Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City 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