Consultants.
In Anne Arundel County,Md.,police officers are plagued by eight "dead spots"where
Nextel and Cingular have towers. The problem came to a head last year when an officer
stopped a speeding car and could not reach dispatch.As he wrote out a ticket,another
officer stopped to warn him that the driver was a shooting suspect.
"It was getting to where officers,who are pretty courageous,were starting to get very
uncomfortable,"says Anne Arundel Police Chief P.Thomas Shanahan.The county
recently agreed to buy a new$15 million radio system.
In Phoenix,Nextel transmitters hamper the police radio data system,which does
background checks during traffic stops. "Certainly people guilty of crimes have been let
go because the officer couldn't get through,"says radio manager Melvin Weimeister.
In Portland,Ore.,Nextel's system—which has 80 towers in the area vs.the county's 14
—"is like the biker gang that moved next door,banging and raising hell," says Joel
Harrington,who handles city communications there.Officials are r•is-nidering a more
robust$50 million radio network,he says.
Most of the time,the interference means hassles rather than disaster Officers must travel
farther to get a signal,carry cell phones and bring backup when entering static-prone
Nei
areas.And Nextel,officials say,has been a good neighbor,agreeing to switch channels,
reduce transmitter power and sometimes even move towers.
"We take reports of interference with public safety very seriously,"says Larry Kervor,
Nextel's vice president of government affairs.But the company,he says,is"fully in
compliance with the FCC."
The FCC,in turn,says that years ago it simply did not anticipate Nextel's cellular service.
Remedial measures are of limited value,says Tom Eckels,an engineer with consultancy
Hatfield&Dawson.A long-term solution would be to move Nextel and public-safety
channels into separate blocks. But it would take huge sums to reprogram equipment.
Many towns couldn't afford it.
Portland and other cities are considering moving to the 700-megahertz band to be vacated
by UHF television stations as they switch to digital broadcasting.But radio equipment for
that band won't be ready until mid-2002.
And some experts contend that the FCC's new plan for that band will make it just as
crowded.The agency first designed the 700 band with public safety in its own block and
more space between that block and other wireless carriers.But the FCC revised the plan
last year,and critics say it now allows carriers to operate powerful transmission towers in
channels that are too close to public safety.
"It's a significant concern,"says Steve Sharkey of Motorola,which asked the FCC to .
reconsider.The FCC turned it down,saying interference should not be a problem.
McEwen of the police chiefs group charges, "The FCC changed the rules to get more
money from auctions,but they're putting public safety at risk."
Tom Sugrue,chief of the FCC's wireless bureau,replies, "That's just wrong."He notes
that"radio spectrum is a limited resource that everyone wants" and that the FCC must
balance competing needs.
•Need for more towers.Although radio signals in the 800-megahertz band are clearer,
they typically don't dance around hills,trees and buildings as deftly as their predecessors.
They also have more trouble penetrating big new,reflective-glass buildings.
The solution is to build a bigger network.But budget--conscious cities often don't realize
or want to accept that upgrading to 800 megahertz requires adding many more towers
than their old-u-systems RCC's Hunter says.
In Kansas City,officials decided: "This is how much we want to spend,and this'll do,"
says Bob Lawrey,communications manager for city police.
•
The city recently had to enhance its new 800-megahertz,$18 million system with$10
million worth of additional antennas.
"I was pretty upset that they expected us to do this job,and they gave us substandard
equipment," says Blehm,29,the wounded officer who has settled a lawsuit against his
assailant,the city,the city's radio consultant(SFA)and the maker of the radios
(Ericcson).
Assistant City Manager Rich Noll said officials thought the original network would be
sufficient.
Orange County,Calif,installed an$80 million radio system last year.But the system
design did not adequately account for the area's maze of malls,apartments and offices.
Recently,as a SWAT team searched for a suspect in an Irvine office building, Orange
County officers could not radio colleagues outside to let them know the team was coming.
through the door.The county is now debating more antennas.
In Delaware,firefighters often resort to blaring sirens to let colleagues know that a blaze
is spreading or a floor is caving in. That's because Delaware's new$52 million, statewide
radio system doesn't work in five communities,including tourist hotbed Rehoboth Beach.
or in large buildings.Motorola has agreed to add signal boosters at no cost, and the state
will spend$10 million to improve performance inside buildings.
Police officer shot to death
Problems turned tragic in Atlanta.In 1997, as two officers responded to a domestic
dispute,the man became aggressive. Officer Patricia Cocciolone says she tried to call for
help,but her radio didn't work. The man emerged with a rifle and critically injured
Cocciolone.He killed her partner,John Sowa.
Chip Warren,vice president of the police union,says the city has balked at spending to
add antennas to its$39 million,6-year-old system. "This is putting troops'lives in
danger."
Atlanta Police Maj:Bill Gordon says the problem is not widespread and says
Cocciolone's radio worked, contrary to her testimony and media reports.
Experts also note that every radio system has dead spots:buildings,low spots and other
nooks where signals will not reach. Says Eckels of Hatfield&Dawson: "Nobody ever
can afford to build the perfect radio system."
•More complicated equipment.New 800-megahertz radios sport fancy features,such as
emergency buttons to alert dispatchers to trouble and automatic scanning for an open
channel.
But some officers have had trouble using them.Before,they searched for open channels
themselves,listening to colleagues'conversations as they scanned.Now,if the airwaves
are busy,they hear a beep and must wait for a channel. "We've had officers frustrated
during a shooting because they get a tone,"says Portland Assistant Police Chief Bruce
Prunk.
A Kansas City dispatcher,bewildered by a new 60-channel radio,responded on the
wrong channel to firefighters calling for hoses,forcing them to jump out a first-floor
window to escape a blaze.
Though time and training should ease many of these concems,the feature-packed new
radio systems are also more glitch-prone.
"The systems are full of controllers and microprocessors and software,"Hunter says.
"There's a lot more to go wrong."
The Oregonian Archives Page 1 of 9
--
aliGgigfag&atra
INSIDE
- J Sea
Oregon LiveSearch
Search
►For urn s+C:hat » News
»Weather
► arri +F:.adio�
►Local EMERGENCY CALLS CROWDED OUTT THE STAGE » Traffic
eTown
FOR PROBLEM » OHbituaries
►��"'` Summary: Interference from cellphone towers is putting » The Oregonian
» The Oregonian
►sport:, the lives of police and firefighters at risk as authorities find
Prep sports their radio transmissions blocked during times of crisis MUST CLICKS
An invisible threat endangers the lives of police officers:
►Busines.s Across the country, officers grab for a radio only to find »Community Forums
Entertainmenttheir voices blocked by a nearby cellular phone tower »E-mail your
emitting more powerful transmissions. representative
►Living »Lottery Results
Outdoors In a six-month investigation, The Oregonian found that in »An Oregon Century
►Matt,etplace at least 28 states, public safety agencies reported at least CLASSIFIEDS
IP Find?obi, :ars, one instance of cell phone tower interference with their „Find Jobs!
radios or in-car computers.
Horne. + More! »Find Autos!
No officers have been hurt or killed as a result of the »Find Homes!
impediment. But agencies across the country say the »Find Merchandise!
NEwsti interference often threatenspublic safetyand the lives
»Free email updates MARKETPLACE
from Oregon Live! of police officers and firefighters.
»Oregon Bid-Free
Our Advertisers Listings!
How to Advertise Among the incidents:
a Yellow Pages!
About Us »Marketplace!
Jcb Opportunuies *In June, two Denver police officers on a narcotics
User Guide surveillance witnessed a shooting and tried to call for NEWSLETTER
Contact Us
User Apree e:, emergency backup. Their radios wouldn't work until they »Get free daily email
,-a,d , ;:: ran a block. Radios failed again in the same location two updates from Oregon
-)z0cn
weeks later during a foot chase. Live!
oo.,I-'`•'P a Sign up now!
rights
In April, two Portland officers lost radio connection as they
rushed to a reported burglary near the airport.
* In November 2000, 12 officers in Scottsdale,Ariz., stood
within 100 feet of one another but couldn't use their radios
as they searched for a man who had waved a gun during
a barroom brawl.
*In June, 2000, a Tigard police officer faced an armed
man and radioed for backup. Only the word "gun"went
through.
"The worst-case scenario is an officer gets killed,"said
Detective Aaron Minor of the Scottsdale,Ariz., Police
Department, which estimates that signals from a nearby
cell phone tower interfered with police radios at least 300
times during a seven-month period last year.
"Obviously, this could involve the loss of life,"said Gloria
Tristani, a commissioner with the Federal
Communications Commission.
In interviews, public safety managers and FCC officials
say that one cell phone company alone—Nextel
http://nl 13.newsban.../Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0EDBF6F86A0E65A6&p_docnum= 9/20/01
The Oregonian Archives Page 2 of 9
Communications of Reston,Va. —is the source of
interference with public safety communications in 21
states.
Unlike other.cell phone companies, Nextel uses radio
frequencies intertwined with or adjacent to those used by
public safety radios.
Nextel agrees the interference is serious but says it
occurs in only a handful of the hundreds of cities where it
operates. "This isn't a widespread national problem,"said
Nextel Vice President Lawrence Krevor,who
acknowledges that the towers the company uses cause
interference in 12 states.
Nextel estimates a nationwide fix could cost millions of
dollars. Public safety officials say it could be billions. But
neither they, Nextel nor the FCC can agree on whom
should pay.
Krevor said Nextel is committed to stopping the
interference on a case-by-case basis. But those fixes
often only reduce interference, not stop it.
The Federal Communications Commission,which
regulates the airwaves, admits it unwittingly set the stage
for this problem three decades ago when it doled out the
frequencies that now conflict. But Kathleen Ham, deputy
chief of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
said the commission is not responsible for fixing it
because no one is breaking the law.
Police and fire chiefs could reduce interference with new
equipment, but officials say they can't afford to replace
outdated radios.
This weekend—more than two years after a Washington
County radio technician first alerted the FCC that Nextel
towers were garbling firefighters'communications near
Beaverton--state, federal and company officials are
meeting in Salt Lake City to try to determine the extent of
the problem nationwide and lay out a program to fix it.
The wireless industry projects that its customer base will
grow by more than 40 percent over the next two years, to
168 million.As a result, a wide range of industry experts
say cell phone tower interference will get worse.
Frequencies allocated
All radio transmissions—from television signals to
satellite communications to AM/FM radio--are sent
through the air in waves of varying lengths.All these
waves are transmitted through a spectrum that ranges
from about 9 kilohertz for submarine communications to
300 gigahertz for scientific satellites. The FCC regulates
all transmissions in the United States, allocating users
from one end of the spectrum to the other.
In the 1970s, long before cellular phones became
popular, police officers fought for extra space in the
spectrum, particularly in urban areas where the airwaves
were used heavily.Their allocations stuck them in the
lower frequencies with little or no space to add radios for
new officers.
http://n113.newsban.../Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=OEDBF6F86AOE65A6&p_docnum= 9/20/01
The Oregonian Archives Page 3 of 9
From 1974 to 1986, the FCC made available a section of
the 800 megahertz band for police and fire departments
and taxi and tow truck companies, among others.
The best use of the airwaves, the FCC decided,was to
intertwine the users in 250 channels. The result was like
250 lanes on a highway,with police officers driving on
lanes in between taxis and tow trucks. A separate
allocation—a block of 800 MHz channels that are not
intertwined—actually placed police between what would
become two cellular companies.
The areas in which cellular carriers abut public safety
transmissions would become hot spots for complex midair
conflicts.
Nextel's birth
In 1987, a former FCC lawyer named Morgan O'Brien
launched Nextel's precursor company, a mobile radio
firm,with a dream of turning it into a nationwide wireless
phone provider.
Starting out as a two-way radio company, O'Brien bought
thousands of 800 MHz radio frequencies from small taxi
and tow truck companies.
The neighbors coexisted peaceably for years. Then, in
1991, the FCC made what would turn out to be a crucial
decision. The federal agency allowed O'Brien's company
to use the frequencies for a new purpose: to build a digital
network for wireless phones.
The decision gave O'Brien's company an advantage
because the radio licenses he bought were far cheaper
than the ones that had been allocated to the cell phone
companies that were his competitors.
These 800 MHz radio frequencies, however, were the
very ones that abutted police officers and firefighters in
the radio spectrum. The FCC, not realizing its decision
would later affect police officers, hailed the company for
using the radio spectrum more efficiently.
The company O'Brien founded later became Nextel and
has flourished into the nation's fifth-largest wireless
provider with 7.7 million U.S. subscribers.
The discovery
In the spring of 1998, firefighters at one of Washington
County's busiest fire stations noticed a mysterious
phenomenon.
The alarm system at Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue's -
station near the Washington Square mall stopped working
properly, sometimes delaying firefighters' response to
some emergency calls in the district that covers 10
cities. Crucial radio information was sometimes garbled.
Firefighters at the station complained to their 9-1-1
managers.
Spurred by the complaints, Joe Kuran,Washington
County's lead radio technician, launched an investigation.
http://n113.newsban.../Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0EDBF6F86A0E65A6&p_docnum= 9/20/01
The Oregonian Archives Page 4 of 9
Kuran knew that radios are not perfect. Police radios, like
AM/FM radios, sometimes experience poor transmission
inside buildings or tunnels. Sometimes police radios don't
work because of equipment failure,weather or nearby
hills.
When Kuran and his staff checked the fire district's radio
equipment, everything seemed to function properly. But
when technicians tested the radio signals,they found
something mysterious. Some areas had normal signals,
and other spots just a few feet away had no signal at all.
Adding to the mystery was the discovery that radio
transmissions were clearer inside the station with the
garage door closed and when the station's antenna was
moved inside.
Kuran and the staff looked harder.
About a quarter-mile away, they found the problem
planted on top of a red-brick building: a Nextel antenna.
When Nextel shut off its site, the interference vanished.
Nextel was transmitting at frequencies similar to those
used by the fire station. Becausethe cell phone tower was
so close to the station, its signals overpowered fire
dispatch transmissions coming from a county
communications tower more than four miles away atop
Council Crest.
The discovery made Washington County one of the
country's first agencies to prove cell tower interference.
Growing mystery
An unassuming 54-year-old with wire-rimmed glasses,
Kuran doesn't have a fancy college engineering degree.
He tinkered with ham radios while in high school in
Wisconsin and worked in U.S.Air Force communications.
He spent part of his 30-year career as a Motorola radio
technician.
In November 1998, armed with his discovery, Kuran
started his crusade against cell phone tower interference.
He wrote what would be the first in a series of letters to
FCC officials, notifying them of the problem that he said
could potentially lead to the loss of life and property.
Kuran also wrote an article that appeared in the March
1999 issue of the trade journal Mobile Radio Technology,
which is read by industry executives and communication
engineers. His article prompted public safety officers
around the country to scrutinize their own systems and
wonder if cell towers were creating problems.
"Joe Kuran was the first to really nail it down,"said Kevin
Kearns,telecommunications manager for King County,
which includes Seattle."He was the one who put some
technical meat behind it."
But much like in Washington County, other radio
technicians had trouble confirming the sources of
http://n113.newsban.../Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=OEDBF6F86AOE65A6&p_docnum= 9/20/01
The Oregonian Archives Page 5 of 9
Noe
interference.
Cell phone operators move frequencies from tower to
tower based on demand. Companies may use a handful
of frequencies at one tower overnight but move them to
another tower for rush-hour demand.
Some police radios constantly change channels,
automatically seeking an open frequency each time
officers push the talk button. Standing near a cell tower
during a commuter rush, an officer's radio may be
blocked and an hour later,just fine.
As other agencies homed in on the problem, Kuran waited
to hear from the FCC.
On January 19, 2000— 13 months after Kuran wrote his
letter—the FCC wrote back.
D'wana R. Terry, the FCC's chief of public safety and
private wireless division,wrote a four-paragraph letter that
said neither Nextel nor Washington County violated
federal guidelines. She said the parties should resolve the
issue on their own.
Call for help
Six months later, interference was still cropping up in
Washington County--this time near the Tigard police
station and across the street from a fire station. This
incident alerted county officials that the problem was
growing.
When police officers enter an unknown situation, they
say, their radios are one of the most important tools they
can carry because they enable officers to call for help for
themselves and for others. In Tigard, the radio particularly
is important because officers drive the streets alone.
"The radio--it is your lifeline,"said Tigard Officer Jeff
Lain. "It is the only way you can get help and to let people
know what is going on around you.When you are on your
own it is scary."
Just before 6 a.m. June 9, 2000, Lain spotted a 1984 gray
Buick sedan that he said ran a stop sign.Although it
looked like it would be another routine traffic stop, Lain
said he also knew it could turn deadly.
His car's red and blue lights flashed in the early morning
light.
The driver and Lain stopped at a storage facility on
Southwest Burnham Street, near the police station.
Auress the street,Anthony Passadore, also of the Tigard
police, sat in his patrol car writing reports.A Nextel cell
tower stood nearby.
Lain radioed his location to the dispatch center but later
said that dispatcher couldn't hear him.He said he later
learned that the only words that made it through were
"traffic"and"Burnham."
Passadore said he saw Lain and heard static on his radio.
http://n113.newsban.../Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0EDBF6F86A0E65A6&p_docnum- 9/20/01
The Oregonian Archives Page 6 of 9
Passadore said he moved his patrol car to get a better
view of Lain but did not want to intrude.
When Lain approached the car, he noticed the driver's
jacket hid a handgun, according to a police report. Lain
said he called for back-up but again almost all of the
transmission was blocked.
Passadore said he again only heard static and did not
hear Lain's request for help.A third officer, R.J. Newman,
said he heard only the word"gun."
With no backup, Lain asked the man to get out of the car.
Lain removed a loaded 9 mm handgun. By then, Newman
arrived. "At no time did (the driver) inform me that he was
armed," Lain wrote in his report.
"It was lucky for me," Lain said. "It was lucky everything
turned out all right."
Nextel admits its towers caused the interference. "It
scares the hell out of us,"said Sandra Baer,a Nextel
consultant in Reston,Va. "None of us wants that to
happen. Police officers should be able to use their
communications interference free."
Widespread problem
During its investigation, The Oregonian contacted more
than 100 public safety officials in 50 states by phone or e-
mail. In 28 states,this survey found at least one case in
which officials confirmed or suspected cell phone towers
had interfered with city, county or state radio systems.
Among them:
* Every day for at least six months last year, Tigard police
officers ending their shift could not sign off with the
dispatch center while parked at the Police Department.
*In Portland, one of every three radio or computer
transmissions have been interfered with in the past 2-1/2
years.
The city has spent more than$50,000 researching
interference and worked closely with Nextel engineers to
alleviate it. But Nancy Jesuale, Portland's director of
communications and networking, said their efforts have
provided only isolated improvements.
'We cannot have any tolerance for interference to our
communications from the galloping cellular market. This is
unacceptable,"said Portland Police Chief Mark Kroeker,
who relayed his concerns during meetings with two FCC
commissioners in Washington, D.C. last month.
* In Denver, police officers reported 60 complaints of
interference since September.
'We have not encountered that life-threatening situation,
but that is our concern--you're living on borrowed time,"
said Steven Cooper, division chief for the Denver Police
Department.
*In Scottsdale,Ariz., during a seven-month period last
http:/In113.newsban.../Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=OEDBF6F86AOE65A6&p_docnum= 9/20/01
The Oregonian Archives Page 7 of 9
year police officers could not use their radios when they
charged into bars to break up brawls in a one-square mile
entertainment district.
*In Seattle, since 1999, radios have been swamped with
static or don't work at all hundreds of times each day.
*In Phoenix,Ariz., the reach of the Police Department's
radio signals to its in-car computers was reduced by more
than 13 percent, preventing officers from checking
motorists for outstanding warrants.
In 21 of the 28 states, officials say they have identified
Nextel as the source of the interference. In at least five
other states, officials think Nextel is the cause but haven't
been able to prove it. In two states, other cellular
companies are thought to be the problem.
In a handful of states where Nextel signals are causing
interference, other wireless companies also have
contributed to the problem.
Public safety officials say Nextel has the most definitive
list of cities experiencing interference. The company
refused to disclose its list to The Oregonian.
Nextel's Krevor acknowledged his company is causing
interference in 12 of the 27 states: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon and Washington. The
company is working to reduce interference caused by its
cell towers as they become known, he said.
In the other states Krevor said Nextel was not the cause
of interference or that he had not been notified of any
problems.
Some of the problems, public safety officials say,were
handled by local Nextel staff. Officials in San Diego and
Houston said they are experiencing only minor
interference from Nextel towers.
But public safety officials say these aren't all the cases.
"Undoubtedly, there are people experiencing the problem
that we don't know about yet,"said Glen Nash, president-
elect of the Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials, a lobbying group based in Daytona Beach, Fla.
Who's to blame?
Nextel and the FCC deny they are responsible for fixing
the problem.
Nextel officials say the company is a victim of
circumstance.After all, they say, the FCC approved the
company's plan to build a digital network on frequencies
next to police and fire departments.
'Wth all due respect, Nextel didn't cause the problem,"
said Robert S. Foosaner, a Nextel senior vice president
and former chief of the FCC Private Radio Bureau in the
1980s.
http:/In113.newsban...JArchives?p action=doc&p_docid=OEDBF6F86AOE65A6&p docnum= 9/20/01
The Oregonian Archives Page 8 of 9
NNW NINO
Nextel engineers searched for potential interference
before the company launched its network in 1996 but
didn't find any, Krevor said.
"Certainly we didn't expect it to occur,"he said." . . . This
is not resulting from anything we're doing outside the
rules and regulations."
King County's Kearns said he has worked with the
company to eliminate part of the interference and doesn't
"want to characterize Nextel as the great evil.We are in
the same boat.We both kind of got stuck by the FCC."
But, like Nextel, FCC officials say they couldn't have
predicted the interference and they are doing all they can
to fix it.
"I really think it's very unproductive to engage in
fingerpointing,"the FCC's Ham said. " . . . We're all very
sensitive and do not want to cause situations where there
is interference"to police and fire departments.
A report commissioned by the FCC last year said
interference was an unfortunate byproduct of Nextel's
popularity and police departments'demand for
frequencies.
"That's what the industry wanted," Foosaner said of the
250 intertwined frequencies where Nextel and public
safety departments operate. "There was nothing
controversial about it. It was a no-brainer as far as the
government was concerned. Unfortunately, 25 years later
with the advance of technology, it has turned out to be a
poor decision."
Dale N. Hatfield, chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology from 1998 to 2000, said the commission
might have predicted the interference if its engineering
staff wasn't so overworked.
Even if the commission couldn't have predicted the
problem, some public safety officials want it fixed by the
FCC,which wields broad enforcement powers.
But the FCC said it sees no need to mandate any
changes because Nextel and public safety officials
already are working together to resolve the issue.
Foosaner said the FCC doesn't have the people or money
to spend on a solution. The FCC has one-tenth the
number of employees of Nextel, and a$248 million
annual budget compared with Nextel's$5.7 billion in
annual revenues.
The FCC's Ham did point her finger at police
departments'outdated analog radios,which reel in
Nextel's signals and the interference,which newer
technology could deflect.
Public safety officials admit they could halt part of the
interference with new radios, but police and fire chiefs are
reluctant to ask taxpayers to hand over millions of dollars
http://ni 13.newsban.../Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=OEDBF6F86AOE65A6&p_docnum= 9/20/01
The Oregonian Archives Page 9 of 9
• i ,
to pay for them.
Washington County's Kuran says the agency seven years
ago spent$6.7 million on a state-of-the-art Motorola radio
system with a 10-year life span. This year, the agency is
planning a$9 million system update that doesn't include
new handheld radios.
Portland spent$15 million on a system with a 15-year life
span in 1994. The city also is in the midst of a$250,000
upgrade to beam stronger signals to the 80 agencies
covered by the system.
Technicians designed the system around its known
weaknesses: thick walls and deep canyons. But the
Nextel interference introduced flaws the radios weren't
designed to work around, Kuran said.
Repeat mistake?
Some public safety and cellular industry experts fear that
the FCC is setting the stage for another midair clash --
this time in the 700 MHz band.
The commission plans to allocate a section of the band
for police officers and wireless companies such as Nextel.
The FCC says it has taken measures to prevent cellular
frequencies from bleeding into public safety channels.
But public safety officials and those in the cellular
industry, including Nextel and equipment manufacturer
Motorola, say the measures are not enough.
Motorola officials say the FCC rules still allow cellular
companies to use powerful transmissions that would
clash with public safety frequencies, creating a virtual
repeat of the problems on the 800 MHz band.
"The effect on public safety system would be
cataclysmic. . . "Steve Sharkey, the company's director
of telecommunications regulation, wrote to the FCC in
December.
The 700 MHz auction was most recently scheduled for
September but was delayed for the fifth time last month
while the FCC considers the concerns. The auction has
not been rescheduled.
News researchers Lynne Palombo and Margie Gultry of
the Oregonian contributed to this story. You can reach
Emily Tsao at 503-294-5968 or by e-mail at
emilytsao@news.oregonian.com. You can reach Ryan
Frank at 503-294-5955 or by e-mail at
ryanfrank@news.oregonian.com.
SEARCH AGAIN
y
http://n113.newsban.../Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=OEDBF6F86AOE65A6&p_docnum= 9/20/01
�.r Noire
Earthquake briefing for Valley Corn Technologies
Regarding quake on 2/27/01
General systems
• Seismic bracing and preparations have been done to all of our equipment in recent years—
this really paid off
• No systems had to be repaired or recovered
• We had approximately 500 calls in the 2 hours following the quake—for comparison we
normally take about 1000 per 24 hours
• Our phone switch and related equipment had a minor alarm but operated without incident
• Commercial power was momentarily interrupted—our generator was not needed but
remained functional and ready
• CAD had no problems although we approached capacity on the existing servers
• We had up to 800 simultaneous open incidents and active units—a new record
• We lost a few serial phone lines to remote CAD equipment but not a single network
connection was lost to remote CAD equipment
• The CAD network handled 12 million data packets compared to a normal 2 million—this
was still only a 30% load to our network
• The mobile data system performed extremely well with no alarms and no interruptions
• There are no specific traffic statistics but are included in the 12 million network data
packets
• Local cellular service and CDPD service were out for many hours as a comparison
800 System
• Like all other systems it was met with a challenging load
• Depending on the expectations of the user, some felt it did okay—others are quite
dissatisfied
• During the actual shaking the system went into site trunking for a few seconds and was wide
again in less than a minute—system managers and Motorola are researching to find the root
cause for this
• About 5 minutes later the Seattle system went into site trunking a number of times for about
10 minutes—here as well system managers and Motorola are researching to find the root
cause
• All sites were wide and stable in about 15 minutes
• The good news is: the system stayed on the air—even is site trunking all portions were
processing calls—the design for system survivability paid off—older systems had many
single points of failure
• 40,000 calls were processed by the KCNC sites in the first 2 hours—this load could
never have been matched on 4 or 5 VHF frequencies
• Even though traffic went up to 300% the busy queues and prioritization worked
• The bad news is: the traffic went up to 300% and the busy queues and prioritization
worked
• You can't create an event like this to train on
• Preplanning and training are theoretical not experiential
• We now know that some of our assumptions and therefore some of our system design
choices were not accurate enough
Where do we go from here?
• This is a tremendous learning experience for all of us—with the data we now have we can
validate some of our design theories and rework many others
• System topology, capacity, and preplans will all be reevaluated
• We are confident that a number of things can be done to improve operations next time
• System managers made system changes on the fly which greatly improved matters—we
will likely define a plan where these changes are immediately implemented for any future
event
• System managers and Motorola have mountains of data to review and will be putting
extensive effort into the cause in coming weeks and months—they will be poring over the
questions posed here as well as many others
• Another thing that we have not done well enough is user training
• Since you can't simulate the conditions it is hard to make correct user reactions
instinctive
• Since the busy queues and priorities are almost never used many users were confused
and frustrated by what they perceived
• Some other possible problems
• Have we made the system so flexible and provided so many options that we have added
to the problems during a large event?—the large number of radios changing channels
definitely added to system loading
• ISW storms kept users from even getting into the busy queue at times—this perhaps
could be mitigated by limiting choices of the user and the radio
• Are priority levels set appropriately for the talkgroups and their functions?
• Radio discipline
• The air should immediately be considered to be CLOSED
• Preplanning of actions and communications can greatly reduce traffic load
• There were 7000 attempts to interrupt on the day of the quake
Review of handouts
• CAD incidents for each agency
• CAD network volume
• 800 Mhz call volume compared to typical day
• 800 Mhz busy statistics(there is no way to measure how many calls were unable to get into
the busy queue)
• Graphs of the above 800 Mhz statistics
( Al VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
�oMMUN,!„rONS "HOT FLASH"— Informational Newsletter #26
'CENTER ' �A
March 1, 2001
Dear Valley Corn Stakeholders,
We hope everyone faired well through yesterday's earthquake. Thankfully, we had no
injuries. After the duck-cover-hold exercise, Valley Corn personnel emerged and never
missed a beat. The 911 network continued to function normally. It was very busy as
you might imagine, but we had an abundance of staff to support the operation due to
the time of day and day of week, as well as the off-duty employees who responded.
While the incoming phone lines were obviously fully loaded, nothing within our phone
system hesitated and we processed approximately 400 911 calls in the first 2 hours
after the earthquake. The building remained intact, although we needed additional
space to support expanded operations. Commercial power was only momentarily
interrupted but our backup power system and generator remained fully functional and
ready to activate if needed.
The 800 MHz System performed very well and supported regional communications just
as it was designed to do. The shaking towers caused the microwave to become
unstable for less than a minute, which caused the system to go from wide-area
coverage into site trunking. Once the towers stopped shaking, the microwave came
back online and the system transitioned back to wide-area coverage very quickly. The
traffic going across the system was staggering as you might imagine, but again the
design concept of talkgroup prioritization worked very well by giving higher priority to the
emergency talkgroups. Although there were busy signals, the lower priority talkgroups
were impacted much more significantly than the emergency response talkgroups. In
addition, the system managers immediately began to implement certain disaster
procedures by shutting down non-essential talkgroups and radio sites.
The EPSCA (Eastside) portion of the radio system had a bit more difficulty and radios
affiliated with it had a little more trouble using their radios. Once our users were directed
to use their site trunking talkgroup, they had a much easier time using the system. We
did have a few minutes where the Fire One dispatcher was not being heard very well
over the air, but this was caused by operator error not system problems.
Although the system performed well, this event has underscored the need for more
thorough radio training. There is still unfamiliarity with basic system functionality, site
trunking procedures and talkgroup usage.
Please post for all department personnel. Page 1
Chris Fischer,Director (253)854-4320 Ron Taylor, Technical Systems Mgr (253)859-4052
Mark Morgan,Asst Director (253)859-4053 On Duty Supervisor(voice mail will page)(253)859-7525
u
)
An understanding of basic system functionality will spare a user significant frustration,
especially when the system is busy like yesterday. When pushing the microphone
button (called keying), there are tones that a user must understand. A steady bonk
means that the radio never got into queue for a channel to be assigned, so the user
must pause and try again. An intermittent bonk is the busy signal received when the
radio has been queued for channel assignment because all channels in the system are
busy. This means the user can unkey the radio and await the chirp tone indicating a
channel is free for assignment. When the chirp is heard, the user keys their radio and
is assigned a channel to talk. As observed yesterday though, frequently users do not
wait for the chirp and re-key their radio, which places them back at the bottom of the
queue for channel assignment. Patience is critical! If you receive a busy signal, unkey
and await the chirp, then key your radio and transmit. Only re-key after a steady bonk.
Site trunking is when the 800 MHz System components disconnect from one another
and operate as several local radio systems. Most frontline emergency radios are
programmed to roam regionally, so they must be restricted to the local system when
site trunking occurs. If not restricted, they could roam to a portion of the system that
has no link back to the local system. The radio will indicate site trunking by flashing
between the talkgroup designator and the term site trunking. The dispatcher may
announce that a site trunking situation is occurring also. Either should alert the user to
switch to the site trunking talkgroup that corresponds to the wide-area talkgroup they
were using. Other lower priority radios may not have roaming capability, so they are in
site trunking mode all the time. Emergency responders must be familiar with their
equipment and the site trunking procedures.
When multiple disciplines respond jointly to an event, there are talkgroups that allow
them to communicate with each other. For example, police officers, firefighters and an
emergency operations center could all speak to one another on a public safety
talkgroup. This concept was designed to avoid isolating onscene personnel on different
talkgroups and relying on the dispatchers to relay information back and forth. It is much
more efficient to use the talkgroups that are available for such responses. In these
situations, don't forget that the onscene commander must remain in contact with the
dispatcher incase information is received that may be pertinent to the response.
The CAD System remained operable throughout the entire event. In the first six hours,
500 incidents were entered, nearly 300% above normal. We opted to offload some of
the low priority fire incidents to departments able to manage them internally, so the
dispatchers could focus on higher priority incidents. We appreciated the help! We did
experience some difficulty as fire departments attempted to switch frontline apparatus
off the primary fire talkgroups to work directly with the EOC/DOC. Keep in mind that
Please post for all department personnel. Page 2
Chris Fischer,Director (253)854-4320 Ron Taylor, Technical Systems Mgr (253)859-4052
Mark Morgan,Asst Director (253)859-4053 On Duty Supervisor(voice mail will page)(253)859-7525
t +
Valley Corn continues to receive emergency 911 calls, so we must know what
parameters the departments are operating under and what frontline apparatus are
being taken out of service for other purposes. We had several emergency incidents
that were dispatched to what appeared to be in-service apparatus, but the units never
advised they were enroute or out of service. It took too long to locate the apparatus or
anyone that knew their status.
Although most wireless networks experienced outages or were overwhelmed with the
amount of traffic after the shaking stopped, the Valley Corn MDT/MDC System
continued to support emergency operations with no degradation. This is one time when
owning our own mobile data system really paid off as all cellular and commercial
service was out for some time.
We hope to have an opportunity to discuss our observations more in the future, but we
wanted to give you an update on the performance of these systems under the demands
of the earthquake. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at the numbers
listed below.
Please post for all department personnel. Page 3
Chris Fischer,Director (253)854-4320 Ron Taylor, Technical Systems Mgr (253)859-4052
Mark Morgan,Asst Director (253)859-4053 On Duty Supervisor(voice mail will page)(253)859-7525
• w •
*IOW ,111109
(ô) W VALLEVALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
MMRUNIGTONS "HOT FLASH"— Informational Newsletter #27
March 2, 2001
Dear Valley Corn Stakeholders,
We are receiving more observations from users in the field about various experiences
with the 800 MHz Radio System during the first few hours after the earthquake. Some
are reporting that the system was not functioning for up to two hours after the
earthquake. Since the performance of the system and its components can be
monitored, it is clear that the system was fully functional after the initial site trunking
episode. In fact, during the first two hours of the event, 40,000 transmissions were
processed. It was also very evident that the dispatchers were receiving a continuous
stream of transmissions from the field. That being said, it appears that there were
many more of you attempting to transmit than the system could handle simultaneously
and that the system did not meet your expectations.
The technical term for this is an "inbound storm". It simply means that thousands of
radios were hitting their transmit button simultaneously, but the system can only handle
a finite number of inbound transmissions. These storms typically come in waves so for
a few minutes it might seem like you will never get in and then for a few minutes it is not
that difficult to get in. It is important to understand that this is most likely not going to be
a continuous condition. It also doesn't mean that the system wasn't functioning
Wednesday, but that it was processing transmissions as fast as possible in an
overwhelmingly busy radio event. With our prior radio system, everyone would have
simply covered each other's transmissions causing extreme chaos and unreliable
communication. The system we have today gives you an indication that no one heard
your transmission and makes you aware that you must try again, but it requires
extensive training to use effectively. We all know that complexity detracts from practical
application in the field, especially during an event like an earthquake. But the current
system will assign a channel eventually if a user keys and reacts appropriately to the
tones they receive, as long as the system is functional as it was Wednesday morning.
A good example is how the busy queue works. If your transmission request is received
by the system but no channel is available, it will give you a busy signal and add the
radio to the busy queue in the system. Once your radio reaches the top of the busy
queue and a channel is available, the system will signal you with a chirp and you may
transmit. In the meantime, if you repeatedly push your transmit button you will go back
Please post for all department personnel. Page 1
Chris Fischer,Director (253)854-4320 Ron Taylor, Technical Systems Mgr (253)859-4052
Mark Morgan,Asst Director (253)859-4053 On Duty Supervisor(voice mail will page)(253)859-7525
r
to the bottom of the list each time. So receiving a busy signal should alert a user to
unkey, wait patiently for the chirp and then transmit.
Basic rules of radio discipline and limiting non-essential transmissions are also
important. This is the reason that the phone company asks people to not reach for the
phone at a time like this because if everyone does there will be a traffic jam of calls and
it will take a while for everyone to get through. Only the most important transmissions
should be relayed until traffic tapers off. In a similar manner the most efficient use of
communications should be considered. There were a number of joint and
interoperability talkgroups that were created for just such a scenario that were never
used. Having various disciplines on different talkgroups magnifies the amount of radio
traffic as information is being relayed back and forth on multiple talkgroups about the
same incident.
Please be assured that the system managers will be analyzing mountains of data for
weeks to come. There will no doubt be things to be learned from the earthquake that
will help us respond more effectively next time. There are already discussions
regarding how quickly a radio can get into the busy queue, how the busy queue handles
duplicate requests and what if any talkgroup and radio changes could be made to
simplify use in the field. In addition, it is clear that operational disaster protocols should
be developed that compliment system protocols to ensure the system supports a large
scale event like the earthquake as effectively as possible.
We will get more information out to you as it becomes available.
Please post for all department personnel. Page 2
Chris Fischer,Director (253)854-4320 Ron Taylor, Technical Systems Mgr (253)859-4052
Mark Morgan,Asst Director (253)859-4053 On Duty Supervisor(voice mail will page)(253)859-7525
it t *No
ifte
PUBLIC SAFETY
P Ink!
WIRELESS NETWORK
Saving Lives and Property Through Improved Interoperability
Saw
Public Safety In-Building/In-Tunnel
Ordinances and Their Benefits to
Interoperability Report
�•• FINAL
November 2002
— 6
woo
PREFACE
Effective and interoperable wireless communications are critical to the success of public
safety operations. One specific area of wireless communications that has become increasingly
important to public safety professionals is providing adequate wireless communications while
operating inside buildings and tunnels. To resolve this issue, some governments have codified
requirements for improving access to public safety wireless networks. The degree to which
ordinances have been adopted and their overall effectiveness as a solution to the problem are not
generally understood by the public safety community. In response to the various inquiries from
the public safety community and the need for new solutions for improving wireless networking
interoperability in all operational environments, including inside buildings and tunnels, the
�.. Public Safety Wireless Network(PSWN) Program conducted a study of the issue. This report is
the result of that study and provides a variety of findings that can serve as a resource to public
safety professionals attempting to resolve in-building communications problems.
This report reviews and analyzes existing and proposed in-building communications
ordinances and their effectiveness in promoting improved wireless public safety
communications. This report does not address the issue of in-tunnel communications because
the PSWN Program research team identified no related ordinances. The report identifies
localities with in-building ordinances or codes and examines the similarities and differences in
these ordinances, the reasons for their development, and trends in regulating indoor wireless
public safety communications.
The establishment of in-building communications ordinances is a recent trend, and all of
a. the regulations studied have been considered or adopted since 1991. These laws were created in
response to new requirements of public safety community. This report examines the relevant
issues prompting creation of the ordinances and how the relevant laws came into being. The
report also investigates sources of political authority for creation of ordinances and rules that can
set requirements on construction to guarantee reliable in-building public safety wireless
communications. Finally, the report discusses the trends the research team observed—from the
creation of the first ordinances to present approaches for passing such regulations. The goal of
this report is to fully assess the effectiveness of using ordinances as a means to improve in-
building wireless communications for public safety operations.
a
a
a
a
In-Building Ordinances and Their ii November 2002
011 Benefits to Interoperability Report
wag
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY REPORT 1
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Scope 1 Sri
1.2 Approach 2
2. KEY FINDINGS 6
2.1 Characteristics of In-Building Ordinances 6
2.2 Technology Issues 9
2.3 Financial Issues 10
2.4 Development of In-Building Ordinances 11
2.5 Perceptions and Benefits of Ordinances 13
APPENDIX A—CHARACTERISTICS OF IN-BUILDING ORDINANCES A-2
A.1 Background and Purpose of Investigation and Analysis A-2
A.2 Approach A-3
A.3 Sources of Authority A-4rii
A.4 Identification of In-Building Communications Ordinances A-5
A.4.1 Types of Ordinances Identified A-5
A.4.2 Methods of Regulating In-Building Communications A-6
A.4.3 In-Building Communications Ordinances Codified Within Fire Codes A-7
A.4.4 In-Building Communications Ordinances Codified Within Building and
Electrical Codes and Other Statutes A-8 a
A.4.5 In-Tunnel Communications Regulations A-8
A.5 Technical Requirements of In-Building Communications Ordinances A-9
A.6 Technical Solutions A-l1 •
A.6.1 Amplification Systems A-11
A.6.2 Radiating Coaxial Cable A-11
A.6.3 Internal Multiple Antenna Systems A-12 S
A.7 Buildings Covered by In-Building Communications Ordinances A-12
A.7.1 Testing of In-Building Communications Systems A-13
A.8 Enforcement of In-Building Communications Ordinances A-15 or
A.8.1 Penalties A-15
A.8.2 Exemptions From the Law A-16
APPENDIX B—technology issues B-1
B.1 Approach B-1
B.1.1 Technical Review B-1
B.1.2 Market Survey B-1
B.2 Public Safety Wireless Networks Overview B-1
B.3 In-Building Coverage Overview B-5
B.3.1 Distance of the Building From the Nearest Radio Site B-5
B.3.2 Orientation of the User in the Building in Relation to the Nearest Radio Site B-6 •
B.3.3 Spectrum Band Used by the Network B-6
B.3.4 Type and Density of Material Used to Construct the Building B-7
In-Building Ordinances and Their ui November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report1111
e
t ,4,4w r�r
wr
B.4 In-Building Coverage Scenario B-8
B.5 In-Building Coverage Solutions B-9
B.5.1 Passive Methods B-9
B.5.2 Active Methods B-9
APPENDIX C—FINANCIAL ISSUES C-1
C.1 Approach C-1
C.2 Types of Buildings Requiring In-Building Systems for Public Safety C-1
C.3 Factors Affecting the Cost of In-Building Solutions C-1
C.4 Cost Estimates for Typical In-Building Solutions C-3
C.5 Relative Costs of In-Building Solutions C-5
a APPENDIX D—DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND BENEFITS OF
IN-BUILDING ORDIANANCES D-1
D.1 Approach D-1
D.2 Issues Prompting the Establishment of In-Building Ordinances D-1
D.3 Public Safety Wireless Networks Requiring In-Building Solutions D-2
D.3.1 Common Manufacturer D-3
D.3.2 Common Spectrum Band D-3
D.3.3 Network Design Issues D-4
D.3.4 Including In-Building Solutions in the Estimate of the Wireless Network Cost D-4
D.3.5 Trunked, Digital, and Encrypted Networks D-6
D.4 Drafting In-Building Ordinances D-6
D.5 Challenges to Establishing In-Building Ordinances in the City Code D-9
D.6 Challenges to In-Building Communications Ordinances After Enactment D-10
D.7 Perceptions of Public Safety Professionals on In-Building Ordinances D-11
D.7.1 Installation of In-Building Systems D-11
D.7.2 Enforcement of In-Building Ordinances D-12
D.7.3 Effect of In-Building Ordinances on Interoperability D-12
D.7.4 Knowledge of In-Building Ordinances D-12
.,, D.8 Interoperability Impact of In-Building Ordinances D-12
APPENDIX E—ACRONYMS E-1
a
a
a
a
In-Building Ordinances and Their iv November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
tam
rn
SUMMARY REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of in-building communications was magnified during the New York City
et
Fire Department (FDNY)response to the World Trade Center terrorist attack. During that and
other emergencies in high-rise buildings throughout New York City,New York, firefighters have
not had reliable in-building wireless communications. This problem is occurring in many parts
of the country and threatens the lives of public safety officials and inhibits their ability to
perform their missions. To help resolve this problem, many localities have passed ordinances or
other laws that require building owners to provide access to the public safety wireless networks
inside their buildings.
The purpose of this report is to review and analyze existing and proposed in-building and
in-tunnel communications ordinances, and to analyze their effectiveness in promoting improved
wireless public safety communications. The report identifies localities with in-building
ordinances and codes and examines the similarities and differences in these ordinances, the
reasons for their development, and trends in regulating indoor wireless public safety wr
communications. The development of in-building communications ordinances to improve the
quality of public safety wireless coverage by legislating standards for quality and use is still a
relatively new and innovative concept, dating back only to 1991. The ordinances and building
codes are, in general, designed to allow public safety radio system operation inside buildings and
facilities that are open to the public. The responsibility to comply with the ordinances and the
costs of ensuring coverage within the building are usually borne by the building permit holder.
The goal of this report is to fully assess the effectiveness of using ordinances as a means to
improve in-building wireless communications for public safety operations.
This study further examines how relevant laws came into being. It investigates the
sources of political authority for creation of ordinances and rules that can set requirements for
communications and construction to guarantee and enforce reliable in-building public safety
wireless communications. The report also discusses the trends the Public Safety Wireless
Network(PSWN) Program research team(research team) observed—from the creation of the
first ordinances to present approaches to passing such regulations. As public safety agencies
across the country have replaced or upgraded their communications systems, officials have also
started to recognize the need for improving in-building coverage due to the detrimental effect
poor wireless coverage has on public safety operations. This study reviews common engineering
problems and the solutions implemented to address the issues surrounding in-building
communications coverage and to successfully resolve these issues. The report examines sources
of interference, changes in building composition, and additional factors that in-building
communication solutions can overcome to meet the requirements set by the identified
ordinances.
1.1 Scope Sri
This report details research performed to identify the body of legislation successfully
enacted to ensure access by public safety personnel to their wireless networks while they perform
sti
operations inside buildings. Specifically, the report provides findings regarding in-building
In-Building Ordinances and Their 1 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
WOO '011111.
MOM
communication regulations that have become law in seven different jurisdictions. In addition,
the report examines four other jurisdictions that are attempting to codify ordinances and recounts
the current status of each of those initiatives. Moreover,the report addresses the technical issues
surrounding in-building wireless communications, presenting technical solutions that
jurisdictions have implemented to resolve these issues. The report also addresses the costs
ti.. associated with in-building solutions. Finally, the report analyzes the perceptions of public
safety professionals and the impact of the ordinances.
s.. 1.2 Approach
The research team used a three-phased approach in performing this study: data collection,
analysis, and study reporting. This approach is illustrated in Figure 1 and described in the
following paragraphs.
Data Analysis Study
Collection Reporting
• Ordinance
•.• • Ordinances Characteristics • Summary Report • Financial Issues
• Technical • Wireless
Review Networking Characteristics of In- • Development,
.110•.. • In-Building Financial Building Ordinances Implementation,
Solutions Issues
and Benefits of
In-Building
• Financial Data Impact of • Technology Issues Ordinances
Ordinances
"` Figure 1
Study Methodology
Data Collection...
During the data collection phase of the project,the research team addressed the following
subject areas:
• Established and Proposed In-Building and In-Tunnel Ordinances. This data
�.. gathering effort had two focuses. First, the team identified seven jurisdictions with
codified in-building ordinances and four jurisdictions with proposed ordinances. The
research team made extensive use of various electronic research services, including
online legal databases and search engines, to gather data regarding local ordinances
that govern in-building and in-tunnel communications. The research team also
performed additional research by establishing personal contacts with various public
safety associations and organizations and through already existing contacts created by
PSWN Program outreach efforts. The team also reviewed various text sources,
including the National Fire Protection Association, International's Fire Prevention
Code, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures, and National
In-Building Ordinances and Their 2 November 2002
+�++ Benefits to Interoperability Report
.rr
4 err
Electrical Code. Next, the research team developed a survey tool/questionnaire to
gather more detailed information from the jurisdictions identified as having
established or proposed ordinances. The team then contacted the jurisdictions and
interviewed approximately 30 interested public safety professionals.
• Technical Issues Related to the In-Building Ordinances. The research team to
reviewed an assortment of academic, technical, and periodical materials, along with
previous documents developed by the PSWN Program including the PSWN
Program's In-Building/In-Tunnel User Considerations Report. The team examined a ami
variety of research materials to ensure that the scope of the in-building problem was
thoroughly evaluated and explored. The research team conducted interviews with
several technical, operational, and industry experts to guarantee that key technical
points related to in-building ordinances were identified.
• In-Building Solutions for Improving Coverage Inside Buildings. To provide a
comprehensive view of the types of equipment and hardware available for resolving
in-building wireless problems, the research team conducted extensive online research
and interviewed several equipment vendors and professional system installation
representatives to gather additional information on products available in the
marketplace.
rn
• Financial Issues Related to In-Building Solutions. To develop cost estimates for a
financial analysis for in-building solutions, the team conducted extensive online
research in addition to interviews with prominent vendors whose service offerings
focus on in-building communications.
Analysis...
To begin the data analysis phase, the research team assessed the overall findings of each
of the previous research efforts, organizing the findings into the following four areas:
• Characteristics of In-Building Ordinances. These findings include similarities and
differences among the seven jurisdictions with ordinances already in place and the
four other jurisdictions with either proposed ordinances or ongoing initiatives for
developing in-building regulations. The research team compared and contrasted the
ordinances based on the type of systems requiring in-building enhancement, desired
signal strength, coverage and reliability, technical solutions outlined in the law, •
testing procedures, enforcement provisions, and exemptions.
• Technology Issues. The findings provide the reader with the necessary technical
context to understand the problems associated with wireless coverage inside
buildings. This includes an overview of public safety wireless networks and in-depth
analysis of in-building coverage, and the technical solutions for improving in- r
building coverage.
rwr
In-Building Ordinances and Their 3 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
•r .yam. rro
v�r
• Financial Issues. These fmdings pertain to the overall costs related to implementing
in-building wireless communication systems. The findings also illustrate that the cost
of wireless solutions inside buildings is related to the type of building, the timing of
the design and installation of the solution, and the severity of the in-building coverage
problem.
• Development,Implementation, and Benefits of In-Building Ordinances. This
area further examines the ordinances with regard to their overall impact. It identifies
.. observed trends relating to their implementation or effectiveness. This section also
includes an analysis of the perceptions of relevant public safety professionals.
,01111 Study Reporting...
The final phase of the Public Safety In-Building Ordinances and Their Benefits to
Interoperability Report was study reporting, which included the organization of all collected data
into key findings. The study is organized into five parts. The first part is this up-front summary
report that reviews the methodology and key findings of the study. The key fmdings are
organized into the four areas identified above. A series of appendixes (A—D) follow the
summary report and present comprehensive findings related to specific areas of the study. The
data contained within each appendix was used to develop the fmdings contained within this
summary report. A brief description of each appendix follows:
01111
• Appendix A provides an overview of seven existing and four proposed ordinances for
in-building communications coverage.
• Appendix B details the overall problems related to in-building wireless
communications and the specific solutions or equipment available to resolve the
Ala
issues and comply with the identified ordinances.
• Appendix C reviews the financial issues related to implementing wireless
••• communications systems inside buildings.
• Appendix D analyzes the development and impact of the codified ordinances.
• Appendix E provides a list of common acronyms used throughout this report.
..• The relationship between the appendixes and the summary report is shown in Figure 2.
IWO
ONO
In-Building Ordinances and Their 4 November 2002
Iwo Benefits to Interoperability Report
ar
Appendix D
Appendix C
Appendix B
as
Summary
Findings Report
Appendix A
— —
_ Characteristics
of In-Building
Ordinances
sit
Figure 2
Document Organization
es
in
us
so
r'
Ii
r
In-Building Ordinances and Their 5 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
U'
MOP NNW tire'
2. KEY FINDINGS
The analysis of in-building ordinances for public safety communications yielded several
key findings. The findings are organized into the areas detailed in the study reporting phase of
the approach.
eir
2.1 Characteristics of In-Building Ordinances
General...
• Very few jurisdictions have successfully enacted in-building ordinances. Research
conducted for this study led to the identification of seven jurisdictions with enacted
ordinances and four jurisdictions with proposed ordinances. The jurisdictions are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Year Ordinance
Enacted Codification
•. Boston, MA 2000 Boston, MA, Fire Department Fire Code
Broward County, FL 1999 Broward County, FL, Code-
Telecommunications
Burbank, CA 1991 Burbank, CA, City Building Code
r Folsom, CA(Sacramento County) 1999 Sacramento County, CA, Uniform Fire
s Code
101
Ontario, CA 1999 Ontario, CA, City Municipal Code
Roseville,CA 1999 Roseville, CA, City Fire Code
Scottsdale,AZ 2002 Scottsdale,AZ, City Electrical Code
Grapevine, TX N/A Grapevine, TX, Building Code
Fairfax County, VA N/A Fairfax County, VA, Fire Code or Virginia
State Buildin. Code
Montgomery County, MD N/A Maryland State Fire Code
Sacramento, CA N/A City of Sacramento, CA, Fire Code
• Agencies most frequently named in the ordinances are firefighting and law
enforcement; some ordinances use more expansive definitions detailing first
responders and other users.
• Usually, ordinances are introduced as amendments to a city or county's legal code by
a legislative body. In some jurisdictions, it is the legislative body that makes the final
decision on whether a measure will be enacted; in others, a referendum is presented to
the voters to ultimately approve or reject the measure.
In-Building Ordinances and Their 6 November 2002
�• Benefits to Interoperability Report
IOW girt►' gio
tit
• In-building ordinances are codified within various codes including fire, building, and
electrical codes in addition to other statutes. Of the established ordinances studied,
three were codified in the fire code,three in the building code, and one in the
electrical code.
• Jurisdictions use two different approaches to ensure in-building public safety
communications coverage.
— The first approach is more common and sets specific standards for + ►
various technical characteristics of wireless communication.
— The other type of in-building communications statute is more
general, mandating only that structures and facilities must comply
with the locality's in-building wireless ordinance, but not
specifying much more.
• At least two ordinances(Boston and Roseville) may have been drafted specifically to
address limited communications coverage within high-rise structures.
• Research did not lead to any proposed or enacted ordinances or laws governing in-
tunnel public safety wireless communications. This may be because most in-tunnel at
areas are partially or wholly owned and operated by municipalities, and there is no
apparent need for a municipality to make binding requirements for its own in-tunnel
communications. However, even in cases where the tunnels are publicly owned or
smit
operated,ordinances may be used to set wireless communications standards and
guidelines. The in-building ordinances identified in this report could provide a model
for such in-tunnel ordinances.
Technical Requirements and Solutions of In-Building Ordinances...
Common Technical Requirements of In-Building Ordinances '
Signal Strength Most in-building ordinances include minimal signal strength requirements
of either—95 or—107 dBm.
Most in-building ordinances require that between 85 and 95 percent of a
Coverage and Reliability building floor space in a building is provided with adequate coverage. In
addition,all in-building ordinances require that coverage be available
between 90 and 100 percent of the time.
Most in-building ordinances allow and recommend the use of passive sit
Allowed Technical Solutions and active amplification systems such as leaky coax, antenna systems,
and bi-directional amplifiers.
• Most ordinances specify the kind of communications system used by the public safety
agency or agencies within that jurisdiction. Those ordinances specifically delineate
the channels that must not be obstructed or otherwise subject to interference.
r
• For measuring signal strength, many of the ordinances use a value of-107 dBm.
Three jurisdictions use a substantially higher standard of-95 dBm for meeting
compliance levels specified in those laws. N'
In-Building Ordinances and Their 7 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
N
— Bi-directional amplifier(BDA) systems are usually the
•� recommended method for meeting the threshold for signal strength
required in these ordinances. In many instances, radiating coaxial
cable ("leaky"coax) and antenna systems are both permissible
•- solutions.
• The ordinances also typically detail reliability and coverage in two components.
— The first mandates that a certain percentage of a building, or each floor of a
building, must be reached by a radio signal from the public safety wireless system
•,. a certain percentage of the time.
— The other measure is based on an overall percentage of the time that the signal
could be successfully accessed in the building.
• Backup generators are required in eight of the jurisdictions surveyed, with a
minimum requirement of 12 hours of battery-powered continuous operation without
external power input required in six of the jurisdictions researched for this study.
• Many ordinances also regulate the frequency and responsibility for system
maintenance and testing. Testing is first performed upon completion of installation of
a system. After initial testing, the municipality's users undertake the subsequent
annual review usually specified within the ordinances.
IMO
— In addition to annual tests, 5-year tests are required in the County of Sacramento,
California;the City of Roseville, California; as well as in the Boston,
Massachusetts, in-building radio specification.
— The cities of Ontario and Burbank, California, two of the jurisdictions surveyed
that have passed in-building communications ordinances, also allow for spot
field-testing by police or fire department personnel.
Enforcement of In-Building Communications Ordinances...
• As a rule, in-building communications ordinances may not be applied to buildings
•.. retroactively. Therefore, these ordinances impact only those buildings constructed
after the law becomes effective, and in some jurisdictions, are also relevant in cases in
which an existing structure undergoes any modification that increases its size by a
,,,, certain percentage, typically 20 percent, of its square footage area.
• Although only specifically discussed in three jurisdictions' ordinances (Roseville,
Sacramento County, and Boston), and one draft ordinance (the City of Sacramento,
California), the responsibility for meeting the requisite standards in all cases
implicitly falls on the building owner.
In-Building Ordinances and Their 8 November 2002
w' Benefits to Interoperability Report
ism
. illait''',',,
SW vite
• Five of the jurisdictions studied also incorporate penalties in the ordinances to deter
owners and occupants from failing to meet in-building wireless communication
requirements.
— One penalty for non-compliance with these measures is loss of occupancy
certification, which would withhold the building or fire code inspector's
permission to allow any habitation until the building passes inspection.
— The Scottsdale, Arizona, ordinance also provides for a fine of up to $1,000 for
violation of the public safety radio amplification ordinance.
— The proposed Grapevine, Texas, ordinance would carry a fine of up to $2,000 per as
day for violation of that city's regulations.
• Some of the ordinances that have been enacted limit the kind of structures to which Ili
their requirements apply.
— Many jurisdictions do not require coverage in residential areas or for buildings r
constructed with wooden frames.
— Other jurisdictions limit application of in-building communications ordinances to tai
structures above a certain height (30-35 feet)or a certain area(5,000 square feet
or more).
siii
— New additions to buildings that would otherwise be covered within the terms of
these ordinances are not required to comply with in-building communications
standards if the improvements do not increase the total area of the structure by
20 percent or more.
2.2 Technology Issues
is
• Three solutions are typically implemented to improve in-building communications
either as standalone solutions or together in various components of a system:
radiating coaxial cable, internal antenna systems, and BDA systems. '
— Radiating cable or"leaky coax" functions like a continuous antenna. It is
outfitted with controlled slots in the outer conductor that allow radio frequency mil
signals to be coupled between the coax cable and its surrounding environment.
— Internal antenna systems consist of small antennas strategically located di
throughout a building.
— A BDA system increases the signal level for talk-back or talk-out coverage ilA
improving communications inside the building. The system is composed of a
donor antenna, internal coverage antenna(s), and BDA(s).
Si
In-Building Ordinances and Their 9 November 2002 AO
Benefits to Interoperability Report
1P
VOW NU110.
• Future technology, such as ultra wideband, may help improve in-building
communications issues. However,these technologies are still in developmental
•�- stages and their future impacts remain unknown.
2.3 Financial Issues
General...
• A wide variety of public and private structures may require the installation of in-
"` building systems to enhance the coverage of public safety wireless networks. These
include shopping malls, casinos, and convention centers; airports, stadiums, and
museums; office buildings, factories, and utility plants; hospitals and hotels; and
apartment complexes and other large residential buildings.
• The type of building, along with the size and shape, layout, and building materials
used in construction can affect the need for and cost of an in-building solution.
Although an airport terminal and office building may have the same area and may be
constructed of the same materials, the office space may require a much more complex
�*• solution to provide coverage throughout the building because of its design and layout.
Factors Affecting the Cost of In-Building Solutions...
• Timing of the design and installation of the solution also affects the cost. Typically,
it is more expensive to retrofit a building with a solution than to install the system
during building construction.
• The severity of the in-building coverage problem also influences solution cost. Not
every building requiring wireless access improvements will require enhancements
throughout the entire building. The cost of the solution for each building depends on
the specific circumstances of that building.
Cost Estimates for Typical In-Building Solutions...
• Each building and situation is unique and requires tailored in-building solutions.
Based on market research, a 45,000 square foot floor of a building could be covered
with 300 feet of radiating cable for a total cost of$5,230. An active BDA system
could be installed in a 200,000 square foot area, such as a warehouse, for
approximately$33,000.
• The highest cost in-building solutions are those required for very large buildings in
urban environments. According to one vendor in the industry, "it would cost
approximately$19,000 to cover a 20,000 square foot, one-floor structure, while
covering a five-floor, 400,000 square foot structure would cost approximately
$65,000."
• The uncertainty associated with costs for urban in-building solutions is a major
concern associated with current and proposed ordinances.
In-Building Ordinances and Their 10 November 2002
•'• Benefits to Interoperability Report
• A recent report on public safety wireless communications, entitled"Increasing
FDNY's Preparedness"' dealt with this issue. The report makes several
recommendations regarding its fmding that in-building communications during the
emergency response at the World Trade Center was poor. The report estimates the
cost of outfitting high-rise buildings taller than seven stories in New York City with
in-building solutions at $0.30 to $0.60 per square foot. According to the estimate, to
install an in-building system in one major high-rise is between$1 million and
$2 million. Clearly, the requirement for building owners to pay for in-building
systems will not be distributed equitably because not all buildings will require
multimillion dollar in-building solutions.
2.4 Development of In-Building Ordinances
General...
• There were several reasons localities established in-building communications
ordinances. One of the primary reasons was the adoption of ultra high frequency
(UHF) systems(including 800 megahertz [MHz] systems), and efforts to resolve
problems that were detected as these new systems were implemented and used. All
of the ordinances related to public safety wireless communications were passed
because there was at least a perceived need to compel property owners to provide
access, or at least not prohibit access, to the public safety wireless networks.
sir
• All of the identified jurisdictions with ordinances use systems manufactured by the
same company, Motorola. This may be because Motorola built a majority of the local
government public safety wireless networks.
• Most of the jurisdictions that adopted ordinances to improve in-building coverage
operate in the UHF band(including 800 MHz). However, one ordinance applies to
both UHF and very high frequency(VHF) systems. to
• There does not appear to be a correlation between the establishment of ordinances
and whether systems are trunked, digital, or encrypted. N
• The jurisdictions with codified ordinances passed those laws after installing new
wireless communications systems. The timing of the ordinances and the type of N
systems installed may lead to the conclusion that many newer systems were not
designed to meet public safety requirements for communications inside buildings.
Ultimately, the community pays for the cost of in-building solutions either by N
building developers or direct government expenditures. Ordinances do not shield
localities or public safety organizations from the overall system cost.
Increasing FDNY's Preparedness,August 19,2002,commissioned by the New York City Fire Department
following the September 11,2001,attack on the World Trade Center. The complete report is available at
http://vvww.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/mck_report/toc.html
In-Building Ordinances and Their 1 1 November 2002 NIP
Benefits to Interoperability Report
N
— In-building coverage can be provided for almost any environment if enough radio
sites are included in the network infrastructure. However, because of cost and
WIN other issues, system designers sometimes must compromise between operational
requirements and practical financial concerns.
— When procuring new systems, agencies did not consider the cost of the in-
building solutions as part of the overall system cost. It is unclear whether public
safety agencies knew that they were procuring networks that would not provide
•- adequate in-building coverage.
— Even where in-building ordinances were adopted by the locality, the local
governments still paid for some of the in-building solutions. This is especially
true for government buildings. Therefore,the financial burden of the in-building
solutions must be supported by the community either through direct government
,,,.l expenditures or unfunded mandates to support in-building ordinances.
— In cases in which public safety professionals procuring the system knew that they
would not have adequate in-building coverage with the proposed network
411110
infrastructure,they could have included in-building solutions as part of their
overall system development plan.
— A lower cost network infrastructure could result in the need for countless in-
building solutions. If this issue was addressed before the system was procured, a
system could have been procured based on its true overall cost. Therefore,the
WI" cost of the in-building systems, even if paid for by property owners, should be
considered part of the actual system cost.
Drafting In-Building Ordinances...
• There are common methods and language for drafting in-building ordinances.
"" Several professionals stated that established in-building ordinances from other
jurisdictions were used to draft the ones for their own localities. By reviewing the
ordinances, it is clear that several ordinances use almost identical format, structure,
VIM and language.
• According to research completed for this study, in-building wireless communications
«+• ordinances first became the topic of legislative initiatives to provide standard
coverage levels for public safety wireless users in California cities. The first in-
building communication ordinance was passed and codified in 1991 and is found in
del the Burbank, California, City Building Code.
Challenges to In-Building Ordinances...
• The 11 jurisdictions researched for this report were either successful in implementing
in-building requirements through the legislative process within their community, or
In-Building Ordinances and Their 12 November 2002
""' Benefits to Interoperability Report
are in various stages of development and attempting to acquire political support and
public approval to provide better communications for public safety personnel.
— Several jurisdictions attempted to pass ordinances creating obligations for
building management,tenants, construction firms, and developers to adhere to
standards for wireless communications coverage for public safety officials inside 1116
buildings. In some of those cases, they have met significant opposition from
builders and real estate developers eager to contain construction costs.
• Other jurisdictions that have attempted to pass such ordinances have failed. In those
cases, political support for regulating new and existing wireless communications
systems was insufficient to overcome resistance from builders and developers, who ,r►
argued that implementing such measures would create greater expense and difficulty
than they could afford.
a
— One jurisdiction has been trying to pass an ordinance since at least 2000.
Champions of the legislation include public safety agencies and the City
Manager's Office. However, the legislation has been tabled because of
opposition from builders and developers due to the fmancial burden the ordinance
may place upon the building community.
— In another area of the country, because of the substantial influence of developers,
a proposed ordinance was not well received among local elected officials, who
had initially endorsed the measure to aid public safety personnel and other first two
responders.
— In contrast to legislative solutions, informal working arrangements exist that may
mit
help to provide coverage in many areas where ordinances have not been enacted.
• Typically, once a law concerning public safety wireless radio communications has
been codified, there is very little resistance to compliance with the law. The research
team found no instances of building owners, developers,or other interested parties
challenging the in-building communications ordinances once they were enacted.
2.5 Perceptions and Benefits of Ordinances
General...
• The information on the success and failure of each ordinance in improving the quality
of in-building public safety wireless communications is limited. Most of the evidence
of successfully obtaining cooperation and compliance from builders, developers,
commercial mobile radios service carriers (CMRS), and other stakeholders is
anecdotal, and experiences vary drastically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
aio
•
In-Building Ordinances and Their 13 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
Perceptions...
••- • During the course of gathering data for this study, public safety professionals in
jurisdictions with in-building communications ordinances provided their impressions
and perceptions of how well the ordinances have performed.
— The most important effect of in-building communications ordinances is that in
those localities where ordinances were established, they have successfully
.. motivated building owners to install in-building solutions to enhance public safety
coverage.
— Most of the ordinances have very specific guidelines for testing buildings to
ensure that they meet the minimum technical standards; however, not all localities
follow these testing and enforcement procedures.
• None of the public safety professionals that were contacted for this study were aware
of any direct or indirect impacts on interoperability related to in-building ordinances.
However, none of the past, current,or expected interoperability initiatives are related
to in-building ordinances.
• The research team also observed a wide discrepancy between jurisdictions regarding
awareness among public safety personnel, as well as among the construction and
development community, with respect to the enactment of regulations that govern the
quality of in-building communications.
• There is a perception among some officials within the public safety community that
builders' and developers' interests are typically more focused on short-term costs.
Under current market conditions, it would be difficult to mandate any measures that
require greater investment than the commitments that they have already made.
Interoperability Benefits...
• Based on the data gathered for this study, in-building ordinances have no noticeable
•� impact on interoperability between public safety organizations. This fording is based
on the perceptions of the interested public safety professionals, an analysis of the
types of systems used in the localities, and the specific requirements set forth in the
••• in-building ordinances.
— The primary measure of interoperability between disparate wireless networks is
.., how well they interoperate throughout their coverage area, not inside any
individual building.
— The interoperability impact of any particular in-building solution would be
minimal unless the overall systems were already interoperable through a patch,
switch, or other method that relied on the separate network infrastructures. If
ordinances ensure that subscriber units from each system maintain access under
WINe
In-Building Ordinances and Their 14 November 2002
woo Benefits to Interoperability Report
+.r
their network infrastructure while in the building, then the established
interoperability link would work as usual.
ail
rig►►
a
a
it
dii
In-Building Ordinances and Their 15 November 2002 a
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
v,d ar'
AIM
AMP
WNW
APPENDIX A-CHARACTERISTICS OF IN-BUILDING ORDINANCES
WIZ
ONO
r.
ONO
VON
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-1 November 2002
orb Benefits to Interoperability Report
4111111
ei
APPENDIX A—CHARACTERISTICS OF IN-BUILDING ORDINANCES
The Public Safety In-Building Ordinances and Their Benefits to Interoperability Report
assesses the ability of laws, regulations, and ordinances to effect the development of in-building
wireless systems that mitigate or resolve the problem of public safety in-building wireless
communications. An essential component of this study is to examine the ordinances that have
been established or proposed by public safety or other government entities. The purpose of this
appendix is to review the content of these ordinances and overall trends that the Public Safety
Wireless Network(PSWN) Program research team identified.
A.1 Background and Purpose of Investigation and Analysis
The purpose of this study was to examine the number and kinds of regulations pertaining
to the provision of in-building and in-tunnel communications that were codified or contemplated.
The first step was to determine the specific ordinances that were enacted and to review the state
of the law as it exists today with respect to in-building public safety wireless communications,
examining the steps taken to ensure that public safety wireless networks meet the operational
requirements of the user community. The research team conducted this review to learn about the
legislation that currently exists or has been considered, and to identify the trends in the laws
related to resolving in-building coverage issues.
This study examined seven jurisdictions that successfully implemented regulations to
promote quality of service for wireless communications systems used by area public safety
personnel. These jurisdictions included—
a
• City of Boston, Massachusetts
• Broward County, Florida
• City of Burbank, California
• City of Folsom(Sacramento County), California
• City of Ontario, California
• City of Roseville, California oil
• City of Scottsdale, Arizona.
The agencies most frequently named in these ordinances are firefighting and law
4111
enforcement;however, some ordinances, such as those in Burbank and Roseville, use more
expansive definitions detailing first responders and other users (i.e., "including, but not limited
to, firefighters and police officers"). Other jurisdictions, such as the City of Sacramento, allow ea
shared use of the 800 megahertz(MHz) system by fire,police, emergency medical services,
public works, and other public safety personnel. In that particular jurisdiction, it is notable that
many agencies share in a regional communications system that was jointly purchased by several
cities within Sacramento County. Those cities that did not initially contribute have since made
arrangements to contribute fees for service in exchange for shared use of the network
infrastructure and facilities.
a
This study also reviewed the status of ongoing efforts in four other areas that are in the
process of introducing legislation that would regulate in-building communications systems.
These areas included—
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-2 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
• City of Grapevine, Texas
• Fairfax County, Virginia
• Montgomery County, Maryland
• City of Sacramento, California.
VON
These jurisdictions are at various stages of developing ordinances that detail the
responsibilities of building owners and developers to accommodate public safety wireless
JINIS communications. While some jurisdictions are still in the preliminary stages, Montgomery
County held a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to the Maryland State Fire Code
on August 13,2002,to generate support for the adoption of this measure. Fairfax County has
developed a white paper that recommends mandating signal strength,reliability of coverage, and
other measures of wireless communication properties.
A.2 Approach
In performing the research on these ordinances, the research team used multiple
disciplines and resources. Data gathering typically consisted of two main parts, identification of
•• localities with ordinances and follow-up data gathering to learn about the specific ordinance. In
some cases, because of current developments in some of the jurisdictions where new regulations
are being proposed,the research has been ongoing, with this report containing the most recent
,.. information.
Online Research. The research team made extensive use of various electronic research services
,.n to gather data regarding local ordinances that govern in-building and in-tunnel communications.
Legal databases, including the Cornell University Online Law Library, the Emory University
Online Law Library, Westlaw, and Lexis/Nexis, were all researched to locate jurisdictions with
relevant regulations. However, most legal research databases are geared toward case law, and
federal and state statutes. These resources had very few city and county ordinances contained in
their respective databases. Other general online research tools and search engines, including
Alta Vista, Ask.com, Google, and Yahoo!, yielded more information that identified jurisdictions
with existing or proposed in-building ordinances.
Public Safety and Government Associations. The research team performed additional research
by making personal contacts through e-mail inquiries, telephone conversations, and other
interaction with various professional public safety and government communications experts,
including the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.
(APCO), the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of Counties, The
National League of Cities, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
and other groups, including contacts made via PSWN Program outreach efforts. The team also
made inquiries about these ordinances through Allen Communications Research, a private
research organization engaged by the PSWN Program to conduct communications research on
issues concerning public safety on the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
rulemaking dockets.
Local, State, and National Uniform Codes, Models, and Standards. The research team also
reviewed various text sources, including the National Fire Protection Association International's
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-3 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
•rr
1,
•
Fire Prevention Code, Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures, and
National Electrical Code. The research team consulted village, city, and county statutes and
additional authorities to determine where ordinances had been established or proposed. Analysts
examined these sources to determine whether a"model"statute existed that was being used as a
blueprint for those ordinances that had been proposed or adopted. Although these sources did
not explain the similarities between several of the ordinances examined, other research would
determine that the common characteristics resulted from a comparison and imitation of
ordinances successfully adopted by predecessors.
oat
Surveys and Interviews. Finally, the research team conducted interviews with knowledgeable
communications personnel in the 11 jurisdictions identified as having established or proposed
ordinances. In many cases, the team consulted several different participants in the information wo
gathering process because they had experience with different aspects of the system. To facilitate
the interview process, the research team prepared a survey. The questions were developed to
collect information about different aspects of the jurisdiction's radio systems and efforts to pass „ i
ordinances to protect and promote quality of service for in-building communications. Many
local fire and law enforcement personnel provided information that was used in the preparation
of this report, and their observations and insights are the foundation for many of the findings
presented in this report.
Among the topics addressed in the survey were questions regarding system infrastructure,
system users, coverage, communication problems, and issues that the system was designed to
correct or improve. Other data collected indicated the effectiveness of the systems, as well as the
results of efforts to enact ordinances to govern the in-building communications systems operated
by public safety agencies. In some cases, participants in the survey were involved in the
ordinance drafting and passage process, while others were actively involved in the use of the
communications facilities. Each interviewee was asked a variety of questions that required
familiarity with the background of that jurisdiction's ordinance, the system that is in use in that
particular area, and the coverage problems experienced that were the impetus for any effort to
codify in-building communications standards.
a
A.3 Sources of Authority
Usually, ordinances are introduced as amendments to a city or county's legal code by a
legislative body; the public is given notice of those proposed laws and the opportunity for
comment and debate. In some jurisdictions, it is the legislative body that makes the fmal
decision on whether a measure will be enacted; in others, a referendum is presented to the voters
111.
to ultimately approve or reject the measure. This procedure varies with the subject matter of the
bill or issue and can depend on a variety of factors, including whether separate appropriations
will be required to implement the proposed act. This section of the report examines how the
id
laws that regulate in-building communications were passed and identifies the source of the
authority for rulemaking in several different jurisdictions.
Formal rulemaking requirements contained in city or town charters, state and federal '0
constitutions, and other enabling legislation that grants a particular office, agency, or group of
elected or appointed officials the authority to make binding law in that jurisdiction will
determine the procedure to be observed in each case. How procedures are determined is not
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-4 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
1
•
ri
uniform within the individual states—each locality has its own independent procedures and rules
that differ from surrounding jurisdictions, based on how that area was organized, e.g., via a
charter, articles of incorporation, or other designation by law. This variation makes classifying
and organizing each jurisdiction's rules difficult, and frequently redundant laws are on the books
that overlap, conflict, or that are enforced by competing authorities.
..r
The research conducted for this study confirmed that most of the ordinances that have
been codified were passed by local legislative authorities. Sacramento's 800 MHz building
—• amplification ordinance was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. The City Council of
Ontario amended the Municipal Code of that city to require in-building coverage for the city's
800 MHz public safety communication systems. The Board of County Commissioners in
Broward County passed the signal obstruction ordinance in that jurisdiction, and the City of
Scottsdale's code was amended by the City Council to adopt and revise public safety radio
coverage requirements.
Boston diverged from this pattern drastically by adopting an executive rule amending the
city's Fire Code unilaterally. A copy of this rule,posted on the RFSolutions.com database
(maintained by the Jack Daniel Company), notes that "this fire code is unique because of agency-
specific content that may not be applicable to others." The In-Building Radio Specification,
modifying fire alarm order 93-1, has the same force of law as the ordinances passed by
legislative bodies in different jurisdictions.
MIN
A.4 Identification of In-Building Communications Ordinances
.,, The research team's preliminary analysis identified seven jurisdictions nationally that had
successfully passed in-building communications ordinances. Based on research conducted for
this study, the first jurisdiction to regulate in-building coverage was Burbank in 1991. The cities
of Roseville and Ontario passed similar legislation in 1999, as did Sacramento County and
Broward County. In addition, at a later date, Ontario passed a second ordinance that, like
Broward County's ordinance, generally prohibited interference to public safety communications.
In 2000, the City of Boston's Fire Code was amended to permit use of wireless communications
to provide in-building radio coverage. As stated earlier, four other localities (Grapevine, City of
Sacramento, Montgomery County, and Fairfax County) studied are in various stages of
ordinance initiatives intended to provide solutions for problems that public safety personnel had
experienced with in-building communications coverage.
A.4.1 Types of Ordinances Identified
The ordinances examined in this study reflect a number of different approaches for
mandating in-building communications systems and for defining the needs of the agencies that
use them for the preservation of life and property. The ordinances are codified in building codes,
fire codes, and in other sections of that region's governing laws. Table A-1 summarizes when
and where the ordinances in each jurisdiction are codified.
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-5 November 2002
1re Benefits to Interoperability Report
is•
Sri
Table A-1
Summary of Codified Ordinances
NI
Year Ordinance Ordinance
Jurisdiction Enacted Codification
Boston, MA 2000 Boston Fire Department Fire Code iui
Broward County, FL 1999 Broward County Code-
Telecommunications
Burbank, CA 1991 Burbank, CA, City Building Code
Folsom, CA 1999 Sacramento County Uniform Fire Code 111111
(Sacramento County)
Ontario, CA 1999 Ontario, CA, City Municipal Code
Roseville, CA 1999 Roseville, CA, City Fire Code
Scottsdale,AZ 2002 Scottsdale,AZ, City Electrical Code
A.4.2 Methods of Regulating In-Building Communications
The research team found that jurisdictions use two different approaches to ensure in-
building public safety communications coverage. The first approach is more common and sets
specific standards for various technical characteristics of wireless communication, including „y
signal strength, reliability of coverage, and the types of amplification systems that are permitted
to meet established levels of performance. These statutes also specify the frequencies on which
the in-building public safety communications systems operate. Statutes in the cities of Burbank,
Roseville, Sacramento, Scottsdale, and in Sacramento County, as well as the rule found in
Boston, all follow this pattern. The draft ordinances in the cities of Sacramento and Grapevine
are also modeled on this specific regulatory regime. Ordinances in these jurisdictions typically up
contain seven similar areas—
• Types of systems requiring in-building enhancement—specifies the types of
systems used by public safety agencies within the jurisdiction
• Signal strength—details the required signal strength in either dBm or milliwatts of
power
• Coverage and reliability—highlights the percentage of a building or floor that a
radio signal must reach and the percentage of time this should occur
• Technical solutions—details the type of systems that can be installed inside
buildings in order to enhance coverage
• Testing procedures—details who performs testing and how often it should occur
aft
• Enforcement—specifies penalties for non-compliance with the ordinances, which
can range from non-issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to levying of fines and
providing for additional remedies for noncompliance
• Exemptions—details requirements for buildings that are not required to comply or
meet the standards set forth in the ordinance. j
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-6 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
err , NNW'
The other type of in-building communications statute is more general, mandating only
that structures and facilities must comply with the locality's in-building wireless ordinance, but
not specifying much more. The Broward County ordinance and the second of the City of
Ontario's two in-building communications ordinances require that area buildings comply with
public safety mandates, but do not specify acceptable performance standards. The proposed
O. Montgomery County ordinance is in this vein; however, it is even simpler and more general than
the other ordinances that have been enacted.
... A.4.3 In-Building Communications Ordinances Codified Within Fire Codes
Three of the regulations that the research team studied for this report, including the
ordinance passed in Roseville, the in-building ordinance for Sacramento County, and the City of
Boston's in-building radio specification, all codify public safety communications requirements in
the state or local fire code. The proposed ordinances for the City of Sacramento and
Montgomery County would also be codified in that jurisdiction's fire code, if approved.
MIN
Boston's rule requires that builders and developers must use either a hard-wire telephone
system for all high-rise structures,or apply for a waiver to use a wireless system that
incorporates the Fire Department's ultra high frequency(UHF) wireless system to guarantee in-
building coverage. It is not clear whether jurisdictions other than Boston have similar
prerogatives to implement standards; however, if an independent agency has the requisite
... authority to establish such a requirement without some legislative approval, other jurisdictions
should be advised to consider this expedited method when contemplating in-building
communications ordinances in the future. The Boston Fire Department's in-building radio
specification rule also contains administrative procedures that detail the forms to be used,
including a letter of notification of acceptance to the property owner. That regulation also
instructs the owner regarding the kind of cabinet in which equipment is to be kept, and the type
of power supply and circuit that is required for each amplifier that is deployed. Another
variation of Boston's rule requires an audible failure alarm to sound when the building's primary
system power is rendered inoperable.
The City of Sacramento's draft ordinance is also proposed as a provision for the city's
fire code. Communications officials with the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire Department
interviewed by the research team felt that in-building communications ordinances should be
codified in the fire code, and that centralizing the regulations that applied to construction
standards put the developers on notice regarding the requirements that the city expected them to
meet. In contrast,under the Sacramento County ordinance,the Sacramento Fire Department
die
provides builders and developers with worksheets and"walks them through"the regulatory
approval process because it is common for confusion to occur with respect to the standards that
exist and which agencies must be notified to get permits and approval of work.
Montgomery County's proposed ordinance would also amend the Fire Code for the State
of Maryland. Montgomery County's in-building ordinance initiative seems to take a hybrid
ale approach to mandating coverage for public safety communications. It combines aspects of
Boston's fire alarm order and Broward County's ordinance, and would amend the State of
Maryland Fire Code by adopting a broad resolution that requires compliance without imposing
•• specific levels of coverage. The proposed amendment is the most general of the ordinances that
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-7 November 2002
"' Benefits to Interoperability Report
a,c
a
the research team examined, stating merely that, "if[a]ny new structure that adversely affects the
Montgomery County Emergency communications system within the structure or in the
surrounding area [the owner] must provide approved equipment to maintain the minimum level a
of service." Whether this measure can pass is debatable because such expansive language,
without any specific and cognizable standards to measure performance, would arguably be open
to arbitrary interpretation and subjective enforcement.
A.4.4 In-Building Communications Ordinances Codified Within Building and Electrical
Codes and Other Statutes si
Two of the enacted in-building communications ordinances the research team evaluated
are codified in the building code of the City of Burbank, and in an amendment to the City of
Scottsdale's Building Electrical Code. This approach creates a clear duty that it is incumbent on
all developers to adhere to these requirements as part of the construction standards that are
required for those new buildings not subject to an exemption in those regions.
Some of the ordinances that the research team examined in this study were found in
different areas of those jurisdictions' laws. In Broward County, the signal obstruction ordinance
is located under"Miscellaneous Offenses and Provisions," in the category of
"Telecommunications." One of the ordinances enacted in the City of Ontario; which mandates
radio signal strength,testing reliability, types of amplification systems used, and other aspects of
in-building communications systems; amends the city's Municipal Code. The other Ontario
ordinance creates an effective ban on any wireless systems that cause interference to public
safety radio reception.
at
A.4.5 In-Tunnel Communications Regulations
Research did not lead to any proposed or enacted ordinances or laws that govern in-
tunnel public safety wireless communications. Several possible reasons may explain the dearth
of information, and action, with respect to ensuring that viable communications exist within
tunnels and other underground areas. One reason is that most of these areas are usually partially
or wholly owned and operated by the municipality. For example, the provision of mass transit
services in various urban areas is provided jointly by the city and a contractor, such as the Bay
Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco, California, or by a separate government entity, as is the
case with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in Washington, DC. The only
underground activity that can take place on public property must be authorized by that
jurisdiction and performed with that area government's knowledge and acquiescence. There is a
no apparent need for a city, county, or other municipality to make binding requirements that its
own in-tunnel communications operate effectively because the personnel of that government
would be the users conducting permitted operations in that area. However, even in cases where
the tunnels are publicly owned or operated,ordinances may be used to set wireless
communications standards and guidelines. The in-building ordinances identified in this report
could provide a model for such in-tunnel ordinances. , r
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-8 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
.. r.r
A.5 Technical Requirements of In-Building Communications Ordinances
The research team examined ordinances that include a number of common characteristics
and provide standards that building owners must evaluate and achieve to ensure effective
wireless public safety communications. Some of these indices are summarized in Table A-2.
Appendix B, Technology Issues, provides a detailed description of these characteristics and the
relationship to in-building wireless coverage.
Table A-2
Summary of System Type, Signal Strength, and Reliability
`= Jurisdiction Type of System Signal Reliability Comments
. Strength (/o)
• Boston, MA 480 MHz -95 dBm 95 Local rule passed by
ALCM Boston Fire Department
that is not an ordinance
au Broward, FL 800 MHz N/A N/A Ordinance that only
applies to amplification
requirements
Burbank, CA 470 MHz -107 dBm 90 First documented in-
ii. building communication
', ordinance in the United
States
Folsom, CA 800 MHz -95 dBm 100
(Sacramento ---
County)
Ontario, CA 800 MHz -107 dBm 90 This city has both a
�• - general ordinance and a
non-interference
ordinance
Roseville, CA 800 MHz -95 dBm 100 ---
Scottsdale,AZ Police-800 MHz -107 dBm 90 Fire department system
,0,411
Fire-150 MHz is the only very high
frequency(VHF)system
in that area of the state;
all surrounding areas are
4,4441
on 800 MHz band
"" Fairfax County, 800 MHz N/A N/A County Police
VA Department preparing
strategy for submitting to
State Assembly for
approval
Grapevine, TX 800 MHz -107 dBm 95 Also allows for field
• r,• :' testingon noticeAb
�•• % • Montgomery 800 MHz N/A N/A Ordinance is being
County, MD submitted as an
el'A " amendment to the MD
n: ..:, State Fire Code
"` ,, City of 800 MHz -95 dBm 90 ---
re Sacramento, CA
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-9 November 2002
— Benefits to Interoperability Report
a.
Types of Systems Requiring In-Building Enhancements. Each ordinance specifies the kind of
communications system used by the public safety agency or agencies within that jurisdiction. am:
The ordinances specifically delineate the channels authorized for use by the relevant agencies
that operate those wireless systems. Typically, fire departments and local law enforcement are
involved in the use and access of these facilities. Some jurisdictions, such as Roseville, also
allow their wireless communications systems to be used by transportation,public works, and es
other local officials.
Although the majority of the ordinances the research team evaluated for this report a
govern the operation of 800 MHz wireless communications, several jurisdictions still actively
using VHF and UHF communications systems were also studied and have ordinances that
protect operation of those systems. Many jurisdictions with 800 MHz systems also continue to
use VHF and UHF equipment for communicating with neighboring jurisdictions, or as a
redundant system in case primary communications are rendered inoperable, as mentioned above.
Still other jurisdictions have no immediate plans to transition from VHF or UHF systems to an
800 MHz network.
Signal Strength. Signal strength is measured in terms of dBm, defined as decibels referenced to
one milliwatt of power. A common minimal signal strength standard in the ordinances is—
107 dBm. Three of the jurisdictions studied in this analysis(i.e., Scottsdale,Burbank, and
Ontario) use that figure as a baseline measurement for in-building signal strength. Three other
areas (i.e., Sacramento County, Roseville, and Boston)use a substantially higher standard of-
95 dBm for defining compliance with their respective laws. In its draft ordinance, Grapevine
would set the minimum signal at the less stringent level of—107dBm. The City of Sacramento
would set the level for signal strength at—95 dBm.
The proposed legislation in Montgomery County does not mention signal strength as a
factor in regulating the quality of in-building communications. The white paper report prepared
by Fairfax County does not specify signal strength nor does Broward County's ordinance, which
requires that a builder provide an easement for a signal booster for buildings taller than 50 feet, if
the Broward County Telecommunications Group determines that the prospective construction i
project will"interfere"with public safety communications. This more general approach is also
used in the City of Ontario Municipal Code, in Section 9-1.3289,which prohibits interference
from existing or future wireless systems to any of the jurisdiction's public safety wireless radio r
systems. However, as noted above, a second ordinance in that jurisdiction addresses signal
strength and other more precise requirements.
N
Coverage Reliability. Coverage reliability has two components. The first component mandates
that a certain percentage of a building, or each floor of a building, must be reached by a radio
signal from the public safety wireless system a certain percentage of the time. Seven of the
11 jurisdictions studied provide a baseline figure for this measurement, ranging from a minimum
of 85 percent coverage in the cities of Burbank and Ontario to a maximum level of 95 percent
coverage in Grapevine's draft ordinance. Some jurisdictions have ordinances that also require
that a corresponding signal transmitted from the building being evaluated must be received at a
central communications office, or at the nearest communications office, of that jurisdiction.
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-10 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report 1�1
N
All of the communications ordinances studied require another indicator of wireless
communications system reliability, based on an overall percentage of the time that the signal
could be successfully accessed in the building. Reliability indices required under ordinances
again range from a low of 90 percent in Scottsdale to a 100 percent achievement level mandated
by the City of Roseville and County of Sacramento in their respective ordinances.
Backup Power Supply. Backup generators are required in eight of the jurisdictions surveyed,
with a minimum requirement of 12 hours of battery-powered continuous operation without
external power input required in six of the jurisdictions researched for this study. The City of
Grapevine only requires the battery to run for 8 consecutive hours. In addition, all seven of those
jurisdictions further require that"the battery system shall automatically charge in the presence of
an external power input."
A.6 Technical Solutions
"` Different jurisdictions have offered different solutions for eliminating interference that
impacts their public safety communications systems when used indoors. No ordinance mandates
use of a single technology, but rather allows builders to select from several prescribed means to
meet coverage requirements devised by each jurisdiction.
A.6.1 Amplification Systems
As summarized in Table A-3,most of the ordinances surveyed also deal with the subject
of the amplification systems that are allowed in order to meet required signal levels and other
measures of reliability. All of the California jurisdictions studied, including the proposed
'! ordinance for the City of Sacramento,the proposed ordinance for Grapevine, the Boston Fire
Alarm Order, and the Scottsdale, Arizona, ordinance each specifically discuss the amplification
systems permitted for in-building communications in those jurisdictions.
Bi-directional amplifiers (BDA) are usually the recommended method for meeting the
threshold for signal strength required in these ordinances. In many instances, radiating coaxial
cable ("leaky"coax) and antenna systems are both permissible solutions. While none of the
ordinances that have been codified or proposed by any jurisdiction mandates the use of BDAs, in
two jurisdictions, Boston and Ontario, the ordinances require the use of BDAs if internal antenna
systems are the chosen method to improve signal strength to meet in-building requirements.
Personnel in one jurisdiction noted that"leaky coax and antenna systems do not provide
coverage in high rise structures,"and those buildings presented the most persistent challenge for
•• coverage in the jurisdiction. Furthermore, builders and developers also are required to use BDAs
to ensure reception in high rises. Officials contacted in the cities of Ontario and Boston also
confirmed that high-rise buildings are a primary concern for public safety wireless
.,. communications coverage.
A.6.2 Radiating Coaxial Cable
Eight of the 11 jurisdictions studied allow use of radiating coaxial cable, or"leaky"coax
to meet signal coverage requirements under proposed or actual in-building communication
ordinances.
Nip
Ordinances and Their A-1 1 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
amp
m
'III"' 'vim iii
Table A-3
Summary of Technical Solutions
`' Amplification Radiating Coax Antenna Bi-Directional
Jurisdiction Allowed Cable System Amplifier el
Boston, MA WIIIIIMust have if using
��sA
�- BDA Re•uired antenna
Broward Count , FL N/A No
Burbank, CA WA
ee,fi ��� With or without BDA
Folsom, CA With or without BDA
�"; (SacramentoMI
. Count AI
Ontario, CA Must have if using
BDA re•uired antenna
Roseville, CA 1.1111=1= 111.St_III With or without BDA
Scottsdale,AZ M1111111111111.11.1 800 MHz or 150 MHzAi
.; F:; am•lifier, as needed
fix'* f, i4m..75 '. mi. :,,, S , 1 y'^ .:
Gra•evine,TX �� With or without BDA ei
Fairfax Count ,VA N/A N/A N/A N/A
t Montgomery County, N/A States only that the
' MD owner or developer must
e "provide approved ii
,-'°Y equipment"to meet
standards for rece•tion
Sacramento, CA 11111=111=11111MUMMIIIMENIM With or without BDA
iri l
A.6.3 Internal Multiple Antenna Systems
Many jurisdictions also authorize the use of internal multiple-antenna systems in order to i
reach adequate levels of signal strength to meet reception requirements for in-building public
safety communications. In 8 of the 11 jurisdictions the research team analyzed, ordinances
specifically permit the use of internal antennas to improve the signal quality of wireless public ori
safety radio communication systems. Although none of the ordinances that have been codified
or proposed by any jurisdiction mandates the use of BDAs, in two jurisdictions, Boston and
Ontario,the ordinances require use of BDAs if internal antenna systems are the chosen method
to improve signal strength to meet in-building requirements. "�
A.7 Buildings Covered by In-Building Communications Ordinances al
As a rule, in-building communications ordinances may not be applied to buildings
retroactively. Therefore,these ordinances impact only those buildings constructed after the law
becomes effective, and in some jurisdictions, are also relevant in cases in which an existing qui
structure undergoes any modification that increases its size by a certain percentage,typically
20 percent, of its square footage area. This can create an issue regarding the treatment of ,
buildings that were built prior to the passage of the ordinance. It is important to note that many eia
older structures do not present as many hurdles for wireless communication coverage as new
buildings. Modern materials, such as reflective window glass, or steel-reinforced concrete used
in the construction of high-rise buildings, cause attenuation of radio signals, presenting added
challenges to providing a universal wireless solution for a community.
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-12 November 2002 Ili
Benefits to Interoperability Report
NI
Because of cost, coverage, and other factors that impact the provision of wireless public
"" safety communications systems, some jurisdictions must necessarily prioritize targeted buildings
and services that are the primary focus of these resources. Hospitals, or areas within hospitals,
such as emergency rooms,present a particular challenge. Shopping malls; schools; and local,
' state, and federal government buildings; as well as significant utilities and critical infrastructure,
such as electric power plants, reservoirs, and water treatment facilities; are also considered as
primary recipients of guaranteed in-building wireless coverage. For example, in Montgomery
*if County, it was originally planned that the in-building coverage requirements would be extended
to more than 90 buildings in the region. By removing local firehouses from the required
standards, this figure was scaled back to provide coverage for Montgomery County hospital
+.. emergency rooms; government offices;the Washington Suburban Sanitary System, a local water
treatment center; schools; police stations; and shopping malls. If that county's ordinance were
eventually adopted,these buildings would be the focal points in ensuring that coverage standards
.,, are met.
A.7.1 Testing of In-Building Communications Systems
Many ordinances also regulate the frequency and responsibility for system maintenance
and testing. Testing is performed initially upon completion of installation of a system. In five of
the communities studied, the first systems check and certification of in-building wireless
communications capabilities is performed by employees of that municipality, or with those
employees present. Three others require the owner to certify that the levels for coverage are
attained. It is interesting to note that in all of those jurisdictions (Sacramento County and
Roseville, as well as in the draft ordinance for the City of Sacramento),the statutes provide for
entry to perform field-testing by local police and fire department personnel. Testing
requirements are summarized in Table A-4.
After initial testing,the subsequent annual review usually specified within the ordinances
is undertaken by the municipality's users (for example, the local fire departments in 7 of the
11 jurisdictions examined in this investigation). Annual tests are commonly required after the
system is certified for operation by the jurisdiction's chosen authority. This is the case in six of
the seven jurisdictions that have passed in-building ordinances (all areas except Broward
County). In addition, the draft ordinance for the City of Sacramento also provides for annual
testing.
In addition to annual tests, 5-year tests are required in three jurisdictions' ordinances.
Five-year testing is mandated in the ordinances passed in Roseville and Folsom(Sacramento
County), and in the Boston in-building radio specification. It is also mentioned in the draft
regulation under consideration in the City of Sacramento.
IMP
Several jurisdictions specify that in-building communications system testing may be
performed by APCO, National Association of Business and Educational Radio (NABER), or
Personal Communications Industry Association(PCIA) certified technicians. This provision is
specifically included in the ordinances passed in Roseville and Folsom(Sacramento County) and
is mentioned in the draft regulation under consideration in the City of Sacramento. Boston's in-
building rule requires that technicians are certified FCC General Radiotelephone license holders.
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-13 November 2002
IMP
Benefits to Interoperability Report
, gi
f
Table A-4
la
Summary of Testing Requirements
Jurisdiction Certification Annual Five-Year Field Qualifica- Owner
Testing Testing Testing Testing tions Liability iiii
Boston,MA YES—test overseen YES—Owner YES—Owner NO YES—FCC YES
by Boston Fire General
Department Radio Radio-
Shop telephone wii
license
Broward County, NO NO NO NO NO NO
FL
Burbank,CA YES—City of YES—Burbank NO NO NO NO 1Y11
Burbank Fire Depart-
employees ment
Folsom,CA YES—Owner YES—Owner YES—Owner YES—Local YES— YES
(Sacramento Police&Fire APCO/PCIA lei
County) Departments certified
Ontario,CA YES—City of YES—Ontario NO YES—Ontario NO NO
Ontario Fire Depart- Police&Fire
employees ment Departments rid
Roseville,CA YES—Owner YES—Owner YES—Owner YES—Ontario YES— YES
Police&Fire APCO/
Departments NABER
certified i
Scottsdale,AZ YES—Installer with YES— NO NO NO NO
agent of City of Scottsdale
Scottsdale Police&Fire
Departments r
Grapevine,TX YES—City of YES- NO YES- NO NO
Grapevine Grapevine Fire Grapevine
employees Department Police&Fire
Departments j
Fairfax County, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
VA
Montgomery N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
County,MD irr
ii
Sacramento,CA YES—Owner YES—Owner YES—Owner YES— YES— YES
Sacramento APCO/
Police&Fire NABER
Departments certified rrr
iii
Although only specifically discussed in three jurisdictions' ordinances(Roseville,
Sacramento County, and Boston), and one draft ordinance (the City of Sacramento),the
Si
responsibility for meeting the requisite standards in all cases implicitly falls on the building
owner. In one particular jurisdiction, a participant in the survey confided that the annual testing
specified in the ordinance was not performed because of a shortage of personnel and funding for
verifying compliance. In another jurisdiction, a recently hired communications officer stated that `
the majority of his responsibilities were to test local buildings for compliance with the area's in-
building coverage ordinance.
0
The cities of Ontario and Burbank, two of the jurisdictions surveyed that have passed in-
building communications ordinances, also allow for spot field-testing by police or fire
department personnel. The Ontario statute specifies that testing can be performed even if el
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-14 November 2002 Ili
Benefits to Interoperability Report
NNW ‘wie
AIM
consent is withheld "after obtaining lawful authority" for entry onto the premises (e.g., a
warrant). The ordinance in Sacramento County permits field-testing on"reasonable"notice to
"" the owner, as is the case in the Burbank ordinance. The draft ordinance proposed in Grapevine
also allows field-testing by police or fire department personnel on that basis.
A.8 Enforcement of In-Building Communications Ordinances
Although the ordinances serve as an initial restriction on applications that would interfere
with wireless public safety communications operations, provisions also must be made for regular
evaluation of systems to determine whether conditions remain acceptable for indoor wireless
communications coverage after a building is completed. Most of the jurisdictions studied in this
report have required testing to be performed after the initial acceptance permit is granted. Some
'" jurisdictions specify annual testing, while others may have additional requirements for a 5-year
test. Three jurisdictions allow unscheduled field-testing by local police or fire personnel.
Not all buildings are necessarily required to comply with in-building communications
ordinances. Residences and other structures may be exempt, depending on the type of building
and how it is described in each jurisdiction. For buildings that are subject to these ordinances,
some jurisdictions also include a review process in the relevant statute and empower authorized
individuals to review and approve testing procedures. Broward County's ordinance recommends
(but does not require) that any person planning to construct a building within that jurisdiction
that exceeds 50 feet in height should seek review by the Broward County Telecommunications
Group to ensure compliance with its ordinance. Some of these ordinances include provisions
that describe specific penalties that apply when buildings do not pass scrutiny. The penalties
... vary with jurisdiction.
A.8.1 Penalties
Five of the jurisdictions studied also incorporate penalties in the ordinances to deter
owners and occupants from failing to meet in-building wireless communication requirements.
One of the proposed ordinances, the draft in-building communications ordinance for Grapevine,
also includes a provision penalizing noncompliance.
One remedy for non-compliance with these measures is loss of occupancy certification,
which would withhold the building or fire code inspector's permission to allow any habitation
until the building passes inspection. This method of enforcement is used in the Burbank and
Ontario jurisdictions, as well as in the cities of Scottsdale and Boston. Other sanctions include
... fines, and even a criminal misdemeanor conviction, carrying the possibility of imprisonment for
up to 6 months for violators of Scottsdale's in-building communications ordinance. That
ordinance also specifically authorizes the city to "institute any appropriate action or proceedings
to restrain, correct,or abate any violation of this code."
The Scottsdale, Arizona, ordinance also provides for a fine of up to $1,000 for violation
��, of the public safety radio amplification ordinance. The proposed Grapevine ordinance would
carry a fine of up to $2,000 per day for violation of that city's regulations. In Broward County,
unique enforcement provisions of its signal booster ordinance allow the Board of County
Commissioners to enjoin construction projects that fail to comply with the code as "a nuisance
because it threatens the health, safety, and welfare of residents and visitors." That ordinance,
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-15 November 2002
""� Benefits to Interoperability Report
40r11.11\
*le IWO
II
like the Scottsdale ordinance, also authorizes the pursuit of other unspecified legal remedies by
appropriate agencies. The Roseville ordinance does not specify any penalties for non-
compliance; however, the city uses `umbrella"clause provisions detailing penalties that are
applied from other sections of city's code. The Ontario ordinance prohibiting interference also
treats violations as a"public nuisance per se," and requires suspension of any wireless operations
by any facilities that are found to create interference with local public safety systems. A
summary of the penalties set forth in the ordinances is detailed in Table A-5.
Table A-5
Summary of Penalties
Jurisdiction Penalties
Boston, MA YES—Loss of Occu•anc Permit
Broward, FL YES—In'unction; Other remedies
Burbank, CA YES—Failure to meet standard for
signal strength causes city to
withhold certificate of occupancy
•ermit
Folsom, CA NO
(Sacramento
Count
Ontario, CA YES—Can shut down
communications operations, loss of
occu•anc •ermit
Roseville,CA NO—Use penalties from other
section of fire code
Scottsdale,AZ YES—$1,000 fine, 6 months jail,
loss of occu•anc •ermit
Fairfax County,VA N/A
Grapevine, TX YES—$2,000 fine per day
Montgomery County, NO
M111.
D
s z City of Sacramento, NO
CA
A.8.2 Exemptions From the Law
Some of the ordinances that have been enacted also limit the kinds of structures to which
their requirements apply. Many jurisdictions do not require coverage in residential areas or for
buildings constructed with wooden frames. Other jurisdictions limit application of in-building
communications ordinances to structures above a certain height(30-35 feet) or with an area of a
certain square footage(5,000 square feet or more). Also, new additions to buildings that would
otherwise be covered within the terms of these ordinances are not required to comply with in-
building communications standards if the improvements do not increase the total area of the
structure by 20 percent or more. These different provisions vary with the jurisdiction, and may
be accounted for by variations in topography, coverage area, degree of urban development, and
the types of systems (whether VHF, UHF, or 800 MHz) that are being used.
a
In-Building Ordinances and Their A-16 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
S
ar
oar
Vag
APPENDIX B—TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
a
w
a
a
�.a
a
a
ar■
on
sil
APPENDIX B—TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
a
The Public Safety In-Building Ordinances and Their Benefits to Interoperability Report
assesses the ability of laws, regulations, and ordinances to effect the development of in-building
wireless systems that mitigate or resolve the problem of public safety in-building wireless access. aii
An important component of this study is to assess the difficulties and problems related to in-
building wireless communications and the available methods and applications for solving those
problems. The ordinances identified by this study do not necessarily require a particular solution rr
for compliance. However, each ordinance does require some level of support for in-building
communications if the building hinders access to the public safety wireless system. To help the
reader understand and evaluate the actions specified in the identified ordinances, this appendix
presents a basic description of the overall problems related to wireless communications inside
buildings and the specific solutions or equipment available through the marketplace to resolve
those problems. If greater technical detail on the subject is desired, a more detailed description
of the issues can be found in the In-Building/In-Tunnel User Considerations report available
through the Public Safety Wireless Network(PSWN) Program.
B.1 Approach
The approach for developing this report was to identify those topics specifically related to
in-building ordinances and to develop documentation that would provide the reader with the so
necessary background for understanding the technical issues involved.
B.1.1 Technical Review go
To develop this part of the study, the PSWN Program research team reviewed a variety of
academic, technical, and trade publications to ensure that the scope of the in-building problem
was evaluated and documented. The research team conducted interviews with several technical,
operational, and industry experts to ensure that the key points were identified and explained. As
mentioned previously, the PSWN Program has performed related studies, and this information is
consistent with those findings.
B.1.2 Market Survey
an
To provide a comprehensive view of the types of equipment and hardware available for
resolving in-building wireless problems, the research team interviewed several manufacturing
and installation representatives. Most of these interviews focused on discussing the products
currently available in the marketplace. sot
B.2 Public Safety Wireless Networks Overview
To properly explain the problems associated with in-building communications, it is
necessary to first explain the key aspects of wireless networking. The basic parts of a typical
public safety wireless network include network infrastructure(i.e., towers, antennas, repeaters,
landlines, microwave links, and base stations) and subscriber units (i.e.,portable and mobile
radios). In general, communication via a wireless network is usually accomplished by using the
network infrastructure to distribute messages from subscriber units dispersed over a large area.
For users within the network coverage area, when a user transmits a message from a subscriber
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-1 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
unit, the message is received and then retransmitted(or broadcast) by the network infrastructure.
Because of the network retransmission, the message can be received by a larger number of
subscriber units than would otherwise be possible. This is because many subscriber units within
the coverage area of the network infrastructure may not have been within range of each other.
Wireless networks use a wide variety of protocols, modulation schemes, and configurations to
accomplish this task. The common characteristic of all these methods is the radio frequency
(RF) signal. The RF signal carries the message from the subscriber unit that must be received by
the network infrastructure for successful communication to occur, and vice versa.
In addition to using the network infrastructure to link subscriber units,public safety users
also communicate directly from subscriber unit to subscriber unit. In that case, the subscriber
�.. units transmit directly to each other without the use of a network infrastructure. This method is
sometimes referred to as"talk around,""simplex,"or"single channel"communications.
Although this is an effective and necessary method of conducting wireless communications in
the public safety environment, it is not the focus of this report. Subscriber unit to subscriber unit
communications encounter in-building communications problems similar to those encountered
when the network infrastructure is used. However, the ordinances that the research team
identified in this study focus on the problems associated with communications via network
infrastructure.
The network infrastructure includes any number of radio sites depending on the size of
the area to be covered. A site can act as either a base station or a repeater and can link any
subscriber units as long as they are in the coverage area of the radio network. Figure B-1 depicts
the operation of a single-site conventional repeater system. It operates using two channels, one
for subscriber unit "talk-back"transmissions and one for repeater"talk-out"transmissions.
F I(Talk-back) F2(Talk-out)
moo
? i
•
Base Station/ .401
�
Mobile
Portable Repeater Sit Radio User
Radio User
� € d
Figure B-1
Single-Site System Configuration2
To establish communications with the system infrastructure, the user depresses the push-
`` to-talk button on his or her radio and"talks back"to the radio site. The radio site or a repeater
receives the signal and rebroadcasts the signal or"talks out"to other field users. Talk back
2 The PSWN Program. http://www.pswn.gov/library/docs/cvtcomp repfinl.doc.
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-2 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
mar
IN of '460
w
refers to the ability of field users using portable or mobile radios to talk back to the network
infrastructure. Talk-out refers to repeater signals that can be received in the field by subscriber
units. Often,talk-out signals have greater range because the fixed infrastructure equipment is not
limited in size and thus is capable of operating at a much higher transmit power. The subscriber
unit is much more limited in its ability to operate with high power because it is a mobile device
that is limited in size, necessitating smaller batteries. Portable subscriber units are further limited
because they are carried around by users and located very close to the body of the user when
communicating to the infrastructure. For safety reasons, the operational power must be kept
within a limited range. Typically, a base station can operate at several hundred watts of power wit
while a portable transmitter is limited to 3-5 watts of power. The result of this power imbalance
is that a user in the field could be in an area with talk-out coverage,but no talk-back coverage.
In this case, the user would be able to hear the dispatcher(or some other message sent by the
network infrastructure) but the dispatcher would be unable to hear the user.
This imbalance is of critical concern for wireless coverage within a building. Frequently, orb
the signal strength is strong enough to penetrate a building from the repeater but the subscriber
unit does not have enough power to communicate back. To provide proper coverage within a
building, the coverage required from the subscriber unit back, or the talk back, is generally the
problem that must be resolved. One way that network planners work around this problem is to
deploy receive-only radio stations throughout a market. In this case, the lower power subscriber
unit can transmit to a much closer receive-only station, which mitigates the lack of high power
with less loss of signal through the air over a shorter distance.
RF or electromagnetic radiation signals are used to create links between subscriber units
and the network infrastructure radio sites. As the radio signal travels between a tower and a
subscriber unit, it loses strength as the signal is attenuated by the atmosphere. Attenuation of an
RF signal is analogous to friction that occurs as an object moves over the ground. Attenuation of
ai
a signal is caused by many factors and is different for different parts of the radio spectrum. In
general, attenuation occurs due to the following factors:
• Reflection—occurs when RF energy reflects off another medium. The medium could
be something soft like two layers of the atmosphere with different densities, or
something hard such as a building made of concrete. Sometimes RF energy reflects
off an object in many different directions. This special case of reflection is called
scattering.
• Refraction—happens when RF energy hits another object that could be another layer aii
of the atmosphere or a building as discussed above, but rather than the signal
reflecting off of the object, some of the energy penetrates the object at a lower power
level and generally changes direction.
• Absorption—is the phenomenon of RF energy actually being absorbed by an object
or medium in its path. rr
• Diffraction—can occur when an RF signal encounters a hard object such as a
building. Some of the energy of the signal will hit the building and essentially bend
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-3 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
a
around it. When this occurs it is called diffraction. Diffraction can mitigate the effect
of absorption, reflection, and refraction in some cases for some locations by bending
the beam to the user.
Each of the above factors have many different aspects associated with them depending on
the frequency, the path of the RF energy, and the objects that the RF signal encounters along its
path. In reference to in-building wireless communications, these factors are primarily important
because they tend to reduce the power level of RF signals as they pass through building
+•• materials. The strength or power level of RF signals is typically measured in decibels. A decibel
(dB) "is primarily used as a measure of the (power) gain and(insertion) loss of RF
components."3 It is a logarithmic measure that allows losses and gains to be added to each other
�., as opposed to the more tedious methods required when working with watts. It should be noted
that when working with RF systems,because very large and small numbers are used, use of
decibel units tends to simplify calculations that would otherwise be unnecessarily complex. As
�., an example of how decibels can be used to represent losses and gains in the RF environment, an
increase in the power level of a signal from 10 watts to 20 watts(or doubling) could be said to
have increased by 3 dB. For practical use, engineers use the unit of dBm to express power levels
in the RF environment. The ordinances identified in this report also use dBm to describe the
required minimal signal strength. The use of dBm is an extension of dB, but is normalized to
one milliwatt. Table B-1 illustrates common power levels of interest and those referenced in the
ordinances. For example,—107 dBm and—95 dBm are the receiver sensitivity power levels of
some radios and the minimal standards listed in the ordinances. Five watts is the transmit power
of a typical portable radio.
Table B-1
Power Levels in Equivalent Watts and dBm
�. Power in dBm Power in Watts
-107 dBm 2 x 10-11 mW
-95 dBm 3.16 x 10-10 mW
-10 dBm 0.1 mW
0 dBm 1 mW(0.001 watts)
a 30 dBm 1 watt
37 dBm 5 watts
.., 50 dBm 100 watts
The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is "the ratio of the amplitude of the desired signal to the
amplitude of noise signals at a given point" and is usually expressed in dB.4 For a radio to
properly receive a RF signal and interpret the intended message, a minimum SNR must be met.
Because a radio signal must pass through the atmosphere and, in some cases, solid objects such
as buildings, a radio network is designed such that there is "extra" signal or margin to account
for the effects of attenuation. Many forms of attenuation can be predicted, such as the loss of RF
3 Weisman,Carl J. The Essential Guide to RE and Wireless,Prentice-Hall,Inc.,2000,p. 198.
4 Institute for Telecommunications Sciences. http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-033/ 4849.htin.
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-4 November 2002
a"' Benefits to Interoperability Report
w
1
energy through the atmosphere, but other forms of attenuation are far more unpredictable, such
as attenuation through buildings. When designing the coverage of a network, a specified extra
margin is engineered into the network depending on how much coverage is desired and how
much extra allowance there will be to accommodate the attenuation that occurs when radio
signals penetrate buildings.
r>
B.3 In-Building Coverage Overview
Public safety personnel often attempt to communicate via their portable subscriber units
inside buildings. These communications, like any others using the network infrastructure, can
only be successful if the radio signals from the portable radio can be received by at least one
radio site and vice versa. In addition,the radio signals must be received at a high enough power
level to meet the minimum SNR so that the message can be understood or decoded. The
minimum power level required in the ordinances is either—95 or—107 dBm. Wireless
communications inside buildings are affected by several primary factors,which are discussed in
more detail in the following sections— m
• Distance of the building from the nearest radio site
• Orientation of the user in the building in relation to the nearest radio site
• Spectrum band used by the network
• Type and density of the material used to construct the building.
es
B.3.1 Distance of the Building From the Nearest Radio Site
As the signal travels between the radio site and subscriber unit, it is attenuated. RF
signals lose energy simply penetrating the atmosphere because some of the signal is reflected,
refracted, and absorbed by molecules in the air. Other factors can cause additional attenuation,
such as raindrops, clouds, ground vegetation, hills, and manmade objects like buildings.
Additionally, as the signal travels from the transmitter, it spreads over an increasing area and is 10
dispersed. This dispersion reduces the strength of the signal available at any specific location.
The loss of signal over free space is equivalent to 6 dB each time the distance traveled doubles.
That means that a user who is 12 miles away from a radio transmitter will receive a signal 12 dB rrr�
weaker than a user who is only 3 miles away. Clearly, distance is a major factor in the strength
of a RF signal. In terms of in-building coverage, this means that a user who is in a building
3 miles away has 12 dB more signal to penetrate the walls than does a user who is in a building
12 miles away. It is important to note that the 12 dB stronger signal of the closer site is
equivalent to four times the power received from the site further away. As illustrated in
Figure B-2, the signal strength available decreases dramatically as the distance from the art
transmitter grows. A building located closer to the radio site will have fewer problems with in-
building coverage.
Nii
Sri
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-5 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
Dade
f U 1 5 30
Miles
IOW tY`
/ 1 Signed Strength(tin)
-7S to 0
111 -96 to -76
eke U -85 tit -85
-105 t0 -95
.. -116 to-1os
Figure B-2
RF Coverage Plot for a Typical 800 Megahertz System
B.3.2 Orientation of the User in the Building in Relation to the Nearest Radio Site
The user's location within a building also has a very strong impact on the amount of
additional attenuation that will occur. If, for example, a user is located toward the top of a
building, there is a much greater likelihood that that the signal will not be blocked by other
buildings in the local area or other hard sources of blockage such as hills and vegetation. On the
other hand, if a user is located on the ground floor of a building in an urban location, the RF
signal may need to "pass though"several buildings, mountains, or trees even before it gets to the
building in which the user is located. An even more extreme case occurs when the user is
.�. located in an underground parking garage or a below grade floor. Additional attenuation occurs
in penetrating several floors of the building and perhaps even part of the Earth itself.
B.3.3 Spectrum Band Used by the Network
As the radio signal travels through the air, it is reflected,refracted, diffracted, and/or
absorbed as indicated earlier in this document. The frequency of the signal that is being
ONO transmitted also has a significant impact on effects of the various forms of attenuation. What is
most relevant about frequency is the wavelength. As frequency increases, wavelength decreases
proportionally. As an example,the wavelength of a 30 megahertz (MHz) signal is 10 meters.
On the other hand, an 800 MHz signal has a wavelength of only 37.5 centimeters (cm). Table B-
2 lists the wavelength of the RF spectrum bands of interest in this study.
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-6 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
Table B-2
1111
Wavelengths for RF Spectrum Bands of Interest
Description Frequency Range Wavelength Attenuation Impact
eta
Ultra High Frequency 300 MHz-3 GHz 1 m-10 cm
Very High Frequency 30-300 MHz 10-1 m
�r►
High Frequency 3-30 MHz 100-10 m
ail
Specifically, very high frequency(VHF) signals have a much longer wavelength than
those in the ultra high frequency(UHF) band. The impact of this difference is that when a large
wavelength signal encounters an object like a building wall, it is large enough that the wall is
proportionally small and the building is opaque to the signal, and thus most of it passes through.
A high UHF frequency with the small wavelength of 30 cm sees a building wall as a
proportionally large obstruction and thus it is attenuated to a greater degree. Generally speaking, as
the higher the frequency, the smaller the wavelength, and the more attenuation a signal suffers
when penetrating proportionally large objects.
Please note, for the purpose of this report, RF signals of approximately 800 MHz will be
referred to as UHF signals. Although 800 MHz RF signals are part of the UHF band, they are
sometimes referred to in other reports and documents as if they were part of a separate band. For
this study and report, it is not necessary or desirable to make such distinctions.
B.3.4 Type and Density of Material Used to Construct the Building
A building's composition affects the propagation of radio signals. Radio signals entering
a building are partially absorbed and partially reflected; the extent depends on the type of
building materials encountered. For example, high-rise structures are typically composed of
reinforced concrete and steel, which have a greater effect on RF signals when compared with the
wood used in smaller buildings. Dense materials,particularly materials that are metallic,
typically cause the greatest amount of attenuation. Concrete is another material that exhibits a
high level of attenuation. Furthermore,materials used in windows, such as lead, may also reflect
radio signals, which causes additional attenuation of the radio signal. In practice, the radio signal
reaching a user within a building must pass thorough many different materials depending on the
location of the user within the building. A representation of the typical attenuation values 00
associated with various materials is shown in Table B-3.
i
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-7 November 2002 0111
Benefits to Interoperability Report
1
'.. r+ vale
r
Table B-3
UHF(300 MHz-3 Gigahertz) Building Materials Loss Measurements5
wow
Material Attenuation (dB)
Ceiling duct 1-8
�.. Small metal pole(6"in diameter) 3
Foil Insulation 3.9
Metal stairs 5
Concrete wall 8-15
Loss from one floor 13-33
Loss from two floors 18-50
Aluminum siding 20.4
B.4 In-Building Coverage Scenario
A typical portable radio transmits at 5 watts (37 dBm). If the user of a portable radio
attempts to talk back to a radio site that is 10 miles away from the building in which he is
located, and he is transmitting from the basement of that building, the communication may not
be successful. Given a typical transmit power, and the various losses discussed above, Table B-4
provides a link budget that illustrates a typical in-building scenario. For comparison, a link
budget is provided for a street-level, outside talk-back scenario for a similar location.
... Table B-4
A Talk-Back Link Budget for a Typical In-Building Scenario
In-Building Talk- Street Talk-Back
Parameter Back
Power Level (dBm) Power Level (dBm)
Portable transmit power 37 37
"" Human body loss -4 -4
Antenna gain -2.2 -2.2
Effective radiated power of the portable radio 30.8 30.8
Two floors -30 N/A
Concrete wall -10 N/A
Aluminum Siding -20.4 N/A
Path loss(10 miles) -100 -100
.r Receive Power(@ radio site) -129.6 -69.2
As can be seen from the basic link budget, the RF signal sent from the basement of the building
�.. is dramatically degraded compared with the street-level communications. Most land mobile
radio repeaters and base stations have receiver sensitivity levels much lower than—129 dBm, and
therefore,would not be able to successfully receive the signal sent from the basement of the
.,, building. The minimum requirements used in the identified ordinances are—95 dBm and
—107 dBm. This link budget illustrates why wireless networks that are able to provide adequate
street coverage often encounter difficulties operating inside buildings.
u. 5 See generally, Rappaport,Theodore S., Wireless Communications Principles and Practice,Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1996.
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-8 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
rr
file '''1✓
. 11
B.5 In-Building Coverage Solutions
There are two methods, active and passive, for improving in-building radio aili
communications. An active method, which requires a power source,receives, retransmits, and
amplifies the radio signal. A passive device does not require a power source and simply
retransmits the RF signal without any amplification.
The following solutions can be used to improve in-building coverage either as standalone
solutions or together in various combinations as components of a system:
ma
• Radiating cable
• Passive antennas
. Bi-directional amplifier(BDA) systems •
• Distributed antenna systems.
Alt
B.5.1 Passive Methods
Radiating Cable. Radiating cable or"leaky coax" is a passive device that can be used to
improve wireless communications coverage in confined areas. The cable functions like a
continuous antenna. It is outfitted with controlled slots in the outer conductor that allow RF
signals to be coupled between the coax cable and its surrounding environment uniformly along
the entire length of cable. Furthermore, radiating cable helps to evenly distribute the power
throughout a coverage area. Radiating cable is a viable option for communicating in buildings
where the potential for RF blockage of point-source antennas due to obstructions is high and
where multiple services such as public safety and emergency communications, cellular, personal
communications services, and paging communications are essential.'
Passive Antennas. Passive antennas can also be installed externally and internally to a building a
to improve coverage. In order for this solution to be effective, very strong signals from the
donor site are necessary, along with short coaxial cable runs when connecting the antennas.
Also,the highest practical gain antennas should be used.
B.5.2 Active Methods
ea
BDA Systems. BDAs increase the signal level for talk-back and talk-out coverage and can
improve coverage inside a building that has spotty or no radio coverage. As depicted in Figure
B-3, a BDA system is composed an amplifier inside the building and an internal and external
antenna network. The external antenna, usually located on the roof of the building needing
coverage, receives the signal from the radio site. The BDA then receives and amplifies the
signal from the antenna and transmits it through the coverage antenna. The internal antenna
tri
network radiates a signal into the building for portable radio reception and receives the signal
from portable subscriber units being used in the building, and then transmits that signal back to
the BDA. Finally, the BDA transmits the signal to the external antenna, which radiates a signal
ow
back to the radio site, completing the transmission.
6 Andrew Corporation.www.andrew.com.
7 Stoll,George R.,Bi-Directional Amplifiers Enhancing Radio Coverage in Shadowed Areas and Inside Buildings.
February 11,2002(Stoll), Slide 5.
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-9 November 2002 1111
Benefits to Interoperability Report
r
av
V, Donor Coverage
An tonna Antenna
r a 3
1+rw
Di-Directional Subscriber
Amplifier(RIM) Unit
Figure B-3
BDA System8
yrs
A BDA operates over a range of frequencies in a pass band and at lower power levels
when compared with a repeater, and will not work on a simplex system. There are two types of
Federal Communications Commission(FCC) accepted BDAs. Class A boosters amplify
discrete,narrowband frequencies, while Class B boosters amplify a pass band of broadband
frequencies. Typical donor antennas used in implementing in-building systems include Yagi
antennas, corner reflectors, panels, and parabolics, while conventional antennas or radiating
cable are used as coverage antennas inside the building.9
Proper system design and placement of BDAs are critical elements when planning in-
building systems. A BDA will amplify signals other than the signals desired by the application.
If a system design flaw causes interference to other users, the BDA system should be adjusted.
However, if the interference problem persists, by FCC ruling, the BDA system must be
disconnected. An FCC license is not required to operate a BDA as long as the effective radiated
power is less than 5 watts, and the amplified frequency is retransmitted only on the exact
frequency of the originating base, fixed, mobile, or portable device(s). When coverage is
required inside very large buildings, BDAs may not meet the coverage requirements and in those
cases, a repeater may be appropriate. The overall system design would be very similar.
Distributed Antennas. For larger buildings, a distributed antenna system can be used along
with a repeater or BDA to radiate the signal throughout the building. As illustrated in
Figure B-4, it consists of small antennas that are strategically located throughout a building. A
distributed antenna system allows the desired signal to be captured over the air from an external
antenna, typically located on the roof, and then retransmitted through a network of small low-
power antennas inside the building. These small antennas are located strategically throughout
the building where the coverage is limited. The antennas are usually small and inexpensive, and
,., 8 Allen Telecom Inc. http://www.antenna.com/repeaters/trunkingkit.html.
9 See Stoll,Slide 8.
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-10 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
- Ili
4
iiii
the factor limiting their deployment in a building is the cable required to connect them all back to ry
the main antenna on the roof. Fiber optic cables can carry the communications information over
iii
much greater distances than coaxial cable. For very large buildings, it may be necessary to use
fiber optic cables to distribute signals rather than coaxial cables.
a g a "rMil
_ wR
OP
41"
£. rIL1 '
8
ail
ii
I.
Ili
Figure B-4
Distributed Antenna System10
iiii
ma
SI
114
Ili
w0
1
iti
Ili
1°http://www.andrew.com/ACCESS/1001/articles/inbldwireless.asp
In-Building Ordinances and Their B-11 November 2002 r
lit
Benefits to Interoperability Report
i,
a
MOO
WNW
w..
IOW
APPENDIX C-FINANCIAL ISSUES
a
a
a
N
APPENDIX C-FINANCIAL ISSUES
The Public Safety In-Building Ordinances and Their Benefits to Interoperability Report
assesses the ability of laws, regulations, and ordinances to effect the development of in-building
wireless systems that mitigate or resolve the problem of public safety in-building wireless ittai
communications. One aspect of assessing the impact of the ordinances is to establish general
estimates of the cost of the various solutions that might be required by the ordinances. The
purpose of this appendix is to review the overall costs related to implementing wireless as
communications systems inside buildings.
C.1 Approach
The approach for developing this financial analysis was to use practical examples and
current market information to estimate the cost to procure and install communication systems
that would meet the requirements of the ordinances. The Public Safety Wireless Network
(PSWN)Program research team developed cost estimates for communications systems to
operate in several different types of buildings. These estimates were based on current costs for
the types of systems that might be required for the buildings. The research team used a bottom eats
-
up approach and information gathered from system manufacturers and installers to develop these
estimates.
N
C.2 Types of Buildings Requiring In-Building Systems for Public Safety
The ordinances identified in this study apply to almost any type of building other than
single-family homes and other small residential structures. Therefore, a wide variety of public
and private structures may require installation of in-building systems to enhance the coverage of
public safety wireless networks, such as—
r
• Shopping malls, casinos, and convention centers
• Airports, stadiums, and museums
• Office buildings, factories, and utility plants •
• Hospitals and hotels
• Apartment complexes and other large residential buildings
• Government centers, courthouses, and detention facilities.
Each category of building includes a wide variety of structures that may require very
different types of in-building solutions. For example, while the size and layout of two office
buildings may be similar, the two may use very different building materials that impede radio
signals differently. While one building may require only a relatively simple and low-cost
solution to provide the necessary coverage, another may require a more complex and expensive
mit
system to overcome more complicated coverage issues. Therefore,to understand the costs
related to in-building solutions, it is necessary to understand the factors affecting the complexity
of in-building solutions.
r
C.3 Factors Affecting the Cost of In-Building Solutions
Size and shape, floor plan, and building materials are just a few of the factors that can
affect the cost of an in-building system. The one characteristic that will provide an"order of
In-Building Ordinances and Their C-1 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
S
magnitude"type estimate and is used by most industry professionals is the area of habitable
space. Generally, the area requiring coverage will determine the type of solution that would be
appropriate for the building and will help determine the complexity and cost of the solution.
However, in addition to size, many other factors affect the cost of the in-building solution. The
following are issues that are not related to the size of the building but that affect the cost of in-
. building solutions:
• Type of Building. The type of building is determined by the building material and
•� floor plan complexity. Appendix B provided a discussion of how building materials
can impede radio signals. If the building materials greatly impede radio signals, the
in-building solution will be more complex to enable access in the various rooms.
... Floor plans are another characteristic defining different buildings. For example, a
typical airport terminal may include 1 million square feet of space and be constructed
with concrete and steel. The layout of the terminal space provides several large open
,., spaces with relatively few walls. On the other hand, a 10-floor office building might
provide a similar amount of office space and also be made of concrete and steel, but
the office building will likely include many more walls and other barriers to the radio
,•„ signal. Therefore, although the airport terminal and office building consist of the
same area and the same building materials,the office space may require a much more
complex solution to provide coverage throughout the building.
INV
• Timing of the Design and Installation of the Solution. Most in-building solutions
are designed and installed after the building is constructed. However, if the in-
building solution is designed before the building is constructed, the overall cost of the
system may be reduced. A primary cost component for any in-building system is the
labor cost related to designing and installing the system. According to several
installers, the real cost of these services is typically half the total cost of the system.
"" Any reduction in the time required to perform these tasks can have a significant
impact on the overall solution cost. If the solution is designed before the building is
built, changes can be made to the building design that will ease the installation of the
system. The fiber optic or coaxial cable distribution network installation can be
simplified if physical access is provided while the building is still under construction.
This could save a great deal of installation time for the in-building solution. Of
•� course, if an in-building ordinance is enforced retroactively on building owners, they
will have no option but to design and install in-building solutions after construction.
••� • Severity of the In-Building Problem. Not every building requiring wireless access
improvements will need enhancements throughout the entire building. For example,
an office building like the Sears Tower in Chicago has 4.4 million square feet of
office space. If this building required an in-building solution for every floor, it would
be a complex and expensive solution,probably costing millions of dollars. However,
in many cases,parts of buildings have adequate coverage while others do not. The
,,. in-building solution will be tailored to meet the specific needs of the relevant building
and the cost will likely be lower. A building like the Sears Tower may require
enhancements for the parking garage and the lower floors, while the upper levels have
access to the public safety network because the radio frequency(RF) signal path to
In-Building Ordinances and Their C-2 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
the radio site is less obstructed by other buildings. In that case,the solution would
only be required for 100,000 square feet of area rather than millions of square feet
and would be much less expensive. For this reason, the cost of the solution for each
building depends on the specific circumstances of that building.
• Commercial Wireless Solutions. Some solutions could be installed and become part
of a larger system to provide in-building access to commercial wireless services. This
might be an important factor when estimating the cost of in-building solutions for
casinos, stadiums, and other large public venues where commercial wireless services
are desirable but otherwise obstructed. In those situations, the overall cost of
designing and installing an in-building solution for a public safety communications
system can be shared with the commercial systems. For any given building where r
one or more commercial systems might be required to supplement the public safety
system; the overall requirements might be very similar and could be more efficiently
designed and installed at the same time by the same technicians. This could lower the it
cost for the public safety communications system.
C.4 Cost Estimates for Typical In-Building Solutions
In-building solutions have costs based on the design and installation labor, antennas,
amplifiers, repeaters, and the distribution networks. As explained above, the type of system
required for a building is based on many factors. The goal of this appendix is to provide an
analysis of the financial impacts of in-building ordinances. As was demonstrated, each situation,
building, and required solution is unique, and providing generalized cost estimates for in-
building solutions could be misleading. However, based on market research, specific costs can
be provided for specific cases. Each building and situation varies, and requires a tailored in-
building solution. ; The examples and information provided below describe only"order of
magnitude" data and should not be used to guide cost estimation for any particular building.
For example, a 45,000 square foot floor of a building could be covered with 300 feet of
radiating coaxial cable installed above a dropped ceiling. The cable would be installed as one tra
continuous length, center fed via a power divider. In this particular example, 1 linear foot of
cable provides 150 square feet of coverage. As detailed in the Table C-1, material cost for this
type of installation is approximately$4,020, while labor cost is approximately$1,210 for a total
cost of$5,230.11 These estimates use typical values for materials and labor costs. Cost will vary
depending on the manufacturer of the materials and location of installation.
a
a
"Morgan,Mike,Radiating Cables and the Three C's: Containment, Coverage, Cost,March 1994. rill
http://rf rfglobalnet.com/library/ApplicationNotes/files/2/radcables.htm
In-Building Ordinances and Their C-3 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
Table C-1
Radiating Cable System Cost for a 45,000 Square Foot Building Floor
Number of
Components Material Cost Total Cost
ETLE ,�°^,.. Mn K 3E .i, ^,,r „ pr 7
300 feet Radiatin• Cable $4.00/foot $3,200
Miscellaneous $820
Components(i.e.
.�. cable ties,
connectors
y Total Materials Cost $4,020
Total Labor Cost $1,210
TOTAL JOB COST $5,230
As another example, a bi-directional amplifier(BDA) system could be installed in a
200,000 square foot area, such as a warehouse,with various sections partitioned from one
another. To provide wireless communications coverage for public safety personnel, a system for
".y this building would cost approximately$33,000 as illustrated in Table C-2. These cost estimates
are based on averages obtained from in-building wireless vendors. As noted, all buildings are
unique, and the cost of a solution depends largely on the size, shape, and floor plan of the
building, along with the materials used in construction and its proximity to a radio site.
Table C-2
BDA System Cost for a 200,000 Square Foot Warehouse
Number of
Components Material Cost Total Cost
7,1
5 BDA $4,000 each $20,000
1,500 feet Coaxial Cable $1.00/foot $1,500
Miscellaneous $5,000
Components(i.e.
cable ties,
connectors
i $ Total Materials Cost $26,500
Total Labor Cost $6,625
TOTAL JOB COST $33,125
In addition, according to one vendor in the wireless communications industry, "it would
cost approximately$19,000 to cover a 20,000 square foot, one-floor structure,while covering a
five-floor, 400,000 square foot structure would cost approximately $65,000." Specific cost
breakdowns have not been provided in these instances. Clearly, the highest cost in-building
solutions are those required for very large buildings in urban environments. The cost of these
solutions may be of greatest interest. They are also the most difficult to predict. The examples
provided in this section were quite basic and are useful for understanding the type of costs
related to in-building solutions for relatively small buildings. Solutions for large buildings in
In-Building Ordinances and Their C-4 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
urban environments are much more complex and costly. As discussed earlier, there are a wide
variety of unpredictable issues that affect the complexity and cost of such solutions.
The uncertainty associated with urban area costs for in-building solutions is a major
concern related to current and proposed ordinances. The recent report commissioned by the New
York City Fire Department, entitled"Increasing FDNY'sTPreparedness,"12 dealt with this issue. ett
The report makes several recommendations regarding its finding that in-building
communications during the emergency response at the World Trade Center was poor. To
prevent such problems in the future,the report estimates that "[i]t would cost $150 million to
$250 million to install[the necessary] repeater systems."13 Furthermore,the cost of outfitting
high-rise buildings taller than seven stories in New York City with in-building solutions was
'estimated at $0.30 to$0.60 per square foot. According to the estimate,the cost to install an in-
building system in one major high-rise is between$1 million and$2 million. This estimate
assumes that the entire building has inadequate in-building coverage. However, this will not
always be the case, and the cost could be substantially lower. For example, if the high-rise
structure is located near a network radio site, in-building communications may not be a problem
at all. The requirement for building owners to pay for in-building systems will not be distributed
equitably. In addition, for those required to make such improvements,the cost could be quite sti
high.
C.5 Relative Costs of In-Building Solutions sit
Despite the numerous factors affecting in-building solutions,the research team was able
to make some generalized estimates. The type of solution applicable to buildings of various
types and sizes can be predicted. For example, for a very large building, like a modern casino, a
passive system would not be acceptable. Assuming the entire casino complex required improved
access to the public safety network, a passive network probably could not carry the radio signal
from the various rooms out to the rooftop donor antenna without amplification. Also, for a very i
large casino complex, an active amplification system would need to distribute the radio signal to
and from numerous antennas spread throughout the complex. When the length of the
distribution link exceeds 100 meters, the effectiveness of coaxial cable as a distribution medium
decreases significantly. Therefore, for a large casino complex, it would likely be necessary to
install a repeater or BDA system using a fiber optic cable distribution network. Using that
analysis for other types of buildings, the research team created Table C-3 to provide a breakdown rit
of the types of solutions, their typical applications, and their relative costs.
12"Increasing FDNY's Preparedness,"August 19,2002. This report was prepared for the New York City Fire
Department following the September 11,2001,attack on the World Trade Center. The complete report is available
at http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/mck_report/toc.html irlt
13 Id., at p. 13.
In-Building Ordinances and Their C-5 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
Table C-3
Relative Costs of In-Building Solutions
Type of Solution Typical Coverage Area Type of Building
Radiating cable Up to 50,000 square feet • Small office
s stem Building „_
� � Passive antenna •
Warehouse
system • Parking garage
• Courthouse
• School
BDA system 5,000-250,000 square feet • Office building
p f using coaxial • Museum 444
cable distribution • Hospital
• Shopping mall
� � BDA system 20,000-500,000 square • Large factory -144
z l using fiber optic feet • Airport
cable distribution � ,� �'
Stadium �
network
Casino
Repeater system 200 000+ square feet
p y � q Hotel
using fiber optic
cable distribution ,-
network
S
S
In-Building Ordinances and Their C-6 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
r girl .
•
a
APPENDIX D—DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND BENEFITS
OF IN-BUILDING ORDIANANCES
a
a
a
a
APPENDIX D-DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND BENEFITS
OF IN-BUILDING ORDINANCES
mar
The Public Safety In-Building Ordinances and Their Benefits to Interoperability Report
assesses the ability of laws, regulations, and ordinances to effect the development of in-building
wireless systems that mitigate or resolve the problem of public safety in-building wireless
communications. As part of this study, the Public Safety Wireless Network(PSWN) Program
research team identified existing and proposed ordinances, investigated the relevant technical
and financial issues, and gathered a variety of information from interested public safety
professionals. As part of this study, it is useful to examine the overall impact of the ordinances
and to analyze relevant trends related to their implementation or effectiveness. The purpose of
this appendix is to review the overall trends, impacts, and other related findings that have been
identified.
"IN` D.1 Approach
Appendix D focuses on the perceptions and impacts of ordinances in the seven localities
listed in Section D.2. The assessment provided in this appendix is based on data obtained from
surveys and interviews for each locality and a comparison of in-building ordinances among these
localities. The data was collected in June, July, and August 2002, and most of the ordinances
selected have been in place for at least 2 years. This study of the selected in-building
ordinances' characteristics and their impacts includes an analysis of systems with in-building
solutions and additional system-related information.
The research team reviewed 11 separate jurisdictions to determine system information,
and compared the characteristics of each communication systems and the ordinances developed
(and in seven of those jurisdictions, successfully adopted)to resolve communications issues
411111
encountered by public safety personnel. The research team inquired about the coverage concerns
in each locality and the solutions that were adopted, both through application of wireless
technology and through adoption of regulations, that would protect public safety users from
outside interference. Many features of each system were examined to discern patterns and
trends, and to determine the effectiveness that each system and the respective in-building
ordinances. Although many of the systems and the in-building ordinances reviewed had
similarities, some aspects of each were unique. The presence of these unique aspects
underscores the need to tailor communications systems, and the in-building ordinances that
regulate their use, to the specific coverage issues and problems that are of central concern to the
eat public safety personnel that use those systems.
D.2 Issues Prompting the Establishment of In-Building Ordinances
" Few municipalities have successfully enacted ordinances governing in-building public
safety wireless communications capabilities in the United States. When detailed information
was available from local officials, the information they provided indicated that those ordinances
that were established were the result of specific needs on the part of public safety users. In large
part, ordinances were established soon after a new system was implemented. Table D-1 provides
the dates several localities implemented new systems and established in-building ordinances.
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-1 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
Table D-1
Summary of System Installation and In-Building Ordinance
oi
Codification Dates
System Year Ordinance
Jurisdiction Installation Enacted
Date
Boston, MA 1999 2000
Broward County, FL 1989 1999
Burbank, CA 1990 1991
Folsom, CA(Sacramento County) 1995 1999
Ontario, CA 1998 1999
Roseville, CA 1997 1999
Scottsdale,AZ 2001 2002
It is not always clear why each jurisdiction's public safety radio systems required specific
in-building solutions. The reasons for improving in-building communication operations in each
area varied, as did the treatment in the ordinances that were drafted to eliminate the problems
that were occurring. Section D.3 of this appendix describes several issues related to the wireless
fro
networks.
There were several reasons localities established in-building communications ordinances.
One of the primary reasons was the adoption of ultra high frequency(UHF) systems and the
efforts to resolve problems that were detected after the new systems were implemented. All of
the ordinances were passed because there was at least a perceived need to compel property
owners to provide access, or at least not obstruct access, to the public safety wireless networks. sit
For example, in Scottsdale, Arizona,the ordinance came about when crimes were committed in
locations where system coverage was poor and public safety officials on site could not respond
because of the lack of in-building wireless communications. In Broward County, Florida, the rirl
ordinance was proposed after a building that obstructed radio frequency(RF) signals was
constructed next to a main radio site. The ordinance was seen as a means to address the issues
with that building and others that might be built in the future. In both Boston, Massachusetts,
and Ontario, California, the ordinances were drafted primarily as a response to repeated coverage
problems experienced in high-rise buildings. In each case,public safety personnel were
experiencing communications problems and began the process of establishing an ordinance to
rectify those issues after being informed about existing in-building coverage issues or being
prompted to take action following a major event.
D.3 Public Safety Wireless Networks Requiring In-Building Solutions
As noted above,this study identified seven jurisdictions that successfully implemented
in-building ordinances. These jurisdictions typically established their ordinances after lee
implementing a new public safety wireless network. Table D-2 provides information on the
systems used in the relevant jurisdictions. The table shows that those jurisdictions that passed
ordinances have a great deal in common in terms of the systems they implemented. s,
tit
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-2 November 2002
SIP
Benefits to Interoperability Report
Table D-2
System Information
System Mfr Frequency System Encryption
Jurisdiction Type Band Type
UHF
.O.. Boston, MA Conventional Motorola (483-486 MHz) Analog No
Broward County, FL Trunked Motorola (80�MHz)UHF
Analog Yes
Burbank, CA Conventional Motorola (470-474 MHz) Analog Yes
Folsom, CA Trunked Motorola (80�MHz)UHF
Analog No
Ontario, CA Trunked Motorola (800 MHz) Analog Yes(partially)
Roseville, CA Trunked Motorola (800MHz) Analog No
VHF
Conventional Motorola (153 155 MHz) Analog No
Scottsdale,AZ
UHF
Trunked Motorola (800 MHz) Digital Yes
D.3.1 Common Manufacturer
As Table D-2 shows,the communications systems in all the jurisdictions identified that
have passed in-building ordinances have a common manufacturer, Motorola. There is no clear
reason for this. However, it may simply be because Motorola has built the majority of the local
at" governments' public safety wireless networks. According to the data gathered through the
PSWN Program's LMR Equipment and Infrastructure Survey, approximately 68 percent of local
respondents use Motorola systems. Therefore, any locality that passes an ordinance is likely to
-�► be using a Motorola system.
D.3.2 Common Spectrum Band
The majority of the jurisdictions that adopted ordinances did so to specifically support
new systems that operate in the UHF band. However, one of the jurisdictions with an in-building
communications ordinance has a system that uses the UHF band, and another system that
operates in the very high frequency(VHF) band. Although the ordinance applies to both the
UHF and the VHF systems,the ordinance was not established until after the UHF system was
implemented. Therefore, even in the one case where an ordinance applies to a non-UHF system,
lat it appears that the ordinance was primarily needed to improve in-building communications
operating in the UHF band.
The link between the establishment of ordinances and the implementation of UHF
systems is significant. Prior research has demonstrated that approximately 78 percent of
localities operate in the VHF spectrum band, according to the PSWN Program's LMR Equipment
,.. and Infrastructure Survey, which was conducted in the late 1990s. Since that time, many of
those localities may have migrated their wireless networks to the UHF band. Even if there has
been a significant transition, it remains likely that a majority of localities are still using VHF
channels. Given that most localities are using the VHF band, yet all of the jurisdictions with
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-3 November 2002
vow Benefits to Interoperability Report
...
4r✓ NNW
a
ordinances use the UHF band, it could be inferred that UHF wireless networks are prone to in-
building communications problems.
D.3.3 Network Design Issues
In general, analysis of the timing of the ordinances and the type of systems installed
could lead to the conclusion that many newer systems were not designed to meet the public
safety requirements for in-building communications. Wireless networks operating in the UHF
band are probably not inherently flawed because of the chosen spectrum band. However,
because of the propagation characteristics of higher frequency radio signals, more radio towers
and a more expensive network infrastructure is typically required. In-building coverage can be
provided for almost any environment if enough radio sites are included in the network
infrastructure. Due to cost and other issues, system designers sometimes must compromise
• between operational requirements and practical fmancial concerns. The result can be an"under-
designed" system that is lower in cost but does not provide the coverage required by the user
community, especially in-building coverage.
D.3.4 Including In-Building Solutions in the Estimate of the Wireless Network Cost
a
When the systems listed in Table D-2 were procured by public safety agencies,the
agencies did not consider the cost of the in-building solutions as part of the overall system cost.
It is unclear whether the public safety agencies knew that they were procuring networks that
sti
would not provide adequate in-building coverage. Representatives of several localities noted
that they passed their ordinances after specific in-building problems were experienced.
Therefore, it is likely that it was not until after the system was implemented that they knew that
in-building communications would be a problem. One public safety professional stated that his
organization was surprised by the lack of in-building coverage when using their new UHF(800
megahertz [MHz]) system as compared with their older system. In cases in which the localities
did not know that they were installing an inadequate system, little could have been done during
the procurement of the system to resolve the in-building problem before system implementation,
and the additional cost of in-building solutions may have been unavoidable.
i
In cases in which public safety professionals procuring a system knew that they would
not have adequate in-building coverage with the proposed network infrastructure, they could
have included in-building solutions as part of their overall system development plan. This rP
approach to wireless network development would have allowed a more informed approach to
making network design decisions. For example, one proposed ordinance has been rejected by a
city council because of the estimated cost of the needed in-building solutions. The council's
decision to reject the ordinance may have been justified with regard to the burden that it would
place on the property owners. Even where in-building solutions were adopted by a locality,
sometimes the local governments still paid for some of the in-building solutions that were
deployed. This is especially true when providing wireless communication coverage inside
government buildings. The financial burden of the in-building solutions must be supported by
the community either through direct government expenditures or unfunded mandates under in-
building ordinances.
A lower cost communications network infrastructure could result in the need for costly
in-building solutions. The reverse is typically true as well—with a more complex network
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-4 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
infrastructure that includes more radio sites, the cost of the network goes up, but the need for in-
building solutions decreases and the overall cost of those solutions to the community decreases
as well. Table D-3 illustrates this relationship between the cost of the network infrastructure and
the cost of the in-building solutions.
Table D-3
Financial Relationship Between Network Infrastructure and In-Building Solutions
Number of Cost of the Need for In- Overall Cost
Radio sites Network Building of In-Building
Infrastructure Solutions Solutions
IOW
Addressing this issue before procuring a system allows planners to make system design
decisions based on the true overall cost of the alternatives. As can be seen, the design of a
" wireless network that requires in-building coverage should include an analysis of the cost of the
infrastructure and the in-building solutions. The overall cost of in-building solutions appears to
be obscured in part due to the use of ordinances. The use of ordinances by localities may allow
public safety agencies to enhance their network coverage inside buildings without purchasing
new equipment. In effect,the requirement on the part of property owners to install an in-
building system is a tax to support the public safety wireless network. Viewed in that context,
�•- this cost is similar to any other cost associated with the procurement of a public safety wireless
network. Requiring property owners to implement in-building solutions for public safety is like
levying a one-time real estate tax to support any other part of the public safety wireless network.
Like other parts of the system,the in-building solutions are paid for by the community through
taxes and should be treated as such. Including the cost of the in-building solutions will allow for
a more informed and accurate cost-benefit analysis and comparison of wireless networking
.,. design alternatives. A comprehensive analysis of this issue may not have been possible in the
localities identified in this report because they were probably unaware that their new systems
would not provide adequate in-building coverage.
This point is illustrated by the experience of public safety professionals in Washington,
DC. They have been engaged in an effort to improve in-building coverage as well as the overall
effectiveness of their wireless networks. As discussed above,their effort will result in new
financial costs in addition to the initial system procurement. In 2001,the Fire and Emergency
Medical Services Departments in Washington, DC, procured a UHF (800 MHz) digital network
from Motorola at a cost of$5.3 million. There were immediate in-building communications
problems, and Lt. Ray Sneed, President of the D.C. Firefighters Association, described the
situation as "a ticking time bomb.i14 To resolve the issue, the city will spend$10 million to
to The Washington Times,Matthew Cella,June 22,2002
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-5 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
aim
4F
double the number of radio sites, $4 million to install in-building systems, $3 million for subway
communications improvements, and$7 million for design and engineering services. The original
system was not designed to meet critical operational requirements of the DC firefighters, which
resulted in the need for extensive system enhancements(i.e., in-building solutions). Even if the
city used an ordinance to shift some of the fmancial burden of the in-building solutions to private
property owners, a large investment would still be required on the part of the city government for
subway tunnels and government buildings.
D.3.5 Trunked,Digital, and Encrypted Networks
Another significant finding is that there does not appear to be a correlation between
enactment of ordinances and whether systems are trunked, digital, or encrypted. One might
expect that systems that are digital or encrypted would be more prone to in-building
communications problems and therefore the jurisdictions involved would be more likely to pass
in-building ordinances. This circumstance would apparently be due to the limits of the error
correcting and overhead bits associated with digital and encrypted wireless communications.
One public safety representative surveyed for this report stated that his department's new system
was encryption capable but did not work properly, and the organization subsequently decided to
abandon efforts to encrypt their transmissions. It was not clear whether any of the problems they
had with encryption were related to in-building coverage issues, and no conclusion regarding in-
building communications can be drawn from that one case. In addition, localities with analog
and digital, encrypted and unencrypted systems have passed ordinances. In the localities with
existing ordinances, there does not appear to be a correlation with these characteristics, which
leads to the conclusion that these characteristics do not appear to be prompting the need for in-
building systems or the establishment of in-building ordinances.
D.4 Drafting In-Building Ordinances
ati
Based on the information gathered from the public safety professionals involved in
drafting in-building communications ordinances and on the contents of the ordinances
themselves, there are common methods and language for drafting in-building ordinances.
mut
Several professionals surveyed by the research team stated that established in-building
ordinances from other jurisdictions were used to draft regulations for their own localities. By
reviewing the ordinances, it is clear that several ordinances use almost identical format, structure,
and language. Some examples of the language most frequently found in the ordinances
includes—
• All of the California jurisdictions include language in their in-building ordinances
that approximates the following statement: "Except as otherwise provided, no person
shall erect, construct,change the use of, or provide an addition to any building or
structure or any part thereof, or the cause the same to be done which fails to support t
adequate radio coverage." This statement varies slightly in the City of Roseville
ordinance and the draft ordinance for the City of Sacramento, as well as for
Sacramento County, which further specifies that the building addition must be "of
more than 20%" for the ordinance to apply. The cities of Grapevine, Texas, and
Scottsdale, include such language as well. The opening sections of the ordinances
also detail the communications system, including the operating frequencies, identify a.
the public safety personnel to whom that the law applies, and typically also contain
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-6 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
44
NOW' NNW'
the statement that the ordinance's applicability "includes but is not limited to"the
named personnel.
• Many of the ordinances detail minimum signal strength in either dBm or microvolts
available in a certain percentage"of the area of each floor when transmitted from the
•» system sight." These ordinances also mandate a minimum level for signal strength in
dBm or microvolts received at the site when transmitted from a certain percentage
area of each floor of the building, and specify the frequency range that must be
41114 supported. This is the case in six of the seven jurisdictions that have passed
ordinances, as well as in the draft ordinances for both the cities of Sacramento and
Grapevine.
• Many of the ordinances then detail the types of solutions that are permitted for
improving communication coverage inside buildings. These recommended methods
are described as "Amplification System(s)Allowed" in five of seven jurisdictions
having passed such ordinances, and in two draft ordinances. Scottsdale has a similar
section that refers to in-building solutions as"Enhanced Amplification Systems."
Burbank's in-building communications ordinance contains typical language to
describe use of typical amplification systems: "Buildings and structures which cannot
support the required level of radio coverage shall be equipped with any of the
following in order to achieve the required adequate radio coverage." All of the above
jurisdictions allow use of radiating coaxial cable, or internal multiple antenna systems
along with bi-directional amplification(BDA) systems.
`• • Another provision frequently found in the in-building communications ordinances
reviewed by the research team was an exemption from coverage for buildings under a
certain height or square footage area. This requirement varies from the Ontario
ordinance's minimum requirement for amplification in buildings and structures more
than 30 feet in height, to a minimum of 35 feet in Burbank and Scottsdale, to a
minimum 5,000 square feet of area for buildings in Roseville, Sacramento County,
and in the draft ordinance for the City of Sacramento. Other provisions frequently
apply that make exemptions for wooden frame homes, single-family homes, and
buildings constructed in specified residential areas. The Boston Fire Code's in-
-• building radio specification is unique among existing ordinances because it does not
provide any exemptions.
.•. • With the exception of Broward County, all of the jurisdictions reviewed by the
research team that have codified in-building communications ordinances require
initial testing upon completion of installation and annual tests as evidence of ongoing
compliance. In addition to system testing requirements, several jurisdictions have
established qualification criteria in their respective ordinances. For example, in
Boston,radio coverage testing personnel must be in possession of a current Federal
Communications Commission(FCC) General Radiotelephone Operator License.
Another approach, found in the ordinances of Roseville and Sacramento County, and
in the draft ordinance for the City of Sacramento, allow either an FCC-licensed
technician to conduct testing, or a person with certification issued by an accredited
4111111
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-7 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
4111111
111
public safety organization. Authorized licensing organizations specifically included
in these ordinances include the Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. (APCO),the National Association of Business and 1110
Educational Radio (NABER), and the Personal Communications Industry Association
(PCIA), which merged with NABER in 1994.
tis
• The most frequently cited penalty in the ordinances—included in four of the seven
jurisdictions that have passed ordinances—is for the building authority, fire
department, or other designated agency to withhold or revoke the building owner's
permit for actual use of the facilities. Boston's in-building radio specification states
that"A certificate of occupancy may not be issued for any building or structure which
fails to comply with this section." The Scottsdale, Burbank, and Ontario ordinances, 410,
and Grapevine's proposed ordinance, each contain a similar requirement.
• In addition to loss of occupancy permits, other penalties are attached in many of the Nit
ordinances studied. The City of Scottsdale has by far the strictest of the ordinances,
mandating that"Any person, firm or corporation,whether as principal, owner, agent,
tenant, or otherwise who violates disobeys, omits, or refuses to comply with, or who
resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this code is guilty of a class one
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof may be punished by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment for a term of not exceeding six (6)
months or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the city
magistrate." Scottsdale and Broward County also leave the authority to enforce their
ordinances open ended, and the penalties that may be levied may include imposition
of additional remedies by other agencies having appropriate jurisdiction, to enforce
compliance against violators.
According to research completed for this study, in-building wireless communications
ordinances first became the topic of legislative initiatives to provide standard coverage levels for
public safety wireless users in California cities. The first in-building communication ordinance
was passed and codified in 1991 and is found in the Burbank, California, City Building Code.
Other jurisdictions in California used this ordinance as a model, which became further refined as
other municipalities defined terms and limited coverage to those structures that would be built
after the ordinance took effect. A fire marshal who was working in Sacramento County after the i�lt
passage of that jurisdiction's in-building communications ordinance later joined the Roseville
Fire Department and used the Sacramento County ordinance almost verbatim in drafting
Roseville's ordinance. Later,the City of Sacramento would attempt to increase coverage
requirements in an initiative that goes beyond the standards of Sacramento County; however, the
city's initiative has not been successful thus far.
Additional provisions of laws in other jurisdictions, such as penalties for non-compliance,
testing procedures, and qualifications for personnel, would be drafted by administrators to
address contended issues and provide remedies for regulations. Still others would mandate
compliance generally, as in the case of Broward County and the proposed ordinance in
Montgomery County, Maryland. In those documents, coverage levels, reliability, testing, and
other specific provisions are not delineated. This lack of comprehensiveness may require those
tit
jurisdictions to supplement their ordinances in other sections of the respective county codes in
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-8 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
✓
... ,r,m,,
VIM
order to define acceptable coverage guidelines for builders and developers, and the
corresponding penalties for non-compliance.
The Boston in-building radio specification rule offers many departures from the majority
of in-building communication ordinances passed in other jurisdictions. Boston allows building
owners to implement wireless systems in lieu of installing the normal hard-wired telephone
systems for firefighter communications. The hard-wired telephone systems were the fire code
requirement for high-rise buildings but this rule, which amended Boston's Fire Code unilaterally,
gave developers another option to consider. It is believed that this ordinance has been effective
partly because developers have transitioned, of their own accord, from hard-wired
communications to the use of BDAs. In addition, to achieve in-building coverage, the
.o.. department previously allowed a dedicated channel repeater inside a building instead of a hard-
wired telephone or BDA system. However, only one out of the department's four
communications channels was operational with this type of solution, which was held to be
ineffective. All four channels are operational inside buildings with a BDA system.
D.5 Challenges to Establishing In-Building Ordinances in the City Code
The 11 jurisdictions researched for this report were either successful in implementing the
legislative process within their community, are unsuccessful because of a lack of political
support and sense of urgency equated with providing better communications for public safety
••• personnel, or are in various stages of drafting and adoption of in-building ordinances. Several
jurisdictions attempted to pass ordinances creating obligations for building management, tenants,
construction firms;and developers to adhere to standards for wireless communications coverage
for public safety officials inside buildings. In some of those cases, they have met significant
opposition from builders and real estate developers eager to contain construction costs.
In one case, the City of Roseville's Fire Department proposed an ordinance governing
public safety wireless communications coverage inside buildings and met with the Roseville City
Council and local Builders Industry Association(BIA). The council passed the measure without
controversy. However, in other jurisdictions, the local BIA steadfastly opposed adopting such
ordinances. The success of Roseville's ordinance may have hinged on the solicitation of support
from that association early in the process. By enrolling the builders and developers as partners in
the process of deciding how in-building public safety communications could be enhanced,the
Roseville City Council had an ally that understood the issues and was willing to take
responsibility for drafting and implementing those plans.
In Scottsdale, police officers were unable to communicate while three armed robberies
occurred in the Fashion Square mall because the mall was built using a triple thickness of
concrete. Officials recognized the need for the ordinance so in-building coverage would not
continue to be an issue in future buildings. Public safety agencies, with support from city
inspection services, were the major champions in ensuring the law was passed. The Scottsdale
City Council voted affirmatively to pass the ordinance. In the City of Ontario,there was
minimal resistance to the ordinance among the builder and developer community because public
safety priorities may be better understood in light of catastrophic events like the Oklahoma City
bombing. In Broward County, resistance from developers and construction companies due to
-• cost surfaced but was not strong enough to prevent passage of the ordinance. Additionally, there
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-9 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
r
tit
rr
were no challenges or active resistance to the in-building communications ordinance in
Sacramento County.
a
Other jurisdictions that have attempted to pass such ordinances have failed. In those
cases, political support for regulating new and existing wireless communication systems was
insufficient to overcome resistance from builders and developers, who argued that implementing
such measures would create greater expense and implementation difficulty than they could
afford. During the economic downturn of the last 2 years, the building industry was among the
hardest hit. The city and county representatives charged with passing proposed ordinances were
persuaded to shelve legislation because of the threatened danger of increased unemployment and
a lack of tenants to provide revenue in those jurisdictions.
For example, Grapevine has been trying to pass an ordinance since at least 2000.
Champions of the legislation include public safety agencies and the City Manager's Office.
However, the legislation has been tabled due to opposition from builders and developers because
of the financial burden the ordinance might place on the building community. Much of the
resistance to Grapevine's draft in-building communications regulation has been attributed to
builders and developers successfully blocking the penalty provision of that proposed ordinance
permitting a $2,000 per day fine to be levied against building owners for non-compliance.
Montgomery County held a public hearing on its proposed Executive Regulations to "adopt and
amend certain editions of the National Fire Codes regarding building construction and fire
protection systems" in August of 2002. Fairfax County, Virginia, has only recently begun an
initiative to draft language and remains undecided whether the proposed language will
supplement the Virginia State Building Code or other section of the law that governs that
jurisdiction.
In another area of the country, because of the influence of developers, a proposed
ordinance was not fully supported by local elected officials, who had initially endorsed the
measure to aid public safety personnel and other first responders. In addition, informal working
arrangements exist that enhance coverage in many areas where ordinances are not passed. In one
situation cited, as a condition of approval for commercial antenna tower sites, some developers
have been willing to provide space on a tower or roof for a public safety transmitter, in exchange
for expedited consideration of their zoning requests or a permit for approval of construction.
mit
There is a perception among some officials within the public safety community that
builders' and developers' interests are typically more focused on short-term costs. Under current
market conditions, it would be difficult to mandate any measures that require greater investment
than the commitments that they have already made. Conversely, if builders and developers
install public safety in-building communications systems, they can also use the deployment of
coverage solutions to their advantage. Builders and developers could tout enhanced protection of
their properties through use of technologies to ensure better public safety radio coverage as a
selling point to tenants.
a
D.6 Challenges to In-Building Communications Ordinances After Enactment
Typically, once a law concerning public safety wireless radio communications has been
codified, there is very little resistance to complying with the law. As discussed above, resistance a
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-10 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
usually occurs during the legislative process. For example, in Boston, most building owners
knew they must install either a hard-wired telephone or BDA system for the fire department, law
enforcement, and emergency medical services, and did not challenge the law.
Additionally, a local shopping mall in Ontario (Ontario Mills) voluntarily retrofitted the
facilities to meet the standards for communication coverage specified in the ordinance. The
Ontario regulation would not have otherwise created any obligations for the retail stores to
comply; however, because building owners understood the importance of public safety
�.. communications inside buildings, they made it possible to have enhanced coverage to protect
these populous areas. In addition, developers were fmding it far more cost efficient to ensure
that they met Ontario communications coverage standards in advance, and that retrofitting
buildings to achieve required signal strength levels later was much more expensive. In
Scottsdale, there was minor resistance after the ordinance was passed. However, once building
owners realized they would not receive certificates of occupancy without successfully meeting
the wireless coverage standards,they were willing to cooperate.
The research team also has found no history of building owners, developers, or other
interested parties challenging the in-building communications ordinances once they were
enacted. Furthermore,public safety personnel interviewed in jurisdictions with ordinances were
unaware of any legal challenges to the ordinances in their respective jurisdictions. The
perception was that after an ordinance had been made law, builders and developers saw little
chance to have it repealed, and that fording tenants for buildings where fire or building code
provisions had been resisted might not easy.
D.7 Perceptions of Public Safety Professionals on In-Building Ordinances
During the data gathering effort for this study,public safety professionals in jurisdictions
having in-building communications ordinances provided their impressions and perceptions of
how well the ordinances have performed. Their comments illustrate how the ordinances are
commonly implemented and how effective they have been in facilitating improved in-building
communications. The following sections address several significant findings.
D.7.1 Installation of In-Building Systems
.., The most important effect of in-building communications ordinances is that in those
localities where ordinances were established, they have successfully motivated building owners
to install in-building solutions for public safety users. Some public safety representatives could
not recall whether any systems had actually been installed, while many others knew of several
that had been installed as a direct result of the ordinance. In the latter case,their impression was
that the ordinance was instrumental in resolving the in-building communications problems
among public safety personnel. In one jurisdiction where an ordinance has been tabled,the very
threat of the ordinance has prompted some builders and developers to consider in-building
systems during construction of new buildings in the area. In other jurisdictions, builders and
communication providers that had previously caused interference to public safety
communications have offered to install new solutions and technology to ensure compliance, and
have not attempted to circumvent the process, cooperating fully.
41.10
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-11 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
r
•
'4111111 NOW • al
lb
D.7.2 Enforcement of In-Building Ordinances
While most of the ordinances have very specific guidelines for testing buildings to ensure
that they meet the minimum technical standards, not all localities follow these testing and
enforcement procedures. The ordinances often require very specific yearly tests,record keeping,
and minimum technical standards. In some instances, public safety agencies do not have enough
funding to test buildings every year in addition to buildings installing new systems. However, in
those cases,the ordinance is enforced after a complaint has been made. After the complaint is
verified, specific attention is given to the relevant building, and actions are taken to ensure that
the owner complies with the ordinance.
D.7.3 Effect of In-Building Ordinances on Interoperability
wr
None of the public safety professionals contacted for this study was aware of any direct
or indirect impacts on interoperability related to in-building ordinances. Several of the
knowledgeable professionals contacted had a great deal of experience in the area of improving
interoperability between disparate public safety wireless networks. Some provided specific
information about their recent efforts to migrate to shared systems,use common talk groups with
other area public safety agencies, or establish mutual-aid channels for emergency joint
operations. However, none of the past, current,or expected interoperability efforts were related
to in-building ordinances.
D.7.4 Knowledge of In-Building Ordinances
The research team observed a wide discrepancy between jurisdictions regarding
awareness among public safety personnel, as well as among the construction and development
community, with respect to the enactment of regulations that govern the quality of in-building
communications. In at least two of the locations that have codified ordinances, public safety
personnel involved in communications for that jurisdiction's fire and police departments were
not even aware that such a measure had been enacted. Furthermore, several representatives of
fire and law enforcement agencies offered that because of the random location of ordinances in
the fire code, building code, or other statutes, in-building communication requirements often had
to be brought to the attention of builders and developers who were uniformed about their impact,
the duties they imposed, or even of the ordinance's existence.
D.8 Interoperability Impact of In-Building Ordinances a
As stated above, the perception of the public safety professionals contacted for this report
was that interoperability had not been affected by the ordinances. Based on that information, in
addition to an analysis of the types of systems used in the localities and the specific requirements
set forth in the in-building ordinances gathered for this study, it can be concluded that in-building
ordinances have little or no noticeable impact on interoperability between public safety wireless
networks.
The impact of in-building ordinances on successful interoperability depends on the level
of interoperability of the wireless networks, and the expertise and training of those agencies
using them, that exists prior to development of standards for in-building coverage using in-
building ordinances.
1044
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-12 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
a
r- - a✓ .,,r
In-building ordinances only compel property owners to install in-building wireless
solutions. The best case scenario for the wireless solution is that it allows public safety
"" personnel to communicate seamlessly while traveling throughout the building in question.
Essentially, the in-building solutions required by the identified ordinances only extend the
coverage of existing systems to the inside of buildings. In terms of interoperability between
wireless networks, the focus for joint operations is much larger than any particular building The
main concern of public safety professionals involves interoperable communications for joint
operations that can occur anywhere in the networks' coverage areas and is not limited to any
particular building.
The primary measure of interoperability between disparate wireless networks is how well
«o. they interoperate throughout their coverage area, not inside any individual building. Because of
the nature of how wireless networks are designed, the interoperability impact of any particular
in-building solution would be minimal unless the overall systems were already interoperable.
With that in mind, if two systems were interoperable either through a patch, switch, or other
method that relies on the separate network infrastructures, an in-building solution could extend
the interoperable communications to the inside of a building. This could be done if there were
in-building ordinances that ensured that the subscriber units from each system maintained access
to their network infrastructure while in the building. In that case, the interoperability link would
work as usual and interoperability between the two systems would be extended to the inside of
the building.
There is one jurisdiction that may be using their ordinance for this type of
interoperability. In Scottsdale, fire and police personnel communicate on separate networks (i.e.,
VHF conventional analog and UHF trunked digital). Both networks are specified in their in-
building ordinance, and minimum standards are set for each system to ensure in-building
coverage for both. Additionally, the systems are interoperable through patching activated by a
"" dispatcher. Fire and police, and other public safety personnel can communicate directly using
their two separate systems, by switching to the appropriate channels or talk groups that are linked
via patching. Also, because they have passed an ordinance that applies to both systems, the
interoperability between the two systems should be maintained even when inside buildings.
However,the public safety professionals contacted in Scottsdale did not provide any information
supporting this finding and did not know of a situation where in-building interoperability, or
interoperability in general, was positively impacted by their ordinance.
a
a
a
In-Building Ordinances and Their D-13 November 2002
r" Benefits to Interoperability Report
r
Notio _ we
a
•
APPENDIX E—ACRONYMS
ako
aa
ea
yn't • •�I "Vrr
Yn'lt
APPENDIX E—ACRONYMS
APCO Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc
BDA Bi-directional Amplifier
BIA Building Industry Association
dB Decibel
FCC Federal Communications Commission
MHz Megahertz
IOW NABER National Association of Business and Educational Radio
PCIA Personal Communications Industry Association
PSWN Public Safety Wireless Network
RF Radio Frequency
SNR Signal-to-Noise Ratio
UHF Ultra High Frequency
VHF Very High Frequency
MOO
ain't
IMO
IOW
In-Building Ordinances and Their E-1 November 2002
Benefits to Interoperability Report
r
Neer. ,esie
PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS
REALIGNING THE 800 MHz LAND MOBILE RADIO BAND TO RECTIFY
COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO— PUBLIC SAFETY INTERFERENCE
AND ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM TO MEET CRITICAL
PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS
Nextel Communications, Inc.
2001 Edmund Halley Drive
Reston, VA 20191
November 21, 2001
%IV NINO r `•
-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 4
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
A. The Problem 7
B. The Solution 7
C. Public Interest Benefits 9
III. NEXTEL'S INTEREST IN THE REALIGNMENT PROPOSAL 9
IV. BACKGROUND 11
A. The Current 800 MHz Band Plan 11
B. CMRS-Public Safety Interference in the 800 MHz Band 14
C. Efforts to Address CMRS- Public Safety Interference in
the 800 MHz Band 16
V. THE CAUSES OF CMRS—PUBLIC SAFETY INTERFERENCE
AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY'S NEED FOR
ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM 18
A. The Mixed Licensing of Public Safety,Private and
Commercial Systems Throughout the 800 MHz Band
is the Fundamental Cause of CMRS—Public Safety Interference 19
B. 800 MHz Realignment Will Create the Spectrum Allocations
Necessary to Mitigate CMRS—Public Safety Interference 23
C. The Public Safety Community Needs Additional Spectrum for
Communications Services 25
VI. PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY BY REALIGNING THE 800 MHZ
BAND AND ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM TO
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS 28
A. The Realignment Plan 28
B. Additional Measures To Prevent CMRS—Public Safety Interference 31
C. Using Mandatory Retuning and Special Frequency
Coordinators to Implement the 800 MHz Realignment 37
D. CMRS Licensees Should Fund the Bulk of Public Safety's
Retuning Costs 39
E. Using Voluntary Retuning and Special Frequency Coordinators
for Realignment of BIILT and Noise-Limited Traditional SMR Licensees 42
F. Implementation Timetable 46
t
-3-
VII. LEGAL AUTHORITY 48
A. Authority to Mandate Incumbent Relocation. 48
B. The Ashbacker Doctrine and Section 309(j)Are Not Implicated by
the 800 MHz Realignment Plan 51
VIII. MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS 55
A. Effect on Pending MSS Rulemakings 55
B. Relocation of Incumbent Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Fixed
Service Licensees in the 2020/2025 and 2170/2175 MHz Bands 56
IX. CONCLUSION 59
4t .
-4-
I. INTRODUCTION
This White Paper recommends that the Federal Communications Commission("FCC"or
"Commission")expeditiously commence a rulemaking proceeding to correct the causes of
interference between commercial wireless and public safety radio communications systems in
the 800 MHz band. As part of this initiative,the Commission should allocate additional
spectrum at 800 MHz for public safety communications systems vital to the safety of life and
property and our nation's security. Specifically, the Commission should realign the 36 MHz of
800 MHz Land Mobile Radio spectrum, 806/824- 851/869 MHz,to mitigate radio frequency
("RF")interference between Commercial Mobile Radio Systems("CMRS")and Public Safety
Radio Communications Systems and to double the amount of 800 MHz spectrum available for
primary use by public safety communications systems.
Since 1996,the FCC has been seeking solutions to the various communications problems
faced by the public safety community,including inadequate spectrum access and barriers to
interoperability.1 The Commission has acknowledged that public safety agencies have"scarce
available spectrum,"particularly in large metropolitan areas,2 and recently received a petition
reiterating public safety's critical need for additional spectrum to meet the communications
challenges of this decade.3 Public safety providers need additional spectrum now to enhance
I In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements
for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements
Through the Year 2010,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 12460,¶ 1 (1996).
2 Id. See also In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum
Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications
Requirements Through the Year 2010, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 152,¶24(1998)("First Report and Order").
3 See Petition for Rule Making by the Public Safety Wireless Network("PSWN")to
Promote Allocation of Spectrum for Public Safety Agencies and Other Matters to Address
Communications Needs Through 2010,filed September 14,2001 (the"PSWN Petition").
.
-5-
interoperability among police, fire,rescue and emergency management personnel,provide
advanced video and data communications services,increase systems capacity for both life safety
and public works uses,and improve communications reliability and redundancy.
There is also a critical need to implement an effective,long-term solution to the
increasing levels of CMRS - public interference in the 800 MHz band. The CMRS industry and
the public safety community,along with the FCC staff,have worked together over the past two
years to identify the causes of this interference. These efforts have determined that the
fundamental cause of the problem is the increasingly incompatible mix of mobile
communications licensees in the 800 MHz band. Mitigating CMRS—public safety interference
requires,among other things,realigning the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio spectrum so that
public safety and commercial services operate in separate contiguous spectrum blocks.
To achieve these essential public interest objectives,the Commission should immediately
initiate a rulemaking proceeding with the goal of adopting the necessary rule changes within six
months. This realignment plan will affect many users of this spectrum,including Specialized
Mobile Radio systems ("SMR"),Business Radio and Industrial/Land Transportation Radio
("B/ILT") systems and Public Safety Communications systems. It will also affect and
substantially benefit Cellular Radio Telecommunications("cellular")systems. Although these
actions will impose short-term costs on the affected parties,no private radio or commercial
licensee will experience a net gain or loss in the amount of spectrum it currently holds. These
parties will benefit in the long-term because they will be relieved of the burdens associated with
ongoing coordination requirements,including operating restrictions and channel deployment
limitations necessary to protect public safety communications systems from interference.
Additionally,although it is not necessary to relocate cellular licensees in the upper portion of the
-6-
800 MHz band, 824/849—869/894 MHz,these licensees increasingly are the cause of CMRS—
public safety interference and will need to undertake mitigation responsibilities to help achieve
an effective,long-term solution to CMRS—public safety interference. The proposed
realignment offers an equitable approach in which all involved categories of licensees would
share the benefits and burdens in implementing a solution that enables public safety providers to
serve the public more effectively and more reliably.
Public safety agencies are facing enormous challenges in light of the recent terrorist
attacks on our nation. As PSWN has observed,the"tragic events of September 11,2001 have
underscored the need for public safety response and coordination on a massive,unprecedented
scale." Congress has recently emphasized the need to address this challenge,5 and the FCC has
just announced the creation of a Homeland Security Policy Council composed of senior staff
officials from throughout the Commission. The Council is charged with ensuring"that public
safety,health and other emergency and defense personnel have effective communications
available to them to assist the public as needed."6 The actions recommended by this White Paper
—realigning the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band and the allocation of an additional 10 MHz
of readily useable spectrum for public safety services—will address these critical needs.
4 PSWN Petition at 4.
5 For instance, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont,Chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee,recently introduced and then steered through his committee a bill
(S. 1631)that would mandate a 90-day federal study of the"resources that are needed for
development of an effective nationwide communications system for emergency response
personnel." The need for new resources was recognized even before September 11. On July 13,
2001, for instance,twelve members of the U.S.House of Representatives sent a letter to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Commerce,Justice, State and
Judiciary Appropriations requesting$2 million to aid in the development of a county-wide
interoperable public safety communications network for Los Angeles County.
6 "Federal Communications Commission Announces Creation of Homeland Security Policy
Council,"released November 14, 2001.
-7-
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. The Problem
This White Paper explains the reasons for the increasing incidence of CMRS—public
safety interference in the 800 MHz band. Public safety and CMRS systems are operating
essentially incompatible wireless system designs on adjacent,interleaved and mixed 800 MHz
channels. The result is interference to public safety communications in the vicinity of CMRS
base stations-- even though all licensees are operating in compliance with the FCC's rules and
the terms and conditions of their FCC licenses. In addition,public safety communicators have
an urgent need for additional spectrum in the near-term to support enhanced and improved
communications to protect life,property and national security. This White Paper concludes that,
to make additional spectrum available for Public Safety at 800 MHz and solve CMRS—public
safety interference, some 800 MHz incumbents must move from their current channel
assignments.
B. The Solution
The optimum solution is to realign the 36 MHz of 800 MHz public safety/CMRS
spectrum by creating two separate(adjacent)contiguous channel blocks: 20 MHz to Public
Safety(channels 1 —400),and 16 MHz(channels 401 —720)to commercial digital wireless
networks. Public safety is currently allocated 9.5 MHz at 800 MHz;this proposal would more
than double public safety's allocation to 20 MHz. To clear space for the public safety block,
Nextel (the predominant incumbent commercial licensee with 18 MHz at 800 MHz)would
relocate its licenses in channels 1 - 400(8+MHz of the total 20 MHz)to other spectrum at its
own cost. Nextel will also contribute its 700 MHz Guard Band(4 MHz)and 900 MHz SMR
licenses(4 of the 5 MHz SMR allocation at 900 MHz)to make spectrum available for relocating
-8-
800 MHz B/ILT incumbents and high-site(non-cellular)SMR incumbents from the new public
safety block.
In return for the 16 MHz Nextel would contribute for these purposes,Nextel would be
licensed replacement spectrum as follows: (1)6 MHz at 821/824—866/869 MHz(the current
NPSPAC channels)made available by consolidating and expanding the Public Safety spectrum
in channels 1-400; and(2)a 10 MHz contiguous block from the reserve Mobile Satellite Service
("MSS")spectrum at 2.1 GHz,reallocated for terrestrial CMRS service and licensed to Nextel on
a nationwide basis.
Incumbent B/ILT and non-cellular SMRs could remain at 800 MHz in the new public
safety block on a secondary,non-interference basis where that arrangement is possible and
desired by the parties, i.e., tertiary and rural markets,or temporarily until public safety entities
need the spectrum. The Commission should,however,create incentives for B/ILT and non-
cellular SMRs to relocate expeditiously to the vacant 700 MHz or 900 MHz channels.
The 6 MHz of NPSPAC channels,in combination with the 10 MHz(816/821 - 861/866)
already licensed for advanced technology SMR systems,would become a 16 MHz low power,
low-site,digital SMR channel block. Nextel would move its operations in the new public safety
block to this advanced SMR block,as would any other digital advanced SMR incumbent
licensee in the new public safety block.
Nextel would commit to fund up to$500 million of the costs of relocating incumbent 800
MHz public safety incumbents-- primarily from the NPSPAC channels to channels 1 —400.
Cellular operators should also contribute to public safety retuning costs,as should other CMRS
licensees benefiting from the proposed 800 MHz realignment.
-9-
C. Public Interest Benefits
Realigning the 800 MHz band would rationalize the current spectrum hodgepodge that
fundamentally causes CMRS—public safety interference,thereby creating the spectrum
allocations that make it possible ultimately to virtually eliminate CMRS—public safety
interference on a nationwide,long-term basis. It would more than double the public safety
spectrum allocation at 800 MHz from 9.5 MHz of interleaved channels to 20 MHz of contiguous
spectrum-- providing near-term spectrum relief in a band where equipment is readily available
and that is adjacent to the future 700 MHz public safety channel block. No private or
commercial licensee would experience a net gain or loss of spectrum,but all would be relieved
of current interference-related burdens and have greater freedom to expand their networks in the
future.
III. NEXTEL'S INTEREST IN THE REALIGNMENT PROPOSAL
As the predominant commercial licensee in the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band,
Nextel holds numerous geographic area and site-by-site licenses that are adjacent to,interleaved
with and mixed among public safety communications license assignments. Nextel is the fifth
largest CMRS carrier in the nation,providing a unique combination of cellular, short messaging,
internet access,data transmission and Direct Connect® -- a digital two-way radio feature that
enables subscribers to reach other Nextel customers with the push of a button even if they are
hundreds of miles away. As Nextel expands its network to provide enhanced coverage and
increased capacity to serve its more than eight million customers,it finds itself unintentionally
causing,along with other CMRS licensees,interference to public safety communications in a
number of major metropolitan areas around the nation. Given its position as the primary
-10-
incumbent CMRS licensee in the Land Mobile Radio band,any realignment or consolidation of
the 800 MHz public safety or commercial spectrum will require Nextel's cooperation.
Nextel submits this White Paper proposing a plan for 800 MHz realignment because it
establishes the basis for an effective,long-term solution to CMRS—public safety interference.
Nextel has expended significant staff and financial resources to mitigate interference to public
safety communications on a case-by-case basis,including voluntarily agreeing to limit use of its
licensed frequencies at certain sites,reducing power,reorienting antennas and similar measures.
It has taken these actions voluntarily to safeguard the reliability of public safety communications,
and thus the safety of emergency response personnel and the public they protect,even.though
Nextel is operating in full compliance with the FCC's rules and regulations.
Cellular licensees are also a source of interference to public safety systems and are
finding it necessary to take similar actions to alleviate CMRS—public safety interference. As
discussed herein,cellular A band operators are causing interference to public safety
communications in cities across the nation; in some cases,B-band cellular operators contribute to
the interference. It is very difficult to coordinate the dynamic frequency reuse plans of multiple
cellular-type commercial providers to protect nearby public safety communications systems from
interference on a case-by-case basis. This approach imposes considerable burdens on all
affected licensees and is limited in its effectiveness. Moreover,the burdens and difficulties of
case-by-case remediation will only increase as all 800 MHz systems—both commercial and
7 In fact,as discussed infra, "mature"cellular systems use advanced dynamic frequency
assignment algorithms that may not be able to account for CMRS—public safety interference.
Even worse,cellular systems using advanced,digital broadband transmission technologies,such
as CDMA,may not be able to eliminate specific channels that create interference.
•
-11-
public safety—evolve to meet expanding demand for enhanced wireless communications
services.
For all of these reasons,Nextel proffers the proposed realignment plan as a means of
alleviating CMRS—public safety interference by implementing a rational band plan for 800
MHz Land Mobile Radio use. This plan would correct the spectrum allocation and licensing
practices that are at the root of the CMRS—public safety interference problem while providing
growth opportunities for affected public safety, CMRS,B/ILT and high-site SMR systems.
Nextel is also willing to contribute a substantial amount of spectrum as well as financial and
human resources to the plan's implementation. Nextel would gain no additional spectrum under
the proposed realignment plan; in fact,Nextel would incur a net loss of approximately 0.5 MHz
of spectrum. In exchange for the substantial contribution it is willing to make to the proposed
plan,Nextel would be relieved of the burdens and risks involved in its current efforts to address
CMRS - public safety interference. Nextel would also benefit by replacing its channel
assignments in the 700 MHz, 800 MHz,and 900 MHz bands with two blocks of contiguous
spectrum: 16 MHz at 800 MHz(of which Nextel is already licensed for a 10 MHz contiguous
block) and 10 MHz at 2.1 GHz reallocated from the MSS band that has not been assigned to any
MSS licensee.
IV. BACKGROUND
A. The Current 800 MHz Band Plan
Over the past 30 years,the Commission has allocated spectrum for and licensed a variety
of wireless communications services at 800 MHz. Communications services in this band include
public safety communications systems—the radio networks used by police,fire and rescue
personnel—as well as other state and local governmental services. They include the private
-12-
systems licensed to businesses and industrial facilities to provide internal network wireless
communications in and around manufacturing plants and for businesses. The 800 MHz spectrum
is also home to commercial wireless providers,including the two cellular licensees in each local
market and SMR licensees.These commercial providers compete,along with Personal
Communications Service("PCS")providers,to offer Americans a variety of competitively
priced wireless communications services that have become an essential part of contemporary
life.
The current 800 MHz band plan dates back to 1974,when the Commission reallocated
former UHF television channels 70—83,and 35 MHz of federal government spectrum,to Land
Mobile Radio Systems.8 It earmarked 40 MHz of this spectrum for cellular systems,30 MHz for
conventional and trunked radio systems, and held the remainder in reserve.9 Under this
technology-based allocation,applicants desiring to operate conventional land mobile radio
systems could apply for channels from the 100 channel conventional service allocation,
regardless of whether the applicant planned to provide communications support to public safety
providers,a private network,or commercial wireless services to third parties.'° An applicant
intending to operate trunked systems could apply for 5, 10, 15 or 20 channel groups from the
upper 200 franked channel allocation,again without regard to whether the applicant would use
8 See Exhibit A for a series of charts depicting the evolution of the 800 MHz Land Mobile
Radio spectrum band plan from 1974 to the present. See also An Inquiry into the Future use of
the Frequency Band 806-960 MHz,Second Report and Order, 46 FCC 2d 752 (1974)("1974
Licensing Order").
9 See id. at¶¶ 12, 17. In a trunked system,two or more channels are linked with a
computer that automatically assigns the first available channel to a user. In a conventional
system,channel access is manually controlled and each user must search manually for a vacant
channel. Conventional systems were simpler and cheaper to operate,but trunking is a more
efficient technology because it allows a greater number of mobiles to be accommodated on the
same number of channels.
ro See id. at 767-78,¶¶45-48.
vow' Nem/
—13—
them in a private business network,offer for-profit commercial services,or dedicate its network
to supporting police,fire,rescue and other public safety or public works services.
Given existing technological capabilities in 1974,system designers feared that the
• channels used in a multiple channel network would interfere with each other. Since 1974,
therefore,the FCC's overriding concern in licensing 800 MHz land mobile trunked systems(and
in assigning additional channels to conventional systems)has been to prevent interference
between providers or users of the same communications service("intersystem interference")by
assigning channels one megahertz apart,rather than assigning contiguous channels." Until
recently,the Commission believed that interference between providers or users of different
communications services("intersystem interference")would not be a problem in its 800 MHz
spectrum allocation and channel assignment decisions.'2
As a result, 800 MHz commercial land mobile radio licenses are not contained in
discrete,separate blocks or sub-bands,as is the case for cellular and PCS licensees,but are
spread almost randomly throughout the land mobile band, separated only by co-channel base
station distance requirements. Public safety,B/ILT and commercial providers are interleaved,
mixed and adjacent to each other creating a hodgepodge of different types of service providers—
sometimes sharing the same channels(but separated by specified co-channel distances),and
sometimes using adjacent channels. The fact that the cellular allocation is adjacent to the
NPSPAC channels creates an even more complicated mix of spectrum uses and technologies and
further exacerbates the potential for interference. This situation posed no apparent problems
11 For example,a five-channel trunked system would be assigned channels 401,441,481,
521 and 561.This exacerbated the scrambling of different licensees on adjacent,near-adjacent
and even the same channels(with specified co-channel separation)throughout the 806/821 —
851/866 MHz portion of the 800 MHz band.
12 See 1974 Licensing Order at 772-73,¶¶71-73.
114
-14-
when all licensees were using the same technology; i.e., a few high-power,high-site transmitters
serving an entire metropolitan area. CMRS licensees,however,have now adopted more efficient
system architectures that employ multiple base stations and frequency reuse techniques to
achieve the network capacity to meet growing consumer demand for their services. As described
in section V.A.below,the use of these differing system architectures in the 800 MHz band has
created locally disparate signal strengths that,under certain circumstances,cause interference to
public safety communications systems.
B. CMRS-Public Safety Interference in the 800 MHz Band
In the past few years,there have been numerous reports regarding CMRS-public safety
interference in the 800 MHz band in municipalities across the country. In a typical incident,a
police officer or firefighter finds that his or her mobile radio does not work well—or at all—in
areas near CMRS base stations where communications had previously been satisfactory.13
Interference to public safety radios raises serious public interest concerns,as public safety
officials use these radios to provide communications supporting life safety services,such as
police,fire and rescue services,as well as other governmental functions including road
maintenance,trash collection,security services,traffic management, snow removal and similar
public works services.
CMRS—public safety interference has been reported in about 25 cities throughout the
nation including Seattle,Washington;Miami,Florida;Hialeah,Florida;Orange County,
California;Phoenix,Arizona; Baltimore,Maryland; and Salt Lake City,Utah. These reports are
becoming more frequent with the increased buildout of commercial wireless networks that use
advanced cellular-type,multiple base station architecture to place a strong localized signal"on
13 The area of interference can be as small as a few feet to as much as one-quarter of a mile
from the commercial operator's base station site.
-15-
the ground"relative to the signal strength found in public safety networks using one or a few
distant base stations to cover a large area. These factors create conditions in which interference
is likely,despite the fact that all affected parties are operating their communications systems in
full compliance with the Commission's rules and the parameters of their FCC licenses. In some
cases, a commercial SMR operator such as Nextel is the sole source or a contributing source of
interference to public safety systems. A cellular operator can be the sole source of CMRS—
public safety interference,and cellular operators can combine with each other or with
commercial SMR operators to cause interference-- particularly when using co-located base
station sites.
For example,officers of the City of Denver Police Department experienced disruptive
interference on their 800 MHz mobile communications system in the immediate vicinity of
approximately 20 Nextel base stations—largely due to intermodulation products formed in the
officers'radios—even though Nextel was operating in full compliance with the Commission's
rules. Interference has disrupted police communications in the vicinity of co-located Nextel and
AT&T Wireless(the cellular A band licensee)base stations in the nearby cities of Cherry Hills
and Westminster,Colorado. The Maui,Hawaii Police Department reported that its officers'
handsets and mobile units were experiencing interference at a heavily-trafficked shopping center
near the co-located base stations of the cellular A band licensee,AT&T Wireless,and Nextel
Partners.14 The interference resulted primarily from AT&T Wireless's operations on frequencies
adjacent to the channels licensed to the police communications system,with a secondary
contribution from Nextel Partners' co-located transmissions.
14 Nextel Partners,Inc. ("Nextel Partners")is a partially-owned affiliate of Nextel,which
provides 800 MHz iDEN digital services in 100 secondary and tertiary markets throughout the
-16- •
In Oregon,the City of Portland and the Washington County Consolidated
Communications Agency("WCCCA")identified interference in the immediate vicinity of a
number of Nextel base stations. Working together,WCCCA and Nextel engineers have resolved
most of these situations;however, as WCCCA expands its communications network
geographically into adjacent counties and into the NPSPAC channels—to meet increasing
demand and coverage requirements—adjacent A-band cellular operations are causing
interference. The City of Portland is also experiencing interference in the vicinity of CMRS base
stations,including the cellular A band carrier and Nextel—both alone and in combination.
Similarly,police,fire and emergency medical services personnel in Anne Arundel County,
Maryland have reported interference to mobile communications in the vicinity of co-located
cellular(here Cingular and Verizon)and/or Nextel base stations. As the County considers
technical specifications for a replacement radio system,it is asking all in-band carriers to
participate in a channel coordination effort for controlling interference to its public safety radio
system.r 5 The County is also asking Nextel to work with it on a possible channel swap to
alleviate the continuing interference. Such a swap could be a localized version of the
realignment proposal set forth herein.
C. Efforts to Address CMRS-Public Safety Interference in the 800 MHz Band
The Commission began receiving inquiries and complaints about CMRS—public safety
interference in 1999. In April 2000,it brought together affected parties in response to increased
reports of interference to 800 MHz public safety radio networks apparently resulting from the
United States. Nextel Partners utilizes the same mix of 800 MHz spectrum and faces the same
potential interference issues that Nextel does in the 800 MHz band.
15 See Letter,dated October 30,2001, from Spurgeon R.Eismeier, Sr.,Central Services
Officer,Anne Arundel County,to Lawrence R. Krevor,Nextel Communications,Inc.
-17-
operations of nearby commercial systems,even though all providers were operating within the
parameters of their FCC licenses. A number of participants formed a working group to identify
the causes of the interference, identify mitigation alternatives,and develop joint planning and
technical solutions for preventing interference.16
On January 4,2001,the group presented to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(the"Wireless Bureau")a"Best Practices Guide"that provides a broad overview of practices
that can be used to identify and alleviate interference between public safety systems and
commercial systems.'7 The Best Practices Guide offers strategies that can mitigate interference
through frequency planning,strategic location of public safety and commercial base stations,
system design improvements for commercial and/or public safety networks,equipment upgrades,
frequency swaps, and, if necessary,FCC rule changes or waivers. Subsequently,the Association
of Public Safety Communications Officials,International("APCO")established an initiative
called Project 39 to further the goals of the Best Practices Guide. APCO Project 39 membership
includes persons representing the public safety community,manufacturers and commercial
operators as well as the National League of Cities,the National Association of Counties,and the
associations representing police and fire chiefs. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
named the Deputy Chief for Public Safety of the Bureau's Public Safety and Private Wireless
Division as the FCC's liaison to Project 39.18
16 The group included Motorola, Inc.,the Association of Public Safety Communications
Officials International ("APCO"),PSWN,CTIA,and Nextel.
17 See FCC Press Release,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Best Practices
Guide for Avoiding Interference Between Public Safety and Commercial Wireless 800 MHz
Communications Systems (issued February 9,2001).
18 See Letter from D'wana R.Terry,Chief,Public Safety and Private Wireless Division,to
Mr. Joe Kurran,Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency,dated September
13, 2001.
-18 •
-
Notwithstanding these efforts,reports of CMRS—public safety interference continue.
Disruptive interference has been reported recently in the vicinity of four CMRS sites in the Las
Vegas area, at additional sites in south Florida,and at sites in the Greater Los Angeles area.
These reports illustrate the continuing nature of this problem and indicate that additional
instances of CMRS—public safety interference will occur unless the FCC takes effective
remedial action to address and correct the underlying causes of this problem.
V. THE CAUSES OF CMRS—PUBLIC SAFETY INTERFERENCE AND THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM
One of Congress's overriding objectives in establishing the FCC was"to make available,
so far as possible,to all the people of the United States, . . . a rapid,efficient,nationwide and
world-wide wire and radio communication services. . . for the purpose of promoting safety of
life and property through the use of wire and radio communication."19 Consistent with this vital
objective,the FCC is responsible for devising an effective,long-term solution to the problem of
CMRS—public safety interference in the 800 MHz band,and for acting on requests to allocate
additional spectrum for public safety communications. Specifically,the Commission should: (1)
recognize that the current spectrum allocation and spectrum licensing structure of the 800 MHz
band is the fundamental cause of CMRS—public safety interference in this band;(2) correct this
problem by,among other things,realigning the 36 MHz of land mobile radio spectrum at
806/824—851/869 MHz so that public safety,private radio,and CMRS are no longer
commingled; and(3)allocate an additional 10 MHz of near-term available spectrum at 800 MHz
for public safety communications.
19 47 U.S.C. § 151.
-19-
A. The Mixed Licensing of Public Safety,Private and Commercial Systems
Throughout the 800 MHz Band is the Fundamental Cause of CMRS—Public
Safety Interference
The potential for CMRS—public safety interference in a specific area is, of course,
influenced by the particular facts and circumstances of each local situation.20 As noted above,
there are two basic underlying causes of this interference: (1)the interleaved and mixed
allocation of public safety,private radio,and CMRS systems at 800 MHz,and(2)the different
architectures these systems have come to use. Realigning the 800 MHz band would directly
address these two factors and make it possible to rectify CMRS - public safety interference in the
800 MHz band.
Interleaved and Mixed Spectrum Allocations and Licensing. One of the two fundamental
causes of CMRS—public safety interference is the shared,mixed and interleaved allocation and
licensing of commercial,private and public safety systems throughout the 800 MHz band.
Because public safety channels are interleaved among and adjacent to CMRS and B/ILT
channels, and because public safety licensees can be found throughout the 806/824—851/869
MHz band,public safety radios must be able to transmit and receive on any of these channels so
that they can be used on any public safety system.21 The Land Mobile Radio spectrum allocation
is so intermixed that it is technically impractical to build receivers that respond only to those
channels licensed to a particular system. Thus,the allocation of spectrum for public safety uses
20 In general,the magnitude of the disparity between public safety and commercial signal
levels,the number of channels being used by each operator,the height and power of the affected
stations,the degree of antenna downtilt and local topographic and propagation characteristics can
all affect whether interference occurs. Moreover,some models of public safety receivers exhibit
sub-optimal intermodulation,adjacent channel and spurious-response rejection capabilities,
thereby increasing the potential for CMRS - public safety interference.
21 It would be significantly more expensive to build different receivers for the interleaved
70 public safety channels only,or for the NPSPAC channels only,thereby increasing
Noe Nite
-20- •
at different places in the band and the actual licensing of public safety communications systems
throughout the 800 MHz band make it impossible to design receivers that will"hear"only public
safety transmissions and filter out other systems' signals within the band.22
Moreover,equipment designers must also take into account the thermal"drift"of
bandpass or preselector filters in response to ambient temperature changes. As the temperature
varies,the range of frequencies that pass through the receiver's front end shifts up and down;the
filters must therefore pass an even wider range of channels to ensure that the receiver"hears"the
desired channels. Most public safety receivers"hear"and respond to RF energy in the adjacent
824/849—869/894 MHz cellular band with minimal signal strength attenuation,as well as in the
806/824—851/869 MHz land mobile channels. The broad frequency response of public safety
receiver equipment permits multiple RF emissions from SMR transmitters,cellular transmitters,
or mixtures of both to combine in a public safety receiver and produce interference.
Diverging System Architectures. The Commission's approach of allocating and licensing
different services on adjacent,interleaved,and mixed spectrum in the 800 MHz band worked so
long as all licensees built systems using the same basic"noise-limited"design architecture:
analog,high-site,high power configurations without frequency reuse.23 Over the past decade,
infrastructure costs for publicly funded systems. It would also prevent a single system from
using both lower 70 and NPSPAC channels,unless the user carried two separate handsets.
22 Public safety handsets are able to receive and transmit on General Category channels,the
lower 80 interleaved SMR channels,and the upper 200 SMR channels as well as the 70
interleaved public safety channels and NPSPAC channels,because public safety systems were
licensed in the past on all of these channels.
23 As discussed above,Public Safety communications systems have traditionally been
designed to enable communications at low signal levels(as low as—105 dBm or less)until the
desired signal cannot be distinguished from the background thermal noise in the receiver. This
design enables public safety agencies to provide coverage throughout their jurisdictions—often
large geographic areas-- with one or at most a few base stations(using simulcast rather than
frequency reuse design)-- and therefore minimal expenditure of public funds.
. -21-
however,commercial land mobile systems have transitioned to"interference-limited"system
designs featuring multiple,low-power base stations with intensive frequency reuse and mobile
hand-off from cell-to-cell throughout a geographic area to serve many times more users with the
same quantity of spectrum.24 At the same time,cellular operators licensed above 869 MHz
adjacent to the NPSPAC channels have expanded the capacity and coverage of their
"interference-limited"systems. By introducing digital modulation technologies and numerous
low sites,these cellular operators more intensively reuse their spectrum to meet the substantial
growth in demand for commercial wireless services.
These differing system architectures can result in locally robust CMRS signals being
much stronger than distant,less robust,public safety transmissions,25 particularly within a few
hundred meters of the CMRS base station where the commercial signal is strongest.26 This
disparity in signal strength leads to three types of interference:
(1)Intermodulation. Intermodulation("IM")is the primary interference
mechanism involved in CMRS—public safety interference. It occurs when
locally stronger CMRS signals,on non-public safety frequencies,combine in the
public safety receiver itself to form a new frequency or frequencies,much like
combining red and yellow paint produces a new color-- orange.27
24 Interference-limited systems use multiple,low power base stations and sophisticated
frequency coordination to control intrasystem interference while maximizing user capacity.
25 Signal levels immediately around low-height CMRS sites are typically much stronger
(e.g., -25 to-40 dBm)than those from more distant high-height public safety transmitters(e.g.,
-70 to -100 dBm or less).
26 In the earlier days of cellular development,this happened infrequently because cellular
antennas were located at high enough elevations that the distance to the ground sufficiently
attenuated the signals so that they rarely"overpowered"adjacent public safety signals. As
cellular use has grown,cellular carriers are building smaller cells with lower sites to maximize
frequency reuse;the lower antennas produce a stronger signal at ground level.
27 As an example,a commercial SMR signal at 864 MHz can combine with a cellular A
band signal at 870 MHz to produce intermodulation products at 858 MHz and at 876 MHz. The
876 MHz product falls in the cellular A band and therefore is not germane to this discussion;
however,the 858 MHz signal falls in the 851-869 MHz band and could be licensed to a public
safety system. If the public safety system is operating on 858 MHz,and if the SMR and cellular
' o
-22-
(2) Wideband noise interference. The large signal strength disparity between
typical high-site public safety and low-site commercial systems means that wideband
noise produced by the commercial systems,while fully within FCC limits,may still be
strong enough to cause interference to the relatively weak signals produced by the public
safety radio system,particularly if those signals are close to the thermal noise limit of the
public safety receivers.28
(3)Receiver Overload Interference. If a commercial SMR or cellular operator
has a large number of transmitters at a given site(to serve user demand),a public safety
radio designed to receive very weak signals may be overloaded by the cumulative energy
coming from the nearby site.
It warrants reemphasizing that the incidents of CMRS—public safety interference in the
800 MHz band reported to date have not resulted from the failure of any party to comply with
Commission rules or the parameters set forth in its license. Rather,such interference results
from the normal operation of systems designed and optimized to meet the different needs of
public safety and commercial communications systems licensed on adjacent,interleaved and
shared channels. `Noise-limited"public safety system designs have been a satisfactory model
for public safety deployments given that public safety operators,spending public funds,must
cover large geographic areas as economically as possible. CMRS providers,in contrast,have
acted rationally in response to marketplace demand by making substantial investments in digital,
frequency reuse technologies to meet the dramatically increasing consumer demand for their
wireless communications services 29
A-band providers are colocated on a tower or building in its service area,the public safety
mobile and portable units could experience interference in the immediate vicinity of the
colocated CMRS site due to the relatively strong signals from the commercial SMR and cellular
A-band operator creating intermodulation interference in the public safety receiver.
28 Wideband noise interference usually becomes visible only after intermodulation
interference is eliminated. It should be noted that commercial SMR and cellular operators are
not the only contributors to a higher noise floor. Other RF sources,such as"active"television
reception systems,cellular antennae flashing light displays,and computer RF emissions also
increase the noise floor and can interfere with public safety communications.
29 For example,in 1990, 19 MHz of SMR pspectrum was exhausted in most major markets
despite serving only about one million users. The subsequent evolution of SMRs to digital,
Nape '4111004
-23-
B. 800 MHz Realignment Will Create the Spectrum Allocations Necessary to
Mitigate CMRS—Public Safety Interference
The ability of law enforcement, fire departments, and other public safety agencies to
communicate effectively and without harmful interference is critical to the safety of life and
property and our nation's security. The public safety community and the CMRS industry have
worked to address these problems through the Best Practices Guide and Project 39,and these
parties should be commended for undertaking these initiatives. These efforts,while a positive
step,are nonetheless ad hoc and time consuming and impose significant burdens on all parties.
Incident-by-incident,after-the-fact interference remediation will inevitably fail to protect
fully the safety of law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other emergency responders,and
fail to keep pace with the evolving communications needs of both public safety and commercial
communications providers. CMRS—public safety interference is likely to worsen in the coming
years unless a long-term solution is adopted. CMRS carriers continue to expand their systems to
serve additional users on existing spectrum and to meet the growing demand for competitive
commercial wireless communications, including high speed data and other advanced services.
Public safety communicators,despite limited funding and network infrastructure,must provide
expanded communications coverage—particularly in-building coverage—as well as data and
other enhanced capabilities to support life safety services in growing cities and suburbs. These
realities will increasingly juxtapose locally robust CMRS deployments with public safety
cellular-like,frequency reuse technology dramatically increased their capacity enabling the same
19 MHz to support more than eight million users—an eightfold capacity increase over the 1994
industry total. See Industrial Communications, October 13, 1989;Implementation of Section
6002(B)of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993:Annual Report and Analysis of
Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services,First Report, 10
FCC Rcd. 8844, 8855-57¶¶35-39 (1995)("First Competition Report").
'414610 No,
-24 •
-
communications systems operating with relatively weak signals—a recipe for increased CMRS -
public safety communications interference under the current 800 MHz band plan.
Given these risk factors,the Commission must use its regulatory authority to implement a
long-term solution that corrects the underlying cause of 800 MHz CMRS—public safety
interference by realigning the 36 MHz of Land Mobile Radio spectrum in the 806/824—851/869
MHz band to separate public safety channels and commercial channels into exclusive,
contiguous blocks. As discussed further in section VLB.,below,the Commission and the public
safety community must consider additional measures to safeguard against CMRS-public safety
interference,including a possible guard band and the reduction of public safety receiver
sensitivity outside the public safety channel block.
These actions would eliminate the underlying bases for CMRS—public safety
interference and provide a near-universal solution. Unless the Commission mandates 800 MHz
realignment and the associated interference-prevention measures discussed below,public safety
operators will face the ongoing challenge of case-by-case interference identification and analysis,
as well as trial and error corrections every time a nearby commercial carrier modifies its
inherently dynamic network. Even with close cooperation among all parties,the ongoing burden
of this process and continued threat of impaired public safety communications,not to mention
the spectral constraints it imposes on commercial carriers,warrants the cost and effort necessary
to implement the ubiquitous,permanent solution described herein.
The same considerations that call for a realignment of the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio
band shaped the band plan the FCC adopted for future public safety and CMRS systems that will
operate in the 700 MHz band spectrum reallocated from broadcast television service on UHF
Channels 60-69. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 directed the Commission to reallocate 24
-25-
MHz of this spectrum for public safety use and 36 MHz of this spectrum for commercial use.30
Instead of interleaving commercial and public safety channels in this spectrum,the Commission
has designated contiguous spectrum blocks(channels 60-62 and 65-67)for exclusive commercial
use,and separate contiguous spectrum blocks (channels 63-64 and 68-69)for exclusive public
safety use. In addition, the Commission established guard bands in the commercial spectrum
immediately adjacent to the public safety bands and prohibited commercial licensees in these
bands from employing cellular architectures.31 The FCC adopted these measures in response to
concerns that commercial,interference-limited systems could not co-exist adjacent to noise-
limited public safety systems without interference 32 These same concerns warrant 800 MHz
Land Mobile Radio band realignment.
C. The Public Safety Community Needs Additional Spectrum for Communications
Services
As part of realigning the 36 MHz of Land Mobile Radio spectrum in the 806/824—
851/869 MHz band,the Commission should allocate additional spectrum for public safety
services by creating a 20 MHz contiguous,primary public safety channel block in the 806/816—
851/861 MHz band. This proposal would more than double,from 9.5 MHz to 20 MHz,the
public safety spectrum at 800 MHz.
There is a pressing need to allocate additional spectrum for public safety
communications. In 1996,the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee("PSWAC")issued a
report that,among other things,recommended that the FCC allocate 97.5 MHz of additional
30 47 U.S.C. § 337(a).
31 See In the Matter of Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules,Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299
(2000).
32 Id. at¶ 12.
-26- •
spectrum for public safety services to meet the current and foreseeable requirements for wireless
communications through the year 2010.33 The Commission took an important step towards
meeting these requirements in 1997 when,as described above,it reallocated 24 MHz of spectrum
from television channels 60—69 for public safety use in the 700 MHz band and subsequently
established a band plan and service rules for that spectrum allocation.34 Due,however,to current
television broadcaster incumbency,public safety communications providers in most parts of the
nation cannot yet access this spectrum,and may continue to be foreclosed from deploying
service there for many more years.35 This uncertainty has,in turn,hindered the development of
700 MHz public safety communications equipment. Thus,while 700 MHz may offer a partial
long-term solution to the spectrum needs of public safety communications,it does not provide
short-term or even medium-term relief
As noted above,on September 14,2001,PSWN filed a petition for rulemaking reiterating
the urgent need to allocate an additional 71 MHz of spectrum to meet public safety needs,and
described the delays encountered in deploying public safety services in the 700 MHz band.36
PSWN states that,"the greatest spectrum need of public safety wireless communications is for
bandwidth to support low-speed data,high-speed data,and video. These capabilities,
33 PSWAC Final Report, September 11, 1996.
34 First Report and Order at¶2, citing Report and Order,ET Docket No. 97-157, 12 FCC
Rcd 22, 953 (1997).
35 Analog broadcast television stations,including those operating in the 700 MHz band
(UHF Channels 60-69)are permitted by statute to continue operations until their markets are
converted to digital television,which is not scheduled to occur until at least December 31,2006.
See 47 U.S.C. § 337(e). The Commission must extend this date in certain circumstances,
including the lack of significant penetration of digital television within a market. See id. at
§ 309(j)(14). See also In the Matter of Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands,
and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules,Order on Reconsideration of the Third
Report and Order,WT Docket No. 99-168, FCC 01-258 (released Sept. 17,2001)(adopting
initiatives to expedite the clearance of broadcast television operations in UHF Channels 60-69).
-27-
incorporating the latest technologies,would allow local law enforcement,fire,and emergency
management service personnel to employ the quickest and most informed approach in
performing their duties.i37 The petition also"reassert[ed]the urgent need for additional
interoperability spectrum to be allocated for use by public safety agencies in all bands."38
According to PSWN,such an allocation"is important primarily because of the emergence of
new,innovative,life-saving technologies that will likely require greater bandwidth to function
optimally."39
The compelling necessity of 800 MHz realignment to combat CMRS—public safety
interference provides the FCC with a unique opportunity to allocate additional spectrum for
public safety communications systems in a band where equipment is already available.
Consequently, the Commission should reallocate 10.5 MHz of 800 MHz SMR spectrum for
public safety use to be consolidated and realigned on a contiguous basis with the existing 9.5
MHz of public safety spectrum at 800 MHz. Equipment is readily available for public safety use
on 800 MHz spectrum,40 and relocating SMR(and many B/ILT)incumbents from this spectrum
can be achieved in a relatively short timeframe—as short as two to three years and certainly
before relocation of incumbent broadcasters out of the 700 MHz public safety channels can be
36 Supra. at p. 3 and n. 3.
37 PSWN Petition at 10.
38 Id. at 15.
39 Id. at 14.
40 Equipment meeting the specialized public safety needs of the APCO 25 standard is
already available for 800 MHz use and is well along in development for adjacent 700 MHz
channels. In short,expanding the amount of exclusive, contiguous public safety spectrum at 800
MHz adjacent to the new 700 MHz public safety allocation is a far more effective and efficient
long term plan than establishing additional public safety spectrum in another band,particularly in
the higher bands with propagation characteristics requiring more infrastructure to meet
ubiquitous public safety coverage requirements.
-28-
completed 41 This reallocation will help meet the public safety community's urgent need for
additional spectrum to accommodate data applications as well as critical interoperability needs.
It will also provide public safety communications a larger contiguous block of spectrum in the
800 MHz band that is directly adjacent to the 700 MHz spectrum that has been reallocated for
exclusive public safety use. This additional spectrum will provide the basic spectral resource for
the development of advanced communications capabilities to support both Homeland Security
and"everyday"public safety services in the post-September 11 environment.
VI. PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY BY REALIGNING THE 800 MHZ BAND AND
ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM TO PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS
A. The Realignment Plan
This White Paper has described two vital steps to promote public safety communications:
mitigating current and future CMRS—public safety interference,and providing public safety
licensees with additional,useable spectrum as quickly as possible. To accomplish these steps,
the Commission should implement the following spectrum reallocations and redesignations,and
the subsequent mandatory relocation and voluntary relocation of various incumbent licensees 42
(1) Reallocate the 800 MHz General Category and interleaved SMR,B/ILT and public
safety channels, 800 MHz channels 1 —400(806/816—851/861 MHz). to create a 20
MHz contiguous,primary Public Safety spectrum block.
41 This reallocation plan takes into account Nextel's consolidation over the past decade of
the majority of commercially-available 800 MHz land mobile radio spectrum. The fact that one
CMRS licensee in this band,Nextel,holds many of the EA licenses and site-by-site licenses on
the proposed new 20 MHz public safety block at 800 MHz,significantly simplifies the
incumbent retuning and relocations necessary to effectuate an 800 MHz Land Mobile Service
band realignment.
42 See Exhibit B for a chart depicting the proposed new 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band
plan,and a chart depicting all of the reallocations and redesignations necessary to carry out the
proposed realignment.
1
-29-
(2) Reallocate the 6 MHz of public safety NPSPAC channels(821/824—866/869)and
the adjacent 10 MHz of upper 200 SMR channels(816/821 —861/866) for advanced
technology commercial wireless systems using"interference-limited"multiple low-
site,low-power systems architecture. The Commission should license the additional
6 MHz to Nextel in partial exchange for the spectrum it will vacate and swap to help
implement 800 MHz realignment;Nextel is already the dominant incumbent licensee
on the adjacent 10 MHz.
(3) Reallocate 10 MHz of contiguous spectrum(2020/2025—2170/2175)from MSS for
exclusive terrestrial advanced commercial mobile communications services. This
block is currently not being used by any MSS licensee,but includes non-MSS
Broadcast Auxiliary Service incumbents that must be relocated to enable advanced
mobile communications services to use this band,as detailed in section VIII.B.
below. The Commission should license this 10 MHz to Nextel as part of this
proceeding in an even exchange for certain of its licenses totaling 10 MHz of
spectrum in the 700, 800 and 900 MHz bands to make the 800 MHz band
realignment possible.
(4) Redesignate 4 MHz of the 5 MHz of SMR spectrum at 900 MHz(896/901 —934-
940),currently licensed to Nextel, for traditional(noise-limited)co-primary B/ILT
and high-site SMR use.43
(5) Redesignate the 50 Business and 50 I/LT channels between 809.75/816—854.75/861
MHz from primary B/ILT to primary public safety use as part of the channels 1 —400
public safety block. Incumbent B/ILT licensees would be permitted to remain on
these channels on a secondary,non-interference basis or voluntarily relocate as
described below.44
(6) Redesignate the 4 MHz of 700 MHz Guard Band spectrum(762/764—792/794 MHz)
from Guard Band Manager to co-primary B/ILT and high-site,analog SMR use,and
modify the current service rules that apply to this spectrum to achieve this objective.
(7) Expedite the current schedule for mandatory retuning of all Broadcast Auxiliary
Service incumbents at 2020- 2025 MHz, and,to the extent necessary,terrestrial
Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave systems at 2170—2175.
43 A total of five MHz of this 10 MHz block is currently allocated for SMR use with the
remaining five MHz allocated for B/ILT use. The SMR and B/ILT channels are allocated on an
alternating,interleaved basis. Because all licensees will initially be using comparable noise-
limited system architecture,this interleaved spectrum does not pose an interference risk. To the
extent that these licensees desire to migrate eventually to interference-limited systems,the
Frequency Coordinators for 900 MHz can assign these channels to separate such uses.
44 Any B/ILT licensees remaining on these channels after a voluntary relocation period
would have secondary status only,i.e.,they may not interfere with public safety communications
and must accept any interference resulting from the primary public safety operations.
%so NNW
-30-
(8) Require mandatory retuning of all advanced technology(interference-limited)CMRS
SMR systems from the new 800 MHz Public Safety Block(800 MHz channels 1
through 400)to the 16 MHz advanced technology block at 800 MHz.
(9) Require mandatory retuning of all public safety licensees in the NPSPAC channels,
821/824—866/869 MHz,to the new 806 MHz Public Safety channels through the
assistance of a Special Public Safety Frequency Coordinator, as detailed below. This
mandatory retuning of public safety systems would be funded in large part by Nextel,
any other advanced technology SMR licensee, and the cellular licensees.
(10)Permit voluntary retuning of B/ILT incumbents and noise-limited SMR incumbents to
the new 900 MHz B/ILT and traditional SMR spectrum,or to the 700 MHz former
guard band channels,with the assistance of Frequency Coordinators on a first-come,
first-served basis.45
At the end of the relocation period,all users would be grouped together in discrete parts
of the band depending on their technology choices. No private radio or commercial licensee
would experience a net gain or loss of spectrum,and all licensees would have the opportunity to
gain increased spectrum efficiency because of the new contiguous and near-contiguous spectrum
grants. To facilitate this realignment plan,the Commission should waive applicable FCC fees
associated with the relocation and other license modification applications that would need to be
filed by incumbent licensees under this plan.46
This 800 MHz realignment plan offers the most expeditious and efficient path to
eliminating CMRS—public safety interference. Nextel has evaluated other realignment
alternatives,including separating public safety,B/ILT and commercial/advanced SMR.licensees
into separate blocks within the 800 MHz band;requiring the immediate refitting or replacement
of all public safety receivers to achieve higher IM rejection specifications;moving all 800 public
as The Commission should establish a filing window for first-come,first-served incumbent
relocation applications to encourage these incumbent licensees to migrate to the largely vacant
900 MHz current SMR spectrum or the 700 MHz spectrum.
46 See 47 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(FCC may waive payment of an application fee"for good
cause shown,where such action would promote the public interest").
-31-
safety systems to 700 MHz or to 900 MHz;requiring CMRS and public safety licensees to
mitigate interference on a case-by-case basis much as they have been doing to date; and
requiring extensive and careful frequency coordination between CMRS providers and public
safety communications systems. None of these alternatives effectively achieves the essential
public interest objective of correcting the fundamental cause of CMRS—public safety
interference at 800 MHz while making a significant amount of near-term spectrum available for
enhanced and expanded public safety communications networks.47
B. Additional Measures To Prevent CMRS—Public Safety Interference
The realignment of the 800 MHz Land Mobile Service spectrum band is an essential step
toward eliminating harmful CMRS—public safety interference in this band. Realignment alone,
however,will not completely eliminate this interference because public safety radios may still
respond to RF energy from the adjacent digital SMR and cellular bands. This section discusses a
number of potential solutions to this problem. The Commission could by rule adopt any of these
specific alternatives or instead authorize public safety frequency coordinators to implement them
in whole or in combination as warranted on a regional,metropolitan area,or other geographic
basis.
47 For example,while it has been possible to undertake"careful frequency coordination"in
some cases,it is increasingly difficult to do so in the current environment as the result of two
trends. First,local jurisdictions have become increasingly interested in requiring CMRS
operators to collocate on the same transmission towers. This collocation has led to increased
combinations of signals by commercial operators and thus increased interference to public safety
communications. Second, CMRS operators are now deploying automated frequency use
algorithms to maximize the moment-by-moment efficiency of their spectrum use. This
development makes it more difficult to account for a particular public safety system through
frequency coordination,particularly if multiple CMRS systems each employing automated
assignment programs need to be coordinated. Given both these trends, frequency coordination is
impractical at best when CMRS channel use restrictions are required to avoid IM interference
with public safety frequencies,particularly when multiple CMRS carriers are involved.
.
NIle
-32-
Improved Receivers. One means of reducing CMRS- public safety interference is to
improve public safety receivers. Realigning the 800 MHz band to eliminate interleaved mixed
spectrum should enable equipment manufacturers to design narrower band-pass preselector
filters and/or receiver signal attenuation characteristics that would in most cases prevent
commercial transmissions from forming intermodulation products in public safety receivers.
Narrower filters could limit receiver sensitivity to the new public safety channel block; if the
receiver did not respond(or had a much smaller response)to signals outside the public-safety
band,it would not be susceptible to intermodulation interference. Alternatively,if such filters
were too costly,required too much space in the receiver or imposed undesirable performance
tradeoffs,manufacturers could couple a somewhat less restrictive preselecter with a fixed or
variable attenuator to combat intermodulation. Digital SMR,cellular and PCS receivers already
use this type of automatic attenuation capability to control potential intermodulation interference.
Based on analysis of CMRS—public safety interference in several cities as well as
current receiver performance specifications and characteristics,it is recommended that the
Commission adopt the following performance standards for 800 MHz public safety and CMRS
systems to prevent harmful interference between these systems:
• Public-safety mobile or portable receivers should be able to receive the desired
public safety signal in the presence of commercial signals having a composite
average power of—10 dBm,a peak-to-average ratio of 15 dB,and a noise output
that conforms to the FCC requirements for transmitters in the band.
• In accordance with the licensee relocation schedule discussed in section VLF.
below,all public-safety receivers should meet or exceed the following
performance standards by the end of the mandatory relocation period specified for
a given EA:
-33-
Item Requirement
Intermodulation rejection 75 dB or better
Front-end filtering The receiver should incorporate filters ahead of
the first active stage such that commercial
signals outside the public-safety range are
attenuated no less than 20 dB more than any
attenuation provided to signals in the public-
safety range. This filtering should take place
under all operating conditions.
Adjacent-channel rejection 75 dB or better
Reference sensitivity <-112 dBm
Additional CMRS Base Station Filtering. In addition to receiver standards, the
Commission should require additional filtering of CMRS base station transmitters to further
reduce wideband noise from CMRS transmitters falling in the public-safety band. Specifically,
all commercial transmitters in the 851- 894 MHz band could be required to attenuate energy in
the public-safety band no less than 85 dB below the desired carrier level.
Guard Band/Advanced Technology Band. In order to allow public-safety receiver
preselectors and CMRS base station transmitters to filter out signals not in the appropriate band,
some spectrum isolation between CMRS and public-safety systems is necessary. One way to
achieve this is for public safety coordinators to implement a guard band on the upper end of the
base-to-mobile frequency in the 20 MHz public safety block.48 Requiring a guard band would be
consistent with the band plan adopted by the Commission in allocating spectrum for CMRS and
public safety use at 700 MHz. A 2 MHz minimum guard band likely would be required to allow
filters in public-safety receivers and CMRS base-station transmitters to function effectively. The
Commission should evaluate further whether 2 MHz is sufficient or whether a larger guard band
48 A guard band is required on the base-to-mobile link. It is normally not required on the
mobile-to-base link because(a)the signal levels from CMRS mobile transmitters are generally
significantly smaller than the signal levels from public safety mobile transmitters,and(b)the
public-safety base station receivers are generally located where they cannot receive destructive
interference from CMRS mobile transmitters.
-34-
may be required. The Commission should also consider whether this guard band is best treated
as"dead spectrum"or whether public-safety entities should have the flexibility to operate
systems in it with the understanding that they must accept any interference they receive from
CMRS systems in the adjacent band.
A more spectrally-efficient approach to isolating CMRS and public safety systems may
be to establish a high technology public safety spectrum set-aside adjacent to the proposed digital
SMR spectrum block. Equipment in this portion of the proposed new public safety b rock could
be required to(a)limit on-street infrastructure signal levels to prevent interference to traditional
public-safety designs in the lower part of the public-safety band, and(b)be designed to
withstand the relatively strong signals from digital SMR systems in the adjacent spectrum block.
For example,a robustly designed,high-site digital public safety system could be a"good
neighbor"to both traditional high-site public safety systems and adjacent commercial mobile
radio services. Thus,the Commission could achieve the benefits of a guard band without
wasting or underutilizing scarce spectrum by establishing a digital technology,high-site channel
reserve that could be used by public safety operators for data services,telemetry and perhaps
interoperable voice services across political jurisdictions. The Commission should also consider
requiring any technology used on these channels to be open and non-proprietary and based on,or
compatible with,a commercially available wireless technology. This approach would serve the
public interest by spurring development of competitive advanced public safety equipment and
infrastructure incorporating interference-resistant protocols.
Stronger Public Safety Signal Strength. Another alternative CMRS—public safety
interference safeguard would be to require public safety systems to achieve a more robust signal
in the field. As discussed in section V.A.above,typical public safety system design has
e r
*nor
-35-
emphasized using the least infrastructure possible to control costs while providing usable
coverage. This design approach assumes that public safety systems can operate effectively at
lower signal levels than are used by commercial wireless networks. It is the disparity in signal
strength between public safety and CMRS systems,however, that sets the stage for interference
to the less robust public safety transmissions.
One approach to eliminating interference in a realigned 800 MHz band would be to
require stronger public safety base-to-mobile signals,i.e.,a more robust signal"on the street."
By reducing the disparity between CMRS and public safety radio signals,a more robust public
safety signal would be more resistant to interference from locally stronger CMRS system base
station transmissions. For example,while maintaining a 40 dBu requirement for co-channel
protection,the Commission could require new public safety system deployments,and expansion
or upgrades of existing systems,to provide a signal strength of no less than 53 dBu in all areas
requiring interference protection from nearby CMRS systems. This approach to preventing
interference would generally require public safety systems to add additional infrastructure to
their networks to provide more consistent and robust signals.
Selecting a Solution. The alternatives described above,individually or in combination,
could provide sufficient protection against CMRS—public safety interference under the 800
MHz realigned band plan. The wideband sensitivity of public safety receivers,their resistance to
intermodulation,the signal strength of public safety systems,and the types of system designs and
interference resistant technologies used adjacent to the public safety block are all interrelated
factors that affect how large a guard band is necessary in the public safety block to prevent
interference. As part of a rulemaking proceeding to implement the proposed 800 MHz
realignment plan,the Commission should consider(a)the numerical standards for the protection
Ss, Noti
-36-
that must be provided to public-safety operations,(b)how compliance is to be measured,and(c)
whether to allow the public safety community,through its designated frequency coordinators or
some other representative body,to determine what solutions to pursue.
Reduced CMRS Power Levels. One option the Commission should not pursue is to
require CMRS operators to reduce their on-street power levels through lowering transmitter
power or changing antenna characteristics. In a good-faith effort to combat interference,and as
described in the Best Practices Guide,CMRS operators have voluntarily reduced on-street signal
strength in some instances. While this helps to control interference in certain circumstances,it
requires these CMRS systems to accept degradation of their networks and their ability to serve
customers. The public interest would be disserved by requiring CMRS operators to implement
this"stopgap"measure on a permanent basis throughout their networks,as to do so would
inevitably create coverage"holes,"dropped calls,and disrupted service for many existing CMRS
users.
In theory,CMRS operators could compensate for reduced on-street signal levels by
changing or building out additional CMRS infrastructure to restore the loss in coverage and
service. This would,however,impose substantial costs on carriers and their customers,thereby
reducing customer access to commercial mobile radio services,particularly for less affluent
citizens. It would also be very difficult to obtain the necessary local zoning and permitting
approvals for installing larger CMRS antennas and towers,or for the numerous additional base
station sites necessary to restore the lost service. Moreover,this approach would do nothing to
correct-- and in fact would perpetuate-- the underlying spectral problem of incompatible radio
system designs and uses on adjacent,interleaved and mixed 800 MHz spectrum. For these
reasons,the Commission should reject any suggestion that CMRS operators employ lower power
-37-
levels as a long-term measure to prevent CMRS—public safety interference in the 800 MHz
band.
C. Using Mandatory Retuning and Special Frequency Coordinators to Implement
the 800 MHz Realignment
Mandatory Retuning. To achieve the public interest benefits of the 800 MHz realignment
—i.e., eliminating CMRS—public safety interference and making additional public safety
spectrum available expeditiously—the Commission should require incumbent licensees in the
targeted frequency blocks,with the exception of B/ILT and traditional SMR licensees,to retune
their systems to"relocate"in the proper spectrum block. Relocation must be mandatory because
any non-compliant licensee could create renewed interference potential for itself or for other
affected licensees,or could block timely completion of the realignment reallocations.
Special Frequency Coordinator. To expedite and simplify retuning,the Commission
should certify a special"Public Safety Realignment Frequency Coordinator"(the"Public Safety
Special Coordinator")whose responsibility would be to: (1)identify specific channel
assignments for public safety licensees relocating from the NPSPAC channels to the new 800
MHz public safety channel block(806/816—851-861 MHz); (2)verify that the new assignments
will reduce or eliminate the potential for CMRS—public safety interference while ensuring that
incumbent licensees receive new licenses that are geographically and spectrally equal to or better
than their original licenses; and(3)assist incumbent NPSPAC licensees with carrying out their
retuning obligations.
The Public Safety Special Coordinator should be staffed by at least one representative
from each of the existing FCC-certified public safety frequency coordinators,49 as well as
49 Nonprofit associations certified by the Commission for frequency coordination include:
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International,Inc. ("APCO"),
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials("AASHTO"),Forestry Conservation
•
t
-38-
representation from the existing NPSPAC regional planning committees and the new'700 MHz
planning organizations. Using a unified updated licensing database and computerized frequency
coordination programs,the Public Safety Special Coordinator would identify and publish new
channel locations for all relocating public safety licensees.50 The Special Coordinator would
carry out this process using the regional planning areas as identified for the NPSPAC channels.
Individual licensees could review their new assignments and work with the Special Coordinator
to undertake any refinements,changes or modifications necessary to account for local
propagation anomalies and special terrain factors. The Special Coordinator would also act as a
liaison and facilitator with current incumbents on the public safety block to handle the logistics
of the retuning,relocations and spectrum swaps that will effectuate the relocation process.
Few if any incumbents on the lower 70 interleaved public safety channels would have to
relocate because that spectrum would be within the new 20 MHz public safety block. Relocation
may be desirable or necessary in some instances,however,in light of local or regional
requirements or other special circumstances. The Commission should permit the Public Safety
Special Coordinator to determine whether relocating lower 70-channel public safety incumbents
is necessary to make efficient use of the new Public Safety block in a particular planning region
and,if so,to identify new assignments within the new 20 MHz public safety spectrum block,and
assist in completing such relocation.
Conununications Association("FCCA")and International Municipal Signal Association
("IMSA").
50 This process may be simplified by simply transferring in its entirety the existing
NPSPAC assignments in a regional planning area to a comparable spectrum sub-block in the new
20 MHz public safety channel block. This White Paper recommends that the Commission
consult with the public safety community,existing frequency coordinators,and equipment
manufacturers to determine the most efficacious way to identify relocation assignments for
NPSPAC incumbents.
-39-
D. CMRS Licensees Should Fund the Bulk of Public Safety's Retuning Costs
The 800 MHz realignment plan cannot be implemented unless public safety entities have
sufficient funds to cover their retuning costs,including applicable engineering,equipment and
site costs,base station retuning costs,handset and mobile unit retuning costs,as well as any
reasonable additional costs of relocation to fully comparable facilities. In some cases,this may
include the costs of new repeaters,antennae and handsets where retuning existing equipment is
not practicable or replacement equipment is required to prevent interference. Because public
safety communications systems are generally funded by tax revenues, government bonds or other
public sources, 800 MHz relocation costs could impose an unexpected and unplanned burden on
state and local governments—many of which are already struggling to meet increasing costs for
roads, schools,health care and other essential public services and facilities. Thus,if public
safety communications providers were required to provide funding for the entire cost of their
portion of the 800 MHz realignment,it would be difficult to complete realignment in an
acceptable time period. The urgent need to eliminate CMRS—public safety interference and
make additional spectrum available for public safety communications systems requires that
additional relocation funding resources be made available.
Therefore,the Commission should require commercial SMR providers,including Nextel
and SouthemLinc®,and the 800 MHz cellular licensees to make a substantial contribution to the
costs of retuning public safety communications systems. These CMRS licensees stand to benefit
significantly from realigning the 800 MHz band and concomitantly adopting technical and
operational requirements that ultimately will virtually eliminate CMRS—public safety
interference. In particular,cellular carriers will be relieved of the burdens of detailed,ongoing
coordination requirements,operational limitations and channel use restrictions necessary to
'err'`
-40-
safeguard public safety communications systems from interference. Advanced SMR operators,
like Nextel,will be able to consolidate spectrum holdings now mixed and interleaved with public
safety and B/ILT systems into contiguous,exclusive channel blocks offering increased user
capacity and freedom from the operational limits and ongoing coordination procedures otherwise
necessary to mitigate and/or prevent CMRS—public safety interference.51 Cellular and
advanced SMR/CMRS operators will be free to focus on competing with each other for
customers,rather than diverting corporate resources to complex multi-carrier coordination efforts
to prevent intermodulation products from falling on public safety channels.
Nextel will be the most substantially affected advanced CMRS licensee involved in this
project. Nextel is willing to contribute up to$500 million for relocating incumbent public safety
communications systems to the new public safety channel block at 806/816—851/861.52 While
this may cover a substantial portion of the public safety retuning costs,other commercial SMR
providers and cellular licensees,particularly the"A"band carriers,should help fund public
safety retuning costs.53 As described above,cellular licensees are a primary source of CMRS-
51 Nextel has expended,on a voluntary basis,significant resources for modified antennas,
special combiners,custom-made filters,modified base stations,interference drive testing,signal
strength mapping,intermodulation prediction and analysis,and interference monitoring,as well
as tens of thousands of man hours in carrying out these activities,to identify the source or
sources of CMRS—public safety interference and to develop and implement fixes. AT&T
Wireless and other cellular carriers are also incurring similar costs and overhead to mitigate
interference on a case-by-case basis.
52 Nextel would provide this contribution contingent upon the Commission's adoption of a
Final Order: (1)creating a new digital advanced SMR channel block as described herein at
816/824—861/869 MHz; (2)assigning to Nextel licenses for the 6 MHz of spectrum.(the current
NPSPAC channels)in the new advanced SMR channel block; and(3)assigning to Nextel
nationwide licenses for a contiguous 10 MHz of MSS spectrum at 2.1 MHz reallocated for
terrestrial commercial mobile use.
53 In addition to this contribution to public safety retuning costs,Nextel will also bear the
costs of its own relocation out of channels 1—400 to the new digital SMR spectrum block.
Nextel holds many of the EA and site-by-site licenses in this spectrum. Moreover,Nextel will
• i�r
-41-
public safety interference in the 800 MHz band. The realignment plan would relieve their
burdens associated with responding to and mitigating the interference incidents that will become
increasingly prevalent in the future.
Consequently,all cellular and advanced 800 MHz mobile communications providers
should make a substantial contribution toward the costs of retuning public safety
communications systems from the NPSPAC channels and,where necessary,interleaved lower 70
channels,to the new public safety block.54 Public safety communications operators would
contribute a lesser portion of the costs. This approach will create a public-private partnership
effort to eliminate CMRS—public safety interference and make additional spectrum available for
public safety communications without damaging the competitiveness of affected CMRS
providers.55
have approximately 2 MHz less spectrum at 800 MHz at the completion of retuning and will
have to commence construction of a 2.1 MHz network in lieu of its planned developments at 700
MHz and 900 MHz. Accordingly,Nextel will incur more relocation costs than any other
licensee under the 800 MHz realignment plan.
54 B/ILT and traditional SMR licensees will contribute to this effort by paying their own
costs of relocation.Many B/ILT users will be able to simply retune their systems to their new
allocated frequencies,thus keeping their costs to a minimum. Arguably,however,B/ILT users
also will benefit from access to interference-free contiguous spectrum,particularly if they choose
to relocate to their new homes at 700 MHz or 900 MHz, and therefore also should contribute to
the fund to relocate public safety. In addition,the Commission should support before the
Congress an appropriations request to assist public safety communications entities with the costs
of retuning to cany out the 800 MHz realignment plan.
55 Such a public-private partnership would be similar to the many highly successful federal
programs that offer matching funds to stimulate state or local government participation in
essential programs. For example,the Interstate Highway System was originally conceived as a
national defense program to speed the movement of army and other defense forces and material
throughout the country;the federal government offered 70 percent funding,provided the states
matched it with the remaining 30 percent. See Richard F.Weingroff,Federal Aid Highway Act
of 1956: Creating the Interstate System,Public Roads On-Line at 9(1996)
<http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96sul0.htm>;Financing Federal-Aid Highways,
Appendix G:Federal Share and Availability for Significant Programs 44(U.S.Dept.of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration,May 1992)(noting that the federal government
Si
' .
-42-
In identifying those costs eligible for reimbursement and establishing reimbursement
procedures,the Commission should follow the approach it adopted in relocating incumbents
from the upper 200 SMR channels at 800 MHz.56 Costs incurred to retune public safety
incumbents from their current channels assignments to their new assignments in the public safety
channel block would be eligible for reimbursement. The costs of expanding or improving
existing systems,including upgraded equipment(unless retuning the existing equipment is
impractical or impossible),or correcting coverage gaps or other system shortcomings would be
ineligible for reimbursement57
E. Using Voluntary Retuning and Special Frequency Coordinators for Realignment
of BIILT and Noise-Limited Traditional SMR Licensees
Voluntary Relocation for B/ILT Licensees. The Commission should permit incumbent
B/ILT and high-site analog SMR licensees to continue operating on a secondary,non-
interference basis in the 800 MHz band,while providing incentives for these licensees to relocate
voluntarily to the 700 MHz band or 900 MHz band. This flexible approach would enable such
currently funds 80 percent of the interstate system). Urban mass transit,hospital construction,
irrigation projects,rural electrification and many other governmental programs use this type of
shared funding approach. See, e.g., id. (mass transit); Center for Public Service, Government's
50 Greatest Endeavors: Enhancing the Nation's Health Care Infrastructure,p. 1-2,Nov. 12,
2001 <www.brook.edu/gs/cps/50ge/endeavors/healthcare.htm>(hospital construction);Larry
Todd,Bureau of Reclamation,Statement on S. 2881: Small Reclamation Water Resources Act of
2000,July 25,2000<www.doi.gov/ocl/2000/s2881.htm>(irrigation projects); Office of
Industrial Technologies,NICE3,Nov. 12,2001 <www.oit.doe.gov/nice3>(describing the cost-
sharing program created by the Department of Energy to promote energy efficiency and stating
that non-federal funds must account for at least 50 percent of the total cost of the project).
56 See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development
of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band,First Report and Order, Eighth Report and
Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd. 1463, 1510,¶79
(1995), aff'd by Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd. 17556,
17577,138 (1999).
57 In most cases replacement equipment will not be necessary because existing public safety
system hardware can be returned to the new public safety channel block.
-43-
licensees and public safety planners to take into account variances in public safety spectrum
needs on a local and/or regional basis. Public safety users may not need to inhabit this spectrum
immediately throughout the nation; incumbents could remain in those locations(e.g.,rural or less
populated areas)until public safety users need the spectrum. In addition,some B/ILT and high-
site SMRs may use system designs or technologies that can co-exist with primary public safety
use on a secondary,non-interference basis. Thus,the approach recommended herein would
allow B/ILT and high-site SMR incumbents in the 806/816—851/861 block to evaluate local
spectrum demand requirements and the realities of secondary status in that venue versus moving
to new assignments at 700 MHz or 900 MHz. Incumbents could choose to take advantage of
guaranteed replacement assignments on a first-come, first-served basis,or"take their chances"
on future relocation spectrum availability.58
B/ILT Special Frequency Coordinator. The FCC should also create a separate B/ILT
Realignment Frequency Coordinator(the"B/ILT Special Coordinator")to identify specific
channel assignments for voluntary relocations by B/ILT licensees and high-site traditional SMR
systems in the reallocated 4 MHz of former SMR channels at 900 MHz and the 700 MHz former
guard band. Specifically,the B/ILT Special Coordinator would be responsible for: (1)
identifying specific channel assignments for traditional"noise-limited"SMR and B/ILT licenses
voluntarily relocating from the lower 800 MHz channels to the new 700 MHz or 900 MHz co-
primary B/ILT and high-site SMR channel block; (2)verifying that the new assignments will
reduce or eliminate the potential for CMRS—public safety interference while ensuring that
relocated licensees receive new licenses that are geographically and spectrally equal to or better
than their original licenses; and(3)assisting incumbents that must be relocated with carrying out
58 Some of these incumbents may choose over time to take service from commercial
`err✓ 411.1
-44-
their retuning obligations. Using a first-come,first-served licensing approach will encourage
incumbent licensees to take advantage of this newly available spectrum and thereby facilitate
voluntary relocation from the new public safety block,particularly in metropolitan areas where
public safety licensees will have the most urgent need for this additional spectrum.
The B/ILT Special Coordinator should include representation from the B/ILT and SMR
certified Frequency Coordinators: AMTA,the Industrial Telecommunications Association
("ITA"),the Personal Communications Industry Association("PCIA")and the Utilities
Telecommunications Council("UTC"). The B/ILT Special Coordinator would perform
essentially the same functions for its constituency as the Public Safety Special Coordinator
performs for public safety: identifying new channel locations for the incumbents being relocated,
working with those individual incumbents to account for local propagation anomalies and special
terrain factors,or facilitating other refinements or modifications required to complete the
relocations.
Advanced Technology B/ILT Systems. The Commission should consider requiring the
B/ILT Special Coordinator to designate a portion of the new 900 MHz traditional SMR/B/ILT
channel block for advanced technology B/ILT private systems. Some B/ILT licensees have
acquired and operate advanced,multiple-site,frequency reuse communications systems using the
same network architecture as CMRS systems.59 The FCC should examine whether the Special
Coordinator should designate certain frequencies at 900 MHz for the development of such
providers and"surrender"their secondary channel assignments.
59 For example,some utility companies are implementing high power,high site DEN
systems,to obtain more capacity and robust in-building coverage. These systems and high-site,
high power traditional analog SMR and B/ILT system designs should be able to coexist with
little or no special planning or frequency coordination. Alternatively,the Special Coordinator
should create set-aside spectrum for these types of systems,or the FCC should impose operating
requirements or other limiting parameters to ensure compatibility.
-45-
systems to prevent creating at 900 MHz the type of mixed and interleaved spectrum licensing
that has created interference problems in the 800 MHz band.
Channel Bandwidth at 900 MHz. The Commission should examine whether to retain the
current 12.5 kHz channel bandwidth at 900 MHz. It could require all migrating B/LT and
analog SMRs to use 12.5 kHz equipment in the 900 MHz band,or it could permit the Special
Coordinators to assign two adjacent channels to a licensee for every one 800 MHz channel to
permit the licensee to continue to use 25 kHz equipment. The Commission would need to
address whether it should take a different approach in relocating analog SMR systems, analog
noise-limited B/ILT systems,or digital,frequency-reuse B/ILT relocatees. Incumbents being
relocated should be encouraged to make the most efficient use of this spectrum,either by FCC
requirements or by steps taken by the Special Coordinator.
Utility Company Licensees. Utility companies licensed on the 800 MHz B/ILT channels
would be accommodated by relocation to the former 900 MHz SMR channels or former 700
MHz Guard band channels. The 900 MHz channels are already interleaved with 5 MHz of 900
MHz spectrum allocated for private,internal use B/ILT systems;accordingly,this reallocation
would create a 10 MHz block for B/ILT licensees,including utilities,as well as the remaining
analog,traditional SMR systems. This reallocation of 900 MHz channels for co-primary B/ILT
and traditional SMR services,coupled with the 4 MHz of 700 MHz guard band spectrum Nextel
is making available,offers more spectrum than these licensees have available today at 800 MHz.
This relocation would permit utility company licensees to expand their systems in the future,
particularly those that provide communications for critical utility services. Comments recently
filed in response to a request by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration("NTIA")point out that energy and water companies,in particular,have special
Now No"
-46-
spectrum needs that closely parallel those of public safety entities.6° In light of this,the
Commission should consider whether to reserve certain channels in the new 900 MHz B/ILT and
high-site SMR spectrum block for the internal communications needs of critical infrastructure
utility companies,such as water,gas,or electric utilities.61
F. Implementation Timetable
Given the risk that disruption of life safety communications creates for the well being of
public safety personnel and the citizens they serve,the public interest requires that the 800 MHz
realignment be completed as rapidly as practicable.62 It will not be possible,however,to retune
all of the land mobile community at once. The following reallocation/retuning implementation
plan balances these two considerations:
• The following rule changes should be effective upon Commission adoption of a
Report and Order implementing the 800 MHz realignment plan: (1)reallocation of
the 2020/2025—2170/2175 MHz MSS spectrum to terrestrial mobile
communications,and,as part of the spectrum swap,assignment(licensing)of this
spectrum to Nextel through a nationwide license; (2)redesignation of the 762/764—
792/794 MHz Guard band channels, and the 896/901 —935/940 MHz SMR channels,
to co-primary B/ILT and high-site SMR use; (3)establishment of the new 20 MHz
Public Safety block at 806/816—851/861 MHz with a transition period to relocate all
affected CMRS and public safety licensees,and with all incumbent B/ILT and high-
6° See Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information
Administration,Request for Comment on Energy, Water and Railroad Service Providers'
Spectrum Use Study, 66 FR 18447 (2001). NTIA has been directed by Congress to prepare a
report by December 21,2001 on the spectrum needs of these entities,and, six months after
NTIA's report has been released the Commission similarly has been directed by Congress to
submit and report on the actions that could be taken by the Commission to address the needs
identified by NTIA.
61 The B/ILT Special Coordinator could set-aside part of the 900 MHz channel block for
critical infrastructure radio communications systems used by public utility operators. Such
systems could include wireless communications to dispatch service and maintenance personnel
and help control,monitor and maintain generating systems,electric grids,gas pipelines,water
distribution systems and similar critical utility operations.
62 Under these circumstances,a voluntary negotiating period in which to reach agreement
on a retuning proposal could delay substantially the solution and thus would not be in the public
interest.
-47-
site SMR licensees in this spectrum converted to secondary status; and(4)
establishment of the new advanced technology SMR block at 816/824— 861/869
MHz and assignment(licensing)of the 821/824— 866/869 portion of it to Nexte1.63
• With the assistance of the Public Safety Special Coordinator,incumbent public safety
NPSPAC licensees(821/824—866/869 MHz)would begin moving to the new
806/816—851/861 MHz public safety channel block as incumbents relocate in the
priority order discussed below. At the same time,analog SMRs and B/ILT licensees
in channels 1- 400 would confluence voluntary relocation to the 900 MHz or 700
MHz bands,with the assistance of the B/ILT Special Coordinator,to clear channels 1
- 400 for ongoing public safety relocations.
• Once the NPSPAC channels are cleared,Nextel would complete relocating its
remaining operations on channels 1 —400 to the former NPSPAC channels or the
upper 200 channels.
The 800 MHz realignment and associated licensee relocations should be completed
within 36 months of the effective date of a Report and Order adopting the realignment plan. The
following relocation schedule gives priority first to relocations necessary to mitigate acute
unresolved interference,and second to retuning licensees in areas most likely to experience
CMRS—public safety interference:
• For markets with acute,unresolved CMRS—public safety interference,channel
swaps and retuning should be completed within 12 months of the effective date of the
Report and Order;
• Channel swaps and retuning would be completed in all remaining top 30 Economic
Areas("EAs")within 24 months;
• Channel swaps and retuning should be completed in the top 80 EAs within 30
months;
• All ieinaining relocations and swaps completed within 36 months of Commission
adoption of a Report and Order regarding the 800 MHz realignment plan.
If at any time CMRS—public safety interference in any market cannot be satisfactorily
controlled using short-term corrective measures(e.g.,lower power,higher antenna height,
63 As discussed previously,Nextel already holds nearly all of the incumbent EA and site-
by-site licenses in the current 816/821 —861/866 MHz portion of the new advanced SMR block
1 4
-48-
modified frequency use at the problem site),the public safety licensee should have the right to
request that the Public Safety Special Coordinator advance the retuning of that entity and/or
market. The Commission should empower the Public Safety Special Coordinator to require that
any such retuning project be completed within nine months or sooner,if practicable 64
VII. LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Commission's authority to assign and reallocate spectrum and to relocate incumbent
licensees derives from several provisions of the Act,including sections 4(i),303(c), 303(f),
303(r),and 316.65 These same provisions also authorize the Commission to convert non-
relocating incumbents from primary to secondary status when necessary to advance the public
interest. As discussed below,the Commission has exercised both types of authority in the past,
and would face no legal obstacles to exercising such authority under the proposed 800 MHz
realignment plan.
A. Authority to Mandate Incumbent Relocation
On numerous occasions,the Commission has exercised its authority to require incumbent
licensees to relocate to different parts of the spectrum when necessary to advance the public
interest. For example,in 1965,the Commission reallocated Business Radio Service spectrum
"as a matter of sound spectrum planning."G6 In that case,the Commission required that private
community antenna television systems("CATV")relocate,at their own expense,from the
and would retain these licenses.
64 The Public Safety Special Coordinator would notify the B/ILT Special Coordinator so
that any necessary moves of B/ILT and analog SMR stations could be completed to permit the
relocations necessary to eliminate the interference.
65 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i),303(c),303(f), 303(r), and 316.
66 Amendment of the Commission's Rules Relative to the Licensing of Microwave Radio
Stations Used to Relay Television Signals to Community Antenna Television Systems,First
-49-
spectrum allocated for Business Radio users to an adjacent band. Finding that CATV spectrum
needs were growing,67 the Commission sought to accommodate future CATV needs by
reallocating spectrum and dedicating it to CATV use,with the quid pro quo that existing
licensees relocate themselves to the newly-allocated part of the band.
More recently,in the Emerging Technologies proceeding,the Commission reallocated
220 MHz of spectrum in the 1.85 to 2.20 GHz band from private and common carrier fixed
microwave use to use by"emerging technologies.' 8 While existing public safety fixed
microwave licensees were initially allowed to remain in the band on a co-primary basis,69 the
Commission reconsidered that decision and,on its own motion,determined that all microwave
incumbents, including public safety users,would be required to relocate.70 This decision was
upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court stated that the
Commission's finding that"it is in the public interest to subject all incumbent. . .fixed
microwave facilities,including public safety licensees,to mandatory relocation"adequately
articulated a reasoned analysis,based on the record,to require the relocation.71
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 1 FCC 2d 897, 1132 ("1965
Reallocation Order").
67 1965 Reallocation Order¶35.
68 Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New
Telecommunications Technologies,First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6886,¶ 1 (1992) ("Emerging Technologies Order"). Ultimately tie
Commission allocated this spectrum for PCS.
69 Id.¶26.
70 Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New
Telecommunications Technologies,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 1943,¶34
(1994).
71 Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. v. FCC, 76
F.3d 395,400 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
~ 1
%roe 'too
-50-
The Commission's authority to relocate public safety and digital SMR incumbents in the
800 MHz band is not diminished by the fact that portions of this spectrum were licensed through
competitive bidding under Section 309(j)of the Act.72 Indeed,as section 309(j)itself makes
clear,Congress intended licenses assigned by auction to be regulated no differently from licenses
assigned by other means:
Nothing in this subsection,or in the use of competitive bidding,
shall
(A)alter spectrum allocation criteria and procedures established by the
other provisions of this Act; [or]
(C)diminish the authority of the Commission under the other
provisions of this Act to regulate or reclaim spectrum licenses; [or]
(D)be construed to convey any rights,including any expectation of
renewal of a license,that differ from the rights that apply to other
licenses within the same service that were not issued pursuant to
this subsection[.]73
Because the Commission's authority to regulate and reclaim spec-nun extends to all licensees,
including those that acquired licenses through competitive bidding,the Commission is fully
empowered to require incumbents in the 800 MHz band to relocate as needed to further the
public interest.
The Commission also has authority to convert hold-over incumbent licensees to
secondary status. Specifically,the Commission has previously granted incumbent licensees the
option of either retaining their existing licensed channels on a secondary,non-interference basis
72 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).
73 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(6).See also Applications of TV Active,LLC et al. for Consent to the
Assignment of Licenses in the 218-219 MHz Service,Order on Reconsideration,D.A 01-2503,
FCC File No. 0000334630,2001 WL 1312891,¶21,n.70 (Oct. 26,2001)("Section 309(j)(6)(C)
and(D)of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(6)(C)-(D),makes clear that the use of
competitive bidding in spectnum allocation does not diminish the Commission's authority to
regulate spectrum licenses.").
-51-
or voluntarily relocating their operations on a preferential basis during an accommodation
period.74 The Commission thus possesses the legal authority to grant this same option to
incumbent B/111,T and traditional high-site SMR licensees currently operating in the 800 MHz
band.
B. The Ashbacker Doctrine and Section 309(j)Are Not Implicated by the 800 MHz
Realignment Plan
The proposed 800 MHz realignment plan is fully consistent with administrative law due
process requirements, including the Ashbacker doctrine,75 as well as the competitive bidding
provisions set forth in section 309(j)of the Act.76 The plan would entail the reallocation of
certain spectrum bands and modifications of existing licenses pursuant to section 316 of the
Act.77 Pursuant to the plan,incumbent licensees would effectively"swap"spectrum,trading
their current channel assignments for alternative assignments to eliminate the underlying causes
of CMRS - public safety interference and allocate additional spectrum to public safety
communications.78 Because these swaps of already-occupied frequencies would not require the
74 See, e.g., Establishment of a Spectrum Utilization Policy for the Fixed and Mobile
Services' Use of Certain Bands between 947 MHz and 40 GHz,First Report and Order, Gen.
Docket No. 82-334, 54 Rad. Reg.2d(P&F) 1001 (1983)(12 GHz incumbent Operational Fixed
Service licensees given option of retaining their existing licensed facilities on a secondary basis
to Direct Broadcast Satellite Service,or relocating their operations on a preferential basis during
a five-year accommodation period)(citing, inter alia, sections 4(i), 303(c),and 303(r)of the
Act).
75 Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945) ("Ashbacker").
76 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).
77 47 U.S.C. § 3 16(a)(1)("Any station license or construction permit may be modified by
the Commission either for a limited time or for the duration of the term thereof,if,in the
judgment of the Commission such action will promote the public interest").
78 Commercial users would swap their current licenses in return for alternative spectrum
licenses providing comparable replacement spectrum in order to help eliminate interference to
800 MHz public safety communications systems. For example,Nextel would swap a total of 16
MHz on which it holds licenses today—8 MHz from 800 MHz and 4 MHz each from 700 MHz
-52-
Commission to issue any licenses to new licensees or for new services,and because the
Commission may permissibly limit eligibility for spectrum licenses when doing so serves the
public interest,the proposed plan would not trigger either the Ashbacker doctrine or section
309(j).
Ashbacker Doctrine. In Ashbacker,the Supreme Court held that,if two bona fide
applications for an open frequency are mutually exclusive,they are entitled to a comparative
hearing.79 Ashbacker is only triggered when an"open"frequency is being assigned,and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has held that`Ashbacker does not compel the Commission
to hold comparative hearings in order to approve channel exchanges[.]"80
In light of this holding,in previous situations where licensees have exchanged their
current licenses for equivalent licenses using a different frequency,the Commission has
concluded that section 316 of the Act authorizes such modifications.81 The proposed 800 MHz
realignment plan contemplates precisely this kind of license exchange. Accordingly,with
respect to all the spectrum that would be effectively"swapped"under the proposed plan,the
Ashbacker doctrine would not impair the Commission's authority,pursuant to section 316 of the
and 900 MHz—and will receive 16 MHz in return— 10 MHz from 2.1 GHz MSS and 6 MHz
from the 821/824—866/869 NPSPAC channels. B/ILT licensees would likewise swap their 800
MHz licenses for comparable 700 MHz or 900 MHz licenses to facilitate the interference-
resolving 800 MHz spectrum realignment,while public safety licensees in the NPSPAC channels
are simply exchanging those licenses for comparable spectrum rights in the new consolidated
806/816—851/861 MHz public safety channel block.
79 Ashbacker, 326 U.S. at 332.
80 Rainbow Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 949 F.2d 405,410(D.C. Cir. 1991). See also
Amendment of Section 73.606(b),Table of Allotments,Television Broadcast Stations and
Section 73,622(b),Table of Allotments,Digital Television Broadcast Stations(Buffalo,New
York),Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 11856,¶ 12(1999)("Channel Swap Order")("in the
case of channel exchanges,the rule of Ashbacker does not apply because the channels are
occupied").
81 See, e.g. Channel Swap Order.
-53-
Act,to relocate incumbent licensees to different spectrum assignments to resolve the CMRS—
public safety interference issues described above.
The Ashbacker doctrine likewise does not preclude the Commission from allocating
additional spectrum to public safety services and,to make this possible,assigning 10 MHz of
reallocated MSS spectrum to Nextel in exchange for spectrum Nextel would surrender as part of
the realignment plan. As a long line of precedents demonstrates,Ashbacker does not prevent the
FCC from"promulgat[ing]rules limiting eligibility to apply for a channel when such action
promotes the public interest,convenience and necessity."82 Thus,because of the important
public interest goals it would advance,the Commission would be free to promulgate rules that
would effectively make Nextel the only eligible licensee of the 2020/2025 and 2170/2175 MHz
portion of the MSS band.
As the commercial licensee most interleaved with and adjacent to public safety licensees,
Nextel is directly affected by any realignment plan that creates the separate public safety and
commercial spectrum blocks necessary to mitigate 800 MHz CMRS—public safety interference.
Nextel's cooperation in voluntarily relocating from the new public safety block,and voluntarily
making spectrum available to relocate B/ILT and high-site SMR licensees from the public safety
block, is an essential element of the realignment plan. The Commission has full authority to
earmark and assign to Nextel the replacement channels necessary to make Nextel whole in this
82 Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Permit FM Channel and Class Modifications
by Application,Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd.4735,¶ 16(1993)(citing U.S. v. Storer
Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956)). See also Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 928 F.2d
428,439(D.C. Cir. 1991)(the FCC may reject,without a hearing,applications that do not meet
valid eligibility requirements);Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Modification
of FM Broadcast Licenses to Higher Class Co-channel or Adjacent Channels,Report and Order,
60 Rad. Reg.2d(P&F) 114,¶ 17(1986)("The Commission can promulgate rules limiting
eligibility to apply for a newly allotted channel in circumstances where,in its determination,
such action promotes the public interest,convenience and necessity.").
ikse Vow
-54-
spectrum swap and make implementing the 800 MHz realignment plan possible. The
realignment plan,in turn,will mitigate the problem of CMRS-Public Safety interference while
making additional spectrum available for public safety communications.
Section 3090). Section 309(j)of the Act authorizes the Commission to award"initial"
spectrum licenses through the use of a competitive bidding system.83 Section 309(j)exempts
from competitive bidding applications for public safety spectrum.84 The assignment of spectrum
licenses to public safety services under an 800 MHz band realignment plan and the allocation of
additional spectrum to public safety consequently would thus not trigger the section 309(j)
competitive bidding procedures.
Section 309(j)would likewise not be implicated by the proposed reallocation and
redesignation of the 800 MHz spectrum used by private radio and SMR licensees. Instead of
applying for"initial license[s]"under section 309(j)(1),these licensees would merely receive
licenses for replacement spectrum in exchange for the spectrum licenses they will surrender as
part of the realignment plan. Accordingly,the reallocation proposal would not trigger the
competitive bidding requirements of section 309(j).
This analysis is consistent with other cases in which the Commission has relocated
wireless licensees from one frequency block to another comparable block without triggering
section 309(j)'s competitive bidding requirements for initial licenses. The Commission recently
held,for instance,that section 309(j)was not a valid basis for granting a Petition for
83 See 47 U.S.C. §309(j)(1)("If,consistent with the obligations described in paragraph
(6)(E),mutually exclusive applications are accepted for any initial license or construction permit,
then,except as provided in paragraph(2),the Commission shall grant the license or permit to a
qualified applicant through a system of competitive bidding that meets the requirements of this
subsection.").
84 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(A).
-55-
Reconsideration of an earlier order mandating the relocation of Digital Electronic Message
Service("DEMS")licensees:
Because its actions [to relocate DEMS licensees to new spectrum]
were license modifications under authority of Section 316,and did
not involve the grant of initial licenses,the Commission was not
authorized under Section 309(j)of the Act to use auction
procedures. Those auction procedures may only be used to select
from among mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses.
Accordingly,petitioners'reliance on Section 309(j)of the Act is
misplaced.85
Like the relocated DEMS licensees,the incumbents affected by the proposed plan would
be relocated under authority of section 316 of the Act,and not section 309(j).
VIII. MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
A. Effect on Pending MSS Rulemakings
To implement effectively the realignment of the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio band and
allocate additional spectrum to public safety,it will be necessary to reallocate the 2020/2025 and
2170/2175 MHz bands to terrestrial mobile services,and to assign that spectrum to Nextel in
exchange for spectrum relinquished by Nextel for reassignment to public safety communications
services,WILT licensees and high-site SMR licensees. The Commission has already proposed,
in a separate pending rulemaking("Advanced Wireless Services Proceeding"),to reallocate a
portion of the MSS spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands to support the
introduction of new advanced mobile and fixed terrestrial wireless services(advanced wireless
services),including third generation(3G)and future generations of wireless systems.86 In that
85 Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Relocate the Digital Electronic Message
Service from the 18 GHz Band to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band for Fixed
Service,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 15147,¶59(1998)(citations omitted).
86 See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commissions Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz
for Mobile-and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services,
-56-
proceeding,the Commission requested comments on various spectrum reallocation options that
were intended to preserve sufficient spectrum for 2 GHz MSS operations and,at the same time,
make available some of the 2 GHz MSS spectrum for advanced wireless services.
For the reasons discussed herein,the Commission should reallocate the 2020/2025 and
2170-2175 MHz MSS frequency bands on a primary basis to terrestrial advanced mobile
services. It should assign these frequency bands to Nextel in return for Nextel's swapping
certain 700, 800 and 900 MHz spectrum for public safety purposes. These actions will serve the
public interest by resolving CMRS—public safety interference in the 800 MHz band, addressing
critical spectrum needs of the public safety services,and affording Nextel replacement spectrum
for its use in providing terrestrial mobile services.
B. Relocation of Incumbent Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Fixed Service
Licensees in the 2020/2025 and 2170/2175 MHz Bands
The MSS spectrum in the 2020/2025 MHz and 2170/2175 MHz bands that would be
reallocated to terrestrial mobile services and assigned to Nextel as part of the 800 MHz
realignment plan is currently used by Broadcast Auxiliary("BAS")and Fixed Service("FS")
licensees,who also operate in other parts of the MSS band. In the Commission's proceeding to
allocate 2 GHz spectrum to MSS,it adopted a plan to relocate BAS and FS licensees operating
on this spectrum to other spectrum bands.87 The current BAS relocation plan consists of a
complex,two-phase,market-staggered approach that would relocate gradually incumbent BAS
licensees over many years as MSS systems became operational. Incumbent FS licensees would
Including Third Generation Wireless Systems,Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,ET Docket No. 00-258 (Aug. 20,2001)("2 GHz MO&O and
FNPRM").
87 See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2
GHz for Use by the Mobile Satellite Service, Second Report and Order and Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order,ET Docket No. 95018, 15 FCC Rcd. 12315, 12326-27(2000).
Nine
-57-
be relocated to the extent they received harmful interference from MSS,but would not be
required to relocate if they could successfully share spectrum with MSS. Under the plan the
Commission adopted,MSS licensees would compensate incumbent BAS and FS licensees for
the costs incurred in relocating.
As described above,the Commission has recently sought comment in its Advanced
Wireless Services Proceeding on whether to reallocate some portions of the MSS band to
advanced terrestrial wireless services. In doing so,it recognized that the current phased
relocation of BAS might not be practical if such a reallocation plan were adopted because
advanced wireless services would be deployed faster than MSS operations. It consequently
sought comment on(1)how the current BAS and FS relocation plan would have to be modified
to accommodate a reallocation of spectrum for terrestrial wireless use; (2)what the relocation
responsibilities of new MSS and terrestrial wireless entrants would be; and(3)whether new MSS
and terrestrial wireless entrants would share the relocation costs on a pro rata basis.88
The Commission will need to address the same issues with respect to the 2020/2025 MHz
and 2170/2175 MHz bands that would be reallocated and assigned to Nextel under an 800 MHz
realignment plan. In doing so,the Commission should ensure that the different users of the MSS
band share BAS and FS relocation costs on an equitable basis. It should also seek to expedite the
current BAS and FS relocation process, at least with respect to the 2020/2025 MHz and
2170/2175 MHz bands,in order to implement the 800 MHz realignment plan under the timetable
described above. Because of the urgent need to resolve CMRS—public safety interference in the
800 MHz band and to allocate additional spectrum to public safety,the Commission should give
priority to adopting a modified BAS and FS relocation plan for the 2020/2025 MHz and
88 2 GHz MO&O and FNPRM at¶¶32-34.
vow Nei
-58-
2170/2175 MHz bands so that these bands can be cleared in an expeditious manner. Relocation
issues involving other portions of the MSS band should be deferred to the extent practicable for
consideration in the Commission's pending Advanced Wireless Services Proceeding.
•
•
-59-
IX. CONCLUSION
Given the critically important life-safety services supported by public safety
communications systems,the Commission should implement remedial actions promptly.
Commercial-public safety radio interference will increase unless the shared,mixed and
interleaved licensing of the 800 MHz land mobile radio band is realigned and commercial
licensees and public safety communications licensees are relocated to different, separate channel
blocks.
Public safety communicators also urgently need additional spectrum. This White Paper
sets forth a comprehensive plan to address these critical matters in an expeditious,effective
manner. The Commission should move rapidly to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
substantial accord with the 800 MHz realignment plan discussed herein, so that it can receive the
comments, suggestions and ideas of all interested parties and,so informed, enact the rule
changes needed to mitigate CMRS—public safety interference at 800 MHz while protecting the
fundamental interests of all affected licensees, and at the same time double the near-term
spectrum available at 800 MHz for public safety communications systems.
Respectfully submitted,
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
By,
Robert S. Foosaner
Senior Vice President—Government
Affairs and Chief Regulatory Officer
November 21,2001
W
o
cv
W
.N
in
03
co
N .0
M
47,
N 0 0
7
AL N
U
LL u 0 �;,
0 L
L
co
T QC
0 0
•�
co
o
iii
O Pr 4 W
ToC N
L
O N c
OWV/ 112
05
CC rth
O co O
0 O d
}
C Si
� 02
.5.
a el. 'CI -om°° yodd c =- 0-E m .— � oLmg N N C" N O CycU++VI •C LG co dy Ev) O OCD. 2 1 O .ON c N de C Cs ry EV GC LE d d 00 o 'O• a) N vU � � c co Li.O cacm
15
o
Um
O 3a) a)O co a
O_ it
• O 9 O
pin
V Lo
V V N
co
o O a) O
To TE =
co0c
.y £ aco
Lo
.a E •-
o
0C "i5a
co
TO Ch
Y o
LLJQco
C
1 ,, J n
o. m c
m 0
. 4
t
�Y
N 0
CO
co
Uu)
C
C.) L II
LL LL 0
C
o
cc"" (0
o
O N
nz� ia, d
y�r C
co T ro C
v to
0 yy' U 0
T ,t k t W
u.
10
Qro ;,-'..,,se,--',;,,-, r
z t 7 r,
N 0; Cu—Op L
0
4-1
N N
0 I a a�i
ii ch W TD N
♦A O o > > O C
V W t 2 V
U CC
" o in0t` LL V
V - c N LL ,°
o 'p C
.7I
y +
3
Lc) CO O
o -Ow
O
O a
InL 1 O
vi In
fl- >
co
a) m
"0 -0
co
L u)
CO =
E 0
(so
o ._._ ,n
00 0
440) .
co
J s
n mU p r
0 a
t
6 •
to. s-:i O
�.. . ....- - COD
my N N
C
y � C 0
C
¢ 3 y
Li- .0
o ALL I- o
J C
el
'ci co
in t
C i �, L. CD c
O o
a�
•— _ 2
CU T k �� C - C k 'i'`` (,a`
O V V
2 V N -
O `� _ �a.
a.
-o d = as
CC 73al
CO
(6
U 0_O, r m 3 73
Ca �° O LA N N
0 _ 2 ' °' c L. a
♦A O Oesimmemour y 0Rf C
c0
V♦ N d >. _ I-
Q 1 . — +• O
V �r� N •twei.t O N -
_6.
aummonour
`° _ O •—
o w� r...w V .0 0 `'� d
Q •, Cl- C o
a to C C N 0 C 0.
co co 0 d O 0).C 'a C — C C
N C
CD e O .cLC
N .0 0 p L' .0
y d 2 y c
as as N �"•
d _0 O C cov' d
� � � 0C �
L L ,�
000uo
co C L
0v 0. (a 0
0 0 0--C +-'
IS 0) Y U. IL < v C
e CO
O Z t
a mV C 1
D 0
4
Nome
� v,
CO CO
T N N
P Y . CO
a CD N N C
CO V r
' in .cC
z 3 42 V
d N (0
N
_ N ((0 I
p1 f� t } 'z` �`C�r,}^ .�L zrt
eta
CO
(0 15 GU I-
c° J
0 1 c IV
O ° N
O `I-
I 0
Ts
I"'Q _ _ CO2 N
r r CO
CC
y _ : �� G
w.wwrrwr C) N O
L N o o.Q = rn
0/) CO in -p
` o , y
W r
CD
V
0. a) •.�.... enp
/V�, 0
O 3 CD
O
CO ernr „z ,. � O m
V R
o
re:co
O "a r r 1111011111111.11MNI >►I t0
p N a.+
a — 0 N 2 G.
._ O 0
O
0o In 0 2 a) C
CO
O. s ._ 43
O p 4'' z-
N
Z I 0 O
co IC) co C)
..- V
O ea _O co
r 0 O cc O
O —
d 'a 13
O O 'C
lii 0)
c I Q Q
.he 13 C � 0 J pOp
IS_ mV C 1
M 0
* w
in o
N CO
CO CO
A N N N
Y .=Y 0CD N
16
toNN .-
C E.
c0 f%1 3
� � � t �' .0 +L+
N C 0 V
C. N 03 0
—I .a
acar 0:, N 6v- N
O
cp
W °_ '0 C 0 0
.O � a � ;' Y2 Y CCU) >
rri i C C co O
O iY r0�+ —0Y +O+ 0
�S :- t., C V i
as
{� 0 -0 C O 2,, 0
_O U C O C ca 0
* c , .:. O .G Rf V y 2'C>
•
Q 0 3 C 0 0 C C
c0 C O OW 3 = -0
co co , G) '++ C 0) .3 -
� '2 • > �� C Q CO0
im ce< CO 0 W 0
C 43)
'�'' N � r c " c°) c c 0.L.
.r.. • C Ch
CD = is
Q. M � � CU CC CO� 0 d
U (C O 0 w co W to
/ ♦ Q D TD -c c wr:Q xi, if-+d� t sn • N O CO ,C O E
V00c in C d IX I d y c
I[ 0 x > cow
O
Oiu v, o v � * A O 4" L
ul ao cC 7 c V r O N
Q ro g N0 > 0 C O C Q C
co
c v, 2 o u, N 0
v,cc - n as O . 0
cn m 5 o_ 0) O c CO v 0 40 0
I
V 0 0 t 0d@IMMO I a y C\I0
0� OH 0 —
•
RI ai , !aJi OC O '0 0 N c3
( C co 7 C , V C
00 a: i.1 3 J = 3 v� O
m co ,jJ C $ � O C 0 '0
Y tI 3 0 > m w 0 - . L
fl.
G 14,C C 1�,m 0 w! 0 0
C � 1 8 J 0 m Q 4m Q i x
o z c 012 Q �'2 2 Q t 0
a m` 0 a (. 'V) W • '(O CD UJ H Z
m 0
W
-
* ti
Y lime "row
r
w
' a w '
Td .k : ' cF a 3 tiff :;.:4
3}k F 4 `.1, s. .. } ''R to i
' ` `# a O a' �,,iop x " `y�
441.10
a
IC
y
CU
0
O
IICIC
ge—
. tG r
CC
C)
Um
a)
Cl)
O
O
LE
Om
CD r
0 N
OD 0
N - C �C
cS Y =.� c ^ C
C c . = J
J =
O a � o
co = C
a rty ` a �3"'
3k }. ' s, t`Loh00
N a Y a t f CO E � k Ns
0� s
a
F'i 4. I N
tom`� 5 ,
` 4 5s s, 'Fri ��,/
� r
' �` 4.`.v f-- '- In
��
ry s ✓ O
x
O CO O N
O co
•� co
`§ '" y N Y
N Y $> c
C N O `d N J
0 J = _ t fA = C
O �� 2CO
O
0
Q T
N
I
BCD
/V
V
)
U-
W
.Oc
VL.mN Z
oO ( a
. c Y � ,O. —IO Q O N J c L C N
'C o r re
O , �D MI 1O i >a
ccco
Lo
a
li b d Y
AL _ A D K V �--,
C N 3hv4LL � 3 NJ
el
6.
i _� m `- up
i
(V N
Nco
a) N
c= •-IL
C_
G C N: N J c
0 C!
•
Now
ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS-
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
MAJOR COUNTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL
November 21,2001
The Honorable Michael Powell
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington,DC 20554
Dear Chairman Powell:
Public safety agencies represented by the above-named organizations are facing rapidly
increasing demands on their operations and communications systems,compounded by the
aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet, as the Commission is
well-aware,public safety agencies in many areas lack sufficient radio spectrum and are often
without effective interoperable radio communications. At the same time, existing public safety
radio systems in the 800 MHz band are also increasingly facing interference from commercial
mobile radio systems(CMRS)in the same band.
Nextel Communications Inc. (Nextel)has proposed a substantial reallocation of the 800
MHz band in an effort to address some of these and other complex issues. The Nextel proposal
would shift all 800 MHz public safety operations to a contiguous block of spectrum at 806-
816/851-861,and all 800 MHz digital SMR operations to 816-824/861-869 MHz. The current
interleaving of channels used for public safety and CMRS would be eliminated, and the potential
for CMRS interference to public safety systems would be substantially reduced. Importantly,
the plan would also yield an additional 10.5 MHz for public safety communications. However,
the plan also requires all existing public safety operations in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band(the
"NPSPAC"channels)to relocate to frequencies below 816/861 MHz. Nextel's proposal
includes a substantial financial commitment intended to offset the cost of this relocation.
Finally,to accomplish the proposed reallocations,Nextel would relinquish licenses for 10 MHz
of spectrum that it holds in portions of the 700, 800 and 900 MHz bands, in exchange for which
Nextel would receive licenses for 10 MHz of spectrum in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service
band for terrestrial commercial service.
The technical details and other aspects of this proposal are complex, and many of its
elements require further development and analysis. Implementing the proposal will also impose
p
M t
substantial,undetermined costs on some public safety licensees,especially those now operating
in the NPSPAC channels.Nevertheless,we believe that the basic elements of this proposal,as set
forth above,have the potential to substantially improve the quality and quantity of public safety
communications. The proposal,therefore, should be given serious and expedited consideration
by the Commission through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We emphasize,however,that
our support for this or any similar approach will be contingent upon adequate funds being put
forward to cover all of the implementation costs imposed on existing public safety licensees.It
will be incumbent upon the commercial entities who will benefit from this proposal to bear the
full amount of the costs incurred.These costs are unknown at this time,and should not be subject
to an arbitrary aggregate ceiling.
We stand ready to work with the Commission and the CMRS industry in addressing and
resolving the difficult issues facing the 800 MHz band. The Nextel proposal is a major step in
the right direction.
•
Respectfully submitted,
Glen Nash,President
Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International,Inc.
351 N.Williamson Blvd.
Daytona Beach,FL 32114
888-272-6911
Garry L.Briese, CAE
Executive Director
International Association of Fire Chiefs
4025 Fair Ridge Drive
Fairfax,VA 22033
703-273-0911
William B.Berger,President
International Association of Chiefs of Police
515 N. Washington St.
Alexandria,VA 22314-2357
703-836-6767
Jerry Keller,Chairman
Major Cities Chiefs Association
do Las Vegas Metro Police Dept.
400 Stewart Avenue
Las Vegas,NV 89101
702-229-3231
2
John Cary Bittick,President
National Sheriffs'Association
1450 Duke Street
Alexandria,VA 22314-3490
703-836-7827
Patrick D. McGowan,President
Major County Sheriffs'Association
c/o Hennepin County Sheriff's Office
Room 6,Courthouse
350 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis,MN 55415
612-348-3740
Marilyn Ward, Chair
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
2050 E.I1iff Ave. -BW
Denver, CO 80208
303-871-4190
cc: The Honorable Kathleen Abernathy
The Honorable Michael Copps
The Honorable Kevin Martin
Mr.Thomas Sugrue
Mr.Robert Pepper
3