revision history - oregon · 2019-11-16 · revision history ... table 16-3 firstnet in oregon 2015...

FirstNet in Oregon Planning for FirstNet Network

See disclaimer on title page Page i DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

Revision History

Rev

Sections Affected

Description of Changes

Date

1.0 All Original Issue 12/31/12 2.0 All Updated with current FirstNet developments. Added new sections:

Stakeholder Education and Outreach, Oregon Infrastructure Sources, and Appendix D, Alternative FirstNet Architectures.

11/15/13

3.0 All Established new DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01, formerly SWIC-OPSBN-12-01. Updated with current FirstNet developments. Added new sections: Consultation and Design Process, and Appendix F, G, and H

10/24/14

4.0 All Updated with latest FirstNet and Oregon developments. Added Appendix I. 12/11/15


See disclaimer on title page Page ii DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

Table of Contents Revision History ............................................................................................................................. 1

Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 4

Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 5

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 3

3. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................ 8

4. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 8

4.1. Public Safety Communications Technological Evolution .............................................. 8

4.2. Recent History at the National and Oregon State Levels .............................................. 11

5. FIRSTNET............................................................................................................................. 14

6. SERVICE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................... 23

6.1. Use and Applications .................................................................................................... 23

6.2. Systems Description ...................................................................................................... 33

6.3. RAN Deployment and Coverage ................................................................................... 39

6.4. Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................................... 42

7. STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................................ 50

7.1. State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC) and Other Stakeholders.................... 51

7.2. Stakeholder User Groups .............................................................................................. 53

7.3. Secondary Users ............................................................................................................ 54

7.4. Other Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 55

8. STAKEHOLDER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ......................................................... 55

9. GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................... 60

9.1. Managing Organization ................................................................................................. 62

9.2. Communicating Stakeholder Needs to FirstNet ............................................................ 65

10. OREGON INFRASTRUCTURE SOURCES ....................................................................... 65

11. CONSULTATION AND DESIGN PROCESS ..................................................................... 67

11.1. Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 68

11.2. State Plans ..................................................................................................................... 70

12. BENEFITS AND VALUE .................................................................................................... 71


See disclaimer on title page Page iii DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

13. BUSINESS MODEL AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................... 75

14. BOUNDARIES AND ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................... 84

14.1. Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 84

14.2. Exclusions ..................................................................................................................... 85

14.3. Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 85

15. RISK MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 86

16. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS ..................................................................... 90

16.1. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 90

16.2. Oregon Timeline and Next Steps ................................................................................ 103

16.3. FirstNet Deployment Timeline .................................................................................... 112

17. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 114

18. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 116

19. ACRONYM LIST ............................................................................................................... 127

APPENDIX A - Integrating Local and National Networks and Applications ......................... A-1

A.1 Network Operating Challenges ........................................................................................ A-1

A.2 Application Integration .................................................................................................... A-7

APPENDIX B - User Equipment Evolution ............................................................................ B-0

APPENDIX C - PSBN Numbering & Operational Implications ............................................. C-1

APPENDIX D - Alternative Network Architectures ............................................................... D-1

APPENDIX E - Oregon BTOP Grant Application Summary .................................................. E-1

APPENDIX F - Stakeholder Education and Outreach Events.................................................. F-1

APPENDIX G - Quality of Service, Preemption, and Priority for Public Safety .................... G-1

APPENDIX H - Public Safety LTE Standards Progress.......................................................... H-1

APPENDIX I - Major Events Planning – Cascadia Playbook .................................................. I-1


See disclaimer on title page Page iv DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

Table of Figures Figure 4-1 Progression of LMR from Conventional Analog to Interoperable P25 Technology .... 9 Figure 4-2 Commercial Wireless Technology Generations Yield Increasing Capabilities .......... 10 Figure 4-3 Public Safety Communications Evolution to a Single Converged Mission Critical Platform......................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4-4 Public Safety Communications Broadband National and Oregon Event History ....... 13 Figure 5-1 FirstNet Legislation Doubles Bandwidth for Public Safety by adding 10 MHz D Block ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 5-2 FirstNet by the Numbers ............................................................................................. 20 Figure 6-1 Oregon Public Safety Broadband Survey: Cellular Data Adoption ............................ 25 Figure 6-2 OEC Goal 2 Data Collection: Mobile Data Use over Commercial and Private Networks ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 6-3 Oregon Public Safety Broadband Survey: Cellular Data Technologies Used for Wireless Data ................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 6-4 Oregon FirstNet Data Collection Survey: Major of Public Safety Utilizing Mobile Data ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 6-5 Oregon FirstNet Data Collection Survey: Most Commonly Used Applications ........ 28 Figure 6-6 Functional Elements of an LTE Broadband System ................................................... 34 Figure 6-7 The FirstNet Network Reflects an LTE Architecture ................................................. 35 Figure 6-8 High Level Architecture of an LTE System ............................................................... 36 Figure 6-9 FirstNet Plans to Deploy Different RAN Solutions Depending on the Situation ....... 41 Figure 6-10 High Level Concept of LTE Relay Node .................................................................. 41 Figure 8-1 In-Person FirstNet in Oregon Outreach Meetings Conducted .................................... 58 Figure 8-2 Website Provides the Latest Information Regarding FirstNet in Oregon ................... 58 Figure 9-1 FirstNet Managing Organization Structure ................................................................. 63 Figure 9-2 Oregon Public Safety Broadband Governance Management Structure ...................... 64 Figure 9-3 Stakeholder and User Information Flow ..................................................................... 65 Figure 11-1 FirstNet will Consult with Oregon during Network Design and Acquisition ........... 67 Figure 11-2 FirstNet Consultation Focus Areas for 2016 ............................................................. 68 Figure 11-3 FirstNet has asked for Information about Public Safety’s Mobile Data Use in Four Major Areas .................................................................................................................................. 69 Figure 11-4 FirstNet’s Coverage Objectives Baseline for Oregon ............................................... 69 Figure 12-1 Survey Respondents Experience Positive Impacts Due to Wireless Data Use ......... 75 Figure 13-1 Survey Reported Rate Structures for Commercial Wireless Service ........................ 79 Figure 13-2 Survey Reported Billing Formats for Commercial Wireless Service ....................... 79 Figure 13-3 Oregon FirstNet Data Collection Survey: Preference for Fixed or Variable Price Plans .............................................................................................................................................. 80 Figure 16-1 FirstNet Near Term Activity Timeline and Oregon’s Responsibilities .................. 103


See disclaimer on title page Page v DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

Figure 16-2 Public Safety Broadband Communications National and Oregon Timeline 2016 through 2022 ............................................................................................................................... 113 Figure C-1 Public Land Mobile Network Identifier (PLMN ID) = 313-100 .............................. C-1 Figure C-2 International Mobile Subscriber Identity.................................................................. C-2 Figure D-1 Potential Use Cases for Small Cells ......................................................................... D-2 Figure D-2 Emerging Alternative LTE Architecture Approaches .............................................. D-5 Figure G-1 PSAC and FirstNet have developed a QPP Framework for Managing the NPSBN G-5 Figure H-1 Proximity Service Features ...................................................................................... H-2 Figure I-1 Cascadia Playbook Disaster Response Events ............................................................. I-1 Figure I-2 Cascadia Playbook Emergency Management Functions ............................................. I-2

Table of Tables Table 5-1 Summary of FirstNet Legislation Timeline Milestones ............................................... 18 Table 5-2 Early Builder Projects................................................................................................... 22 Table 6-1 High Bandwidth Data Communications are Key to Potential Public Safety Applications .................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 6-2 Typical Local Public Safety Responsibilities as defined by FirstNet .......................... 44 Table 7-1 Emergency Support Functions ..................................................................................... 54 Table 7-2 Potential Stakeholders in FirstNet in Oregon ............................................................... 55 Table 9-1 FirstNet Board of Directors .......................................................................................... 61 Table 13-1 NPSBN Funding Afforded by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act ... 76 Table 15-1 FirstNet Planning, Deployment, and Operations Risks and Potential Mitigations .... 87 Table 16-1 FirstNet in Oregon Recommendations – Near Term (6-12 mo.)................................ 92 Table 16-2 FirstNet in Oregon Recommendations – Long Term (12 mo.+) ................................ 99 Table 16-3 FirstNet in Oregon 2015 – 2018 Activity Calendar ................................................. 105 Table B-1 Comparison of Public Safety LMR and Commercial Grade LTE Equipment .......... B-5


See disclaimer on title page 1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

1. INTRODUCTION For over 75 years, the public safety community has relied on Land Mobile Radio (LMR) for dependable, two-way voice communications when responding to emergencies and performing daily tasks. In recent decades, the introduction of low and medium speed data networking has brought useful software applications to the public safety end user, including Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD), electronic mail, and labor saving capabilities like electronic citation and crash reporting systems. With the advent of affordable, high speed data communications – the same Internet Protocol (IP) based technology that runs today’s commercial Internet – entirely new ways of communicating are becoming a reality for first responders, integrating information in the form of words, pictures, and video into their life changing activities.

The First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) has been established and tasked by Congress to create a high-speed, wireless broadband data network dedicated to public safety. The FirstNet Network will be a single, nationwide network that facilitates communication for public safety users during emergencies and on the job every day.1 Using this network, in the future public safety communications users may:

• Send video feeds from monitoring cameras inside a school to police vehicles on their way to a school emergency.

• Be alerted immediately to a downed firefighter transmitting real-time video back to the operations center via a helmet camera, and the dangerous surroundings via clothing mounted heat and biometric sensors.

• Have dispatch send high-definition video, photos, and maps to responders, rather than just an address.

• Transmit high volume, real-time patient information such as streaming video and vital health stats to emergency rooms and trauma centers while the ambulance is en route.

Unlike commercial wireless networks, FirstNet will allow for priority access among public safety users. Users will get fast access to information they need to meet their mission.

This document describes these exciting applications, the FirstNet wireless broadband network making them possible, and the roadmap to their reality for the state of Oregon.

• In this Release

Release 4 of this planning document reflects some notable FirstNet developments in 2014-2015, including

1 NTIA (2013 September). The Promise of FirstNet. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fact_sheet_promise-9-27-13.pdf

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fact_sheet_promise-9-27-13.pdf



• FirstNet’s philosophy shift from covering “every square meter” of territory to emphasizing network financial sustainability and assuring the network is where public safety needs it, using deployables, satellite, and other cost efficient approaches.

• Further facing the financial realities of the program, a shift in emphasis from leveraging public infrastructure to commercial network assets, particularly those of its future contractor team.

• Finally, the above resulted in an associated shift in data collection elements requested of the states by FirstNet – from public assets such as towers, data centers, and backhaul to identifying coverage objectives, i.e., where public safety needs service, and number and data use of current data subscribers.

FirstNet was not alone in introducing change. During this time, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) extended its State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP) 18 months, into 2018 (but with no additional funds) and opened up Phase 2 of its program in support of FirstNet’s data collection request.

• Document Organization

The document begins by summarizing history and background for Oregon’s public safety wireless broadband program, as well as the significant changes initiated by the national FirstNet legislation in 2012. It follows with a service description that highlights the network’s uses and its architecture, as well as important considerations for successful ongoing operations.

As important as the physical network structure, a supporting organizational governance structure is next described after first highlighting Oregon’s many and diverse stakeholder groups.

The report also details the many activities Oregon has conducted in preparation for FirstNet, including stakeholder awareness outreach, state consultation, and responding to FirstNet’s data collection request.

The report then turns to a discussion regarding value, examining the benefits, operational business model, and financial considerations of FirstNet in Oregon. It concludes by summarizing risks, constraints, and assumptions bounding the implementation and offers recommendations with a corresponding timeline for actions.

The appendices offer additional technical background information regarding the network, national requirements, and the implications of both to Oregon, alternative FirstNet architectures, stakeholder education and outreach events, quality of service, priority and pre-emption (QPP), and public safety standards progress.



2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following Executive Summary is designed as a pull-out standalone white paper, complementing the detailed report while summarizing the detailed document sections.

ES-1

FIRSTNET IN OREGON

Imagine public safety first responders • Viewing live video from monitoring cameras

inside the school while traveling in police vehicles to a school emergency

• Sending video of patient and vital health stats to the emergency room from the ambulance en route to the hospital

• Being alerted immediately to a downed firefighter via a helmet camera transmitting real-time video and being aware of the dangerous surroundings and vital signs via clothing mounted heat and bio sensors

All these and more become possible with the deployment of the FirstNet Network, a high speed broadband data communications network dedicated to public safety.2 The FirstNet Network will be a single interoperable network that will allow police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other public safety officials to transparently communicate with each other as appropriate across jurisdictions. FirstNet Title VI, “Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctions,” of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (PL112-96) includes provisions to fund and govern this Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN), reallocate the 700 MHz D Block spectrum to 2 The Department of Homeland Security Command, Control and Interoperability Division Basic/Futures Research program has developed a compelling video to illustrate broadband’s potential within emergency management. See http://precisioninformation.org.

public safety, and authorize the FCC to conduct incentive auctions to raise $7 billion for building and managing the new network. It establishes the First Responder Network Authority, or FirstNet, within the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to oversee network planning, construction, and operation. The first FirstNet Board was announced on August 20, 2012 by the U.S. Commerce Secretary and includes Chief Jeffrey Johnson, the former chair of the Oregon State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC).

LTE Network To ensure interoperability and availability of low cost user devices, the Act directs a the use of Long Term Evolution or LTE - the fourth generation (4G) cellular technology currently being deployed by commercial service providers. An LTE network consists of these major elements, shown in Figure ES-1: • Core Network, or Evolved Packet Core

(EPC), performing core LTE controller activities, such as identifying subscribers and establishing connections between them and application packet gateways

http://precisioninformation.org/

ES-2

• Transport Backhaul network, which interconnects the RAN equipment to the EPC, typically via suitable fiber optic and microwave links

• Radio Access Network (RAN) consisting of towers and cell site base station equipment, called eNodeBs, which make the wireless connection to the UE mobile devices

• Public Safety Devices; the User Equipment (UE) such as a vehicle mounted modem, laptop computer air card, handheld smartphone or tablet

The network also includes a Management functionality, which provides network management, provisioning, billing, accounting, authorization, and access control.

Applications However, the high speed data network in and of itself is simply the transmission medium. The real value of the FirstNet Network is in the life changing, lifesaving public safety applications that it will enable. LTE technology opens the door to entirely new operational processes for public safety operations. The expansive data throughput of LTE broadband, which is 10 times faster than third generation (3G) cellular data, is truly a transition “from garden hose to fire hose,” enabling a broad range of new public safety support capabilities that, until now, were simply

not possible. Listed in Table ES-1 on the next page is a sampling of these exciting applications, some of which are in use today. Mission Support vs. Mission Critical When discussing applications, it’s important to make a distinction between mission critical and mission support use by public safety users. The mission critical voice communications provided by Land Mobile Radio (LMR) technology are supported today by wide coverage, highly reliable networks. Until the FirstNet Network is similarly deployed in Oregon, LTE high bandwidth data applications such as streaming video will be for mission support use. Therefore, the National Governors Association (NGA) has stated, “it will be many years before VoIP will be carried over the [LTE] network, so states will need to continue to sustain LMR systems…even as they build toward public safety broadband.”

Scan to visit the FirstNet in Oregon website

Figure ES-1 Major LTE Elements of the FirstNet Network

ES-3

Business Model Once constructed, FirstNet intends to sustain network operations using a fee based business model, with revenue coming from three sources: • Network User Fee – Fee from each public

safety or secondary network user • Lease Fee for Network Capacity – Access

fee from secondary user • Lease Fee for Network Equipment/

Infrastructure – Fee for use of FirstNet antennas, towers, and other assets

Secondary users will be allowed to use the network on a for-fee basis, increasing the subscriber base and making the network more affordable for public safety users. There is no information yet whether the User Fee will be a flat monthly rate per subscriber or a usage based arrangement. Oregon public safety users have typically preferred a flat rate, due to its predictability and ease in budgeting. Governance The Act requires each state to designate a single officer or governmental body to coordinate with FirstNet. Oregon has designated the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) to serve as this single point of contact (SPOC) to FirstNet, representing the stakeholders of the governing body, the Oregon Statewide Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC). The SPOC will handle day-to-day

program management and coordination functions, directing the Oregon FirstNet Office under the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). This information flow is depicted in Figure ES-2.

Figure ES-2 Stakeholder and User Information Flow

Timeline In August 2013, Oregon was awarded $2.1 million by NTIA’s State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIPG), to which the state will be required to make a 20% match. The funding, spread equally in two phases over 5 years, will be used to conduct

Public Safety Broadband Applications

• Video Surveillance, Remote Monitoring (streaming)

• Dynamic Mapping, Weather, Traffic • Remote Control of Robotic Devices

• Remote Database Access/Queries (mug shots, finger prints, reporting, NCIC)

• Instant Messaging, SMS, One-way Notifications, Tactical Chat Rooms

• Multimedia Command and Control (floor plans, incident stills, surveillance)

• Real-time, One- and Two-Way Video in Vehicles or Handhelds

• Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD), Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1)

• Geo-Location and Asset Tracking (vehicle, personnel, assets)

• Records Management Systems Access (local queries)

• Mobile Office (bulk file transfer, email, Internet web access, virtual private networking – VPN)

• Mobile Incident Command • Geospatial Applications

• Medical Telemetry • Automated License Plate Recognition • Field Based Reporting Remote • Digital Signage, Traffic Alerts, Automated

Transactions

Table ES-1 High Bandwidth Data Communication is Key to many Public Safety Applications

ES-4

FirstNet Vision “To provide emergency responders with the first nationwide, high speed, wireless

broadband network dedicated to public safety”

FirstNet preparations. The 55 states and territories, and Washington D.C. were collectively eligible for $118.15 million in planning funds through the program, which may be used to create or expand governance structure, ensure local and tribal consultation, plan education and outreach, and determine and manage staffing. In Oregon, education and awareness activities began in 2013 and continues with Phase 1 of the SLIGP. In October 2014, Oregon conducted its initial FirstNet consultation meeting. FirstNet opened SLIGP Phase 2 data collection in March 2015 to solicit input to the FirstNet network design. Oregon submitted its data collection inputs in October 2015, providing information on network coverage objectives, users and devices, applications, and service models. In 2016, FirstNet is expected to begin informing states of their State Plan and funding levels. FCC spectrum auctions beginning in November 2014 exceeded expectations, fully funding the initial $7 billion allocated for FirstNet. Opt-In or Opt-Out Decision FirstNet is required to develop and present a plan to each state to build, operate, and maintain both the nationwide network and the network in each state. Once FirstNet has developed a plan, notified Oregon, and provided funding levels to achieve the plan objectives, the Governor will have 90 days to decide whether to opt in and participate in the deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network or opt out and deploy its own portion of the national network.If a state opts out, it still must achieve the level of

connectivity and interoperability that is specified by FirstNet for the nation. FirstNet adoption is also voluntary for public safety agencies and participating non-traditional responders, such as utilities. Each entity will need to make an opt-in or opt-out decision. Based on the information that is currently available regarding FirstNet and the status of Oregon’s existing network facilities, we recommend that Oregon adopt an Opt-In position.

Points to Remember During this long, multi-year network deployment, it will be important to manage stakeholder expectations of this exciting technology by emphasizing these key messages: • LTE is not a replacement for LMR

technology today. • LMR will continue to provide mission critical

voice communications for the foreseeable future.

• LTE introduces new capabilities to assist the first responder and makes current data applications even better. It is a supplementary technology that offers the first responder new data and video services, providing additional and timely information.

• The FirstNet Network is a high speed data communications network. Its true power and value will be realized once useful, interoperable applications are in the hands of users.

• States will need to prepare their local networks and establish new processes to make full use of this promising capability.

Additional information, references, and permissions can be found in the Planning for FirstNet Network Technical Report, SPOC-FNIO-14-01. See www.firstnetinoregon.org for FirstNet articles, videos, and more. 11-9-2015

http://www.firstnetinoregon.org/

FirstNet in Oregon Planning for FirstNet


3. PURPOSE This planning document is intended as a tool for building awareness, support, and a common understanding of the nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN) as it relates to Oregon. It is referred to as the FirstNet Network in this document. The primary audience for this report is the Oregon Governor’s Office, State Legislature, local governments, and public safety community.

Additionally, the document seeks to equip local agency planners and decision makers with the information necessary to make prudent decisions regarding technology choices, existing networks plans, future applications, and relevant cost trade-offs in light of FirstNet.

This report identifies FirstNet goals and objectives, key stakeholders and governance, potential uses and proposed architecture, anticipated business model for the State of Oregon, and Oregon’s progress with stakeholder outreach and the consultation and design process. Most importantly, it identifies and describes the increased mission effectiveness and operational efficiency offered to Oregon’s public safety stakeholders. These gains are supported by the reliable, high speed data communications offered by a 700 MHz Long Term Evolution (LTE) NPSBN.

4. BACKGROUND This section begins by discussing the technological evolution and convergence of public radio communications. Against this backdrop the history of recent policy developments at the national and Oregon state levels are chronicled, ending with the signing of the FirstNet legislation.3 Section 5. provides details on FirstNet.

4.1. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

For decades, first responder public safety communications has been synonymous with push-to-talk (PTT) voice service provided by Land Mobile Radio (LMR) technology, i.e., the two-way radios used by police, fire, medical, and other emergency management personnel. Figure 4-1 illustrates the progression of LMR technology, beginning with conventional analog voice service, progressing to trunked radio systems, and finally to the current interoperable Project 25 (P25) digital standard.

3 Public Law 112-96, “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.” FirstNet is found in Title VI of PL112-96, entitled “Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctions.” Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW-112publ96.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW-112publ96.pdf



Figure 4-1 Progression of LMR from Conventional Analog to Interoperable P25 Technology4

Discussions regarding interoperability have been at the recent forefront of this evolution, heightened by the 9/11 Commission Report recommending the development of a nationwide interoperable public safety communications network in response to the inability of first responders to communicate during the terrorist attacks.5

In parallel development, commercial cellular wireless technology has been advancing at a much faster rate, driven by a globally expanding customer base with an insatiable appetite for new services. The growth has been further spurred by the decreasing cost and increasing processing capabilities of mobile devices. The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) explains, “The wireless industry notes the progression of wireless technology in terms of ‘generations’:

• First-generation wireless includes voice-only communications devices such as the analog cellular phone.

• Second-generation wireless introduced digital wireless and includes personal communications service devices that offer voice and text.

• Third-generation encompasses smartphones and other advanced devices that provide voice, text, and Internet capabilities. These devices can run a multitude of applications, in many cases simultaneously.

4 OEC (2012, April 17). Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation Workshop, Oregon, p. 14. 5 GPO (2004, July 22). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, p. 397. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf




• Fourth generation (4G) wireless systems such as LTE are being designed to provide higher speeds and more advanced applications such as streaming video.”6

Figure 4-2 illustrates this progression in technology and capability.7

Figure 4-2 Commercial Wireless Technology Generations Yield Increasing Capabilities

When it adopted LTE as the standard for use on 700 MHz public safety broadband networks, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) goal was to leverage this low cost platform, i.e., the same 4G technology beginning to dominate the commercial market.8

Significant time, effort, and planning are required to bring the public safety LMR and commercial wireless broadband paths together to meet this objective. Figure 4-3 shows the evolution and convergence of the two paths, with the goal of a robust, single platform capable of supporting mission critical voice and data applications as its desired end state.

6 OEC (2011, November). Interoperability Planning for Wireless Broadband, p. 2. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafetytools.info/oec_guidance/docs/Interoperability_Planning_Wireless_Broadband_Web_111711.pdf 7 OEC (2012, April 17). Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation Workshop, Oregon, p. 13. 8 OEC (2011, November). Interoperability Planning for Wireless Broadband, p. 16. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafetytools.info/oec_guidance/docs/Interoperability_Planning_Wireless_Broadband_Web_111711.pdf

http://www.publicsafetytools.info/oec_guidance/docs/Interoperability_Planning_Wireless_Broadband_Web_111711.pdf






Figure 4-3 Public Safety Communications Evolution to a Single Converged Mission Critical Platform9

In fact, this convergence is already under way today. For example, LMR is being emulated as an app on smart phones,10 Text to 9-1-1 service is becoming more available,11 and some jurisdictions are requiring body cameras be worn in addition to radios by officers on patrol.12 The requirements list at the figure’s center indicates just some of the many aspects yet to be developed, adopted, and implemented in order to make the objective of a converged mission critical platform a reality.

4.2. RECENT HISTORY AT THE NATIONAL AND OREGON STATE LEVELS

To accomplish the goal of convergence, national and state level policy regarding public safety communications has been required to evolve as well. The State of Oregon has been deeply involved in this formative process, both locally and nationally.

In 2009, the FCC met with national public safety leaders to discuss the possibility of using the Public Safety Broadband Spectrum (PSBB Block) 700 MHz frequency spectrum to develop a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband system. This discussion, coupled with hearings and national workshops sponsored by the FCC, led to a decision by the FCC enabling public safety officials to apply for and use the PSBB Block 700 MHz spectrum. 9 OEC (2011, November). Public Safety Communications Evolution, p. 2. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafetytools.info/oec_guidance/docs/Public_Safety_Communications_Evolution_Brochure.pdf 10 Motorola Solutions, Inc. (2015). WAVE Work Group Communications. http://www.motorolasolutions.com/en_us/products/voice-applications/wave-work-group-communications.html 11 FCC (2015, September 28). What You Need to Know About Text-to-911. https://www.fcc.gov/text-to-911 12 Hume, K. (2013, October 25). Richmond police try out body cameras on patrol. Oakland Tribune http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland-tribune/ci_24389069/richmond-police-try-out-body-cameras-patrol

http://www.publicsafetytools.info/oec_guidance/docs/Public_Safety_Communications_Evolution_Brochure.pdf

http://www.motorolasolutions.com/en_us/products/voice-applications/wave-work-group-communications.html

https://www.fcc.gov/text-to-911

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland-tribune/ci_24389069/richmond-police-try-out-body-cameras-patrol



A national broadband plan was written by the FCC and local government agencies were allowed to apply for waivers to use the PSBB Block spectrum. Oregon, along with 20 other waiver jurisdictions, received authorization (via a waiver) from the FCC to use this spectrum in May 2010. The spectrum was designated by the FCC for specific use with LTE technology. This was considered a landmark decision at the time, due to the high market value of the released spectrum. The market auction value of this spectrum was approximately $2.7 billion if auctioned without conditions for nationwide use.13

As one of the waiver jurisdictions, in June 2010 Oregon applied for, but did not receive, $150 million in grant funding via the Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA’s) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) to build a state network. Subsequently, in December 2011 Oregon released a Request for Information (RFI) through its Office of Innovative Partnerships Program (OIPP), seeking a public-private partnership to establish a public safety broadband pilot project in the state.

On February 22, 2012, President Obama signed into law Public Law 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Title VI of PL112-96, entitled “Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctions,” includes provisions to fund and govern the NPSBN, reallocate the 700 MHz D Block spectrum to public safety, and authorize the FCC to conduct incentive auctions to raise $7 billion for building and managing the new network. It also established within the Department of Commerce the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), to oversee network planning, construction, and operation.

With the advent of this legislation, the jurisdictional waivers were recalled by the FCC since the expanded spectrum, 10 MHz PSBB Block + 10 MHz D Block = 20 MHz, would now be administrated by FirstNet.14 Given this development, Oregon suspended its pilot planning activities.

In 2013, FirstNet began negotiating spectrum leases with the seven original waiver holders which also were awarded BTOP grants. Spectrum lease agreements were put in place with four of these “early builders” plus Harris County, Texas, which received funding from a different source. See Section 5. for more information.

Figure 4-4 provides a timeline of recent events at the Oregon and national level through 2015.

13 Noel, S. (2011). Oregon LTE at a Glance. Internal planning document, p. 1. 14 FCC (2012, July 30). Order FCC-12-85A1.



Figure 4-4 Public Safety Communications Broadband National and Oregon Event History


See disclaimer on title page Page 14 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

5. FIRSTNET As introduced in the prior section, Title VI, “Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctions,” of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (PL112-96), includes provisions to fund and govern a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN). This legislation:

• Reallocates the 700 MHz D Block spectrum to public safety

• Authorizes the FCC to conduct incentive auctions to raise $7 billion for building and managing the NPSBN

• Ensures access to the network for federal, state, and local public safety and secondary users

• Establishes a new entity within the NTIA to oversee planning, construction, and operation of the nationwide network, known as FirstNet15

The following paragraphs describe these key points in more detail, highlight FirstNet progress, and conclude by outlining Oregon’s relationship and responsibilities to FirstNet.

• Increased Spectrum for Public Safety Broadband Services

Every wireless network operates within a portion, or band, of radio spectrum. In 2007, the FCC had allocated the 10 MHz PSBB Block within the 700 MHz radio band for public safety use. The legislation added the adjacent D Block, 10 MHz between 758–763 and 788–793 MHz, setting it aside for first responders and giving FirstNet responsibility for both blocks. See Figure 5-1 FirstNet Legislation Doubles Bandwidth for Public Safety by adding 10 MHz D Block

As a result, FirstNet now has authority over a combined 20 MHz portion of public safety broadband spectrum, enabling a richer and broader range of services than would otherwise be available with only half the bandwidth.16 The FCC assigned this as a 10-year license to FirstNet, which is renewable for another 10 years provided FirstNet has met its duties and obligations under the Act.17 Note that this is a tremendous opportunity as well as responsibility for the public safety community to make prudent use of this valuable asset. To put it into perspective, this amount of bandwidth is equivalent to that used by a nationwide commercial service provider; e.g., Verizon’s C block will serve a user base that’s 20 times the size of the potential market of

15 DHS (2012). Public Safety Broadband: Fulfilling a 9/11 Commission Recommendation. 16 National Governors Association (2012, June 28). Preparing for Public Safety Broadband. White Paper, p. 3. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1206PREPAREBROADBANDPAPER.PDF 17 Moore, L.K. (2014, March 12). The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress. p. 3. See also P.L. 112-96, Section 6201.

http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1206PREPAREBROADBANDPAPER.PDF



5.4 million public safety users.18 In terms of dollars and cents, this spectrum was valued at approximately $2.7 billion at auction in 2013 and is now likely to be worth substantially more.19

Figure 5-1 FirstNet Legislation Doubles Bandwidth for Public Safety by adding 10 MHz D Block20

• Who Can Use FirstNet Service?

Using the allocated radio spectrum, the law calls for FirstNet to operate and deliver services via the network to approximately 60,000 local, state, and federal agencies. Based on FirstNet’s latest legal interpretation, authorized users of the new network include21:

• Public Safety Entities (PSEs); emergency response providers, including federal, state, and local governmental and non-governmental emergency public safety, fire, law enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities), and related personnel, agencies, and authorities. Also part of this primary group of users are non-traditional first responder personnel reasonably likely to perform public safety services. As of this writing, the final definition of PSE is pending.

• Secondary Users; entities that provide non-public safety services subject to prioritization and/or preemption by other public safety users

• Other Users; a potential third group of users that includes opt-out states using the network

Of the above, FirstNet leadership has said that it intends to allow each state’s FirstNet governance body decide who may use the network within a state.22

18 As of 10/17/13, Verizon had 101.2M wireless retail connections. Retrieved from http://www.telecomramblings.com/2013/10/verizons-q3-helps-cheer-markets/ 19 Noel, S. (2011). Oregon LTE at a Glance. Internal planning document, p. 1. 20 FirstNet (2015, June 23). Utah State Consultation. p. 4. 21 FirstNet (2015, May 5). Further Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Retrieved from http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-third-notice-final-prepublication-version.pdf

http://www.telecomramblings.com/2013/10/verizons-q3-helps-cheer-markets/

http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-third-notice-final-prepublication-version.pdf




FirstNet must offer service to public safety users throughout the United States, including all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all territories, such as Guam and the Marianas Islands.23

• FirstNet Implementation Approach

Under the Act, the FCC was responsible for establishing a Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability (Interoperability Board), tasked to develop recommended “minimum technical requirements for interoperability” for the FCC to submit to FirstNet for implementation. The Interoperability Board would then disband. This was accomplished as of May 2012.24

FirstNet will use the minimum technical requirements for interoperability to develop and issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) for the construction and operation of the NPSBN “without materially changing them,” per the Act. FirstNet has been funded up to $7 billion from incentive auctions to be deposited in a Network Construction Fund. To pay for operating expenses, FirstNet is authorized to assess user fees and fees associated with leasing network capacity and infrastructure.

• FirstNet Organizational Structure

In August 2012 the FirstNet Board of Directors was appointed.25 They began as a “working” board, performing stakeholder outreach, establishing notional design concepts, and recruiting consultant and permanent staff. For example, board member Craig Farrill took on an acting Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role directing FirstNet design engineers, Sue Swenson led negotiations with the seven Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) public safety projects for 700 MHz spectrum leases, Kevin McGinnis became point for tribal interactions, while Chief Jeff Johnson became the “voice” of FirstNet, spearheading initial outreach activities. In April 2013, FirstNet General Manager (GM) Bill D’Agostino was hired. An organizational structure was approved by the board and key senior staff was hired in 2014. In August 2015, FirstNet restructured its senior management positions to include a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and President to better align with its mission and operating model. The current FirstNet leadership includes:

• Mike Poth, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) – former Police Captain in Corvallis, Oregon, senior executive with Hewlett Packard and Northrop Grumman technology sector

• TJ Kennedy, President – former Director, Public Safety and Security, Raytheon Co. 22 Noel, S. (2013, October 24). Comment. 23 Lawson, S. (2012, June 15). US pushes forward on public-safety LTE network. Network World. Retrieved from http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/061612-us-pushes-forward-on-public-safety-260253.html 24 Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability (2012, May 22). Recommended Minimum Technical Requirements to Ensure Nationwide Interoperability for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, Final Report. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021919873 25 Department of Commerce (2012, August 20). FirstNet Board Members Appointed by Acting U.S. Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank: Member Statements. http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2012/08/20/firstnet-board-members-appointed-acting-us-commerce-secretary-rebecca

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/061612-us-pushes-forward-on-public-safety-260253.html

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021919873

http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2012/08/20/firstnet-board-members-appointed-acting-us-commerce-secretary-rebecca




• Jason Karp, Chief Counsel – former Director of Legal Services, Accenture global ethics program

• Kim Farington, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) – former Associate CFO for Financial Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

• Jeff Bratcher, Chief Technology Officer (CTO) – former Division Chief for the Telecommunications and IT Planning Division at NTIA Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS)

• Frank Freeman, Chief Administrative Officer – recently retired as a Colonel and senior leader in the U.S. Air Force

• Jim Gwinn, Chief Information Officer (CIO) – former CIO for USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and prior to that a Verizon executive

With the operational managers in place, board members have transitioned to a more conventional advisory role.

2014 was a year of increased hiring as well as important executive staff changes. In April 2014, a year after coming aboard, Bill D’Agostino resigned as GM citing personal and family reasons, with TJ Kennedy assuming acting GM responsibilities. In May, Sue Swenson replaced Sam Ginn as Chairman. The Board has announced Northern Virginia as home to FirstNet’s operational headquarters and established Boulder, Colorado as its Technical, Engineering and Network Design headquarters location. FirstNet has established regional offices in each of the ten Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions.26 FirstNet plans to develop two public safety experience centers, one in the east and another in the west, as locations to “test drive” LTE service. Finally, FirstNet established four committees to perform, review, approve, oversee, and recommend actions in support of the Board: Governance and Personnel, Finance, Technology, and Consultation and Outreach. See Governance Section 9 for more detail, including a FirstNet organization chart.

• Opt-In/Opt-Out Decision

FirstNet is also required to develop and present a plan to build, operate, and maintain the nationwide network and the network in each state. Once FirstNet has developed a plan and its network funding level, it will inform the state. The state will have 90 days to decide whether to opt in and participate in the deployment of the nationwide public safety broadband network or opt out and deploy its own portion of the network. States cannot opt out of the nationwide public safety broadband network until FirstNet presents its plan. Beginning from the decision to opt out, a state has 180 days to develop and complete an RFP for the construction, maintenance, and operation of its portion of the network. This timeframe includes applying to NTIA for a grant for construction and leasing spectrum from FirstNet. The FCC will evaluate the state’s alternative 26 NTIA (2013, October 25). Selection of New Office Location. First Responder Network Authority Board Resolution 45. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_resolution_no._45_re_new_office_locations.pdf

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_resolution_no._45_re_new_office_locations.pdf



plan, comparing it to the minimum technical requirements for interoperability. It will determine whether the state’s plan or the FirstNet plan will be used for the construction and operation of the radio access network (RAN).27 States that successfully opt out must be interoperable with the NPSBN.28

In summary, Table 5-1 recaps the timeline milestones called out by the federal legislation.

Table 5-1 Summary of FirstNet Legislation Timeline Milestones29

Date Milestone

February 2012 President signs legislation

March 2012 FCC appoints Interoperability Board members

May 2012 Interoperability Board sends technical recommendations to FCC

June 2012 FCC approves technical recommendations

August 2012 FirstNet Governance Board members appointed

To be determined (expected 2016 – 2017)

FirstNet issues RFP for NPSBN construction and operation (est. December 2015) FirstNet informs states of plan for build-out and funding levels

90 Days after completion of RFP

States inform FirstNet whether they will participate in NPSBN deployment or build their own Radio Access Network (RAN)

180 Days after Opting-Out

States develop and complete RFPs for constructing, maintaining, and operating the state RAN

• Oregon’s Interactions with FirstNet

FirstNet must consult with state, local, and tribal jurisdictions through a single state designated officer or governmental body regarding the distribution and expenditures of funds to carry out its responsibilities. Those include land acquisition and leasing, construction, infrastructure placement, coverage areas, resiliency requirements, assignment of priority to local users, assignment of priority to other users, and training needs of local users. The Oregon Governor’s Office has assigned the State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC) as its single governing body and the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) as the single point of contact (SPOC) to represent the state in all interactions with FirstNet.

The Act provides $135 million (reduced to $118.15 million due to sequestration) nationwide to support planning and implementation efforts to prepare for NPSBN implementation. State, regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions will use the monies to identify, plan, and implement the

27 See Section 6.2. for an explanation of the RAN and other major elements of an LTE network. 28 Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability (2012, May 22). Recommended Minimum Technical Requirements to Ensure Nationwide Interoperability for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, Final Report, p. 17. 29 Adapted from OEC (2012, April 17). Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation Workshop, Oregon, p. 40.



most efficient and effective way for their jurisdiction to use and integrate the infrastructure, equipment, and other architecture associated with local roll-out of the network. NTIA developed the State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP) to allocate these funds, releasing an RFP in the spring of 2013.30 Oregon responded to the solicitation and received an award of $2.1 million, to which the state will add a 20 percent in-kind match.

Oregon has taken an active role in supporting and influencing FirstNet development. Oregon’s size, population densities, and terrain make it a manageable and productive proving ground for refining FirstNet network design and process. In fact, FirstNet board member Chief Jeff Johnson lauded Oregon as one of the nation’s leaders in proactive FirstNet participation.31 For example, in the spring of 2013, the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department outfitted and drilled FirstNet's engineering team, providing them first-hand experience in fire scene communications.32 Later in the year, Oregon hosted an Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) FirstNet coverage objectives workshop to pilot a process for identifying a state’s key infrastructure elements requiring FirstNet service coverage. Oregon’s outreach materials have been adopted as best practice by FirstNet and many states, for example, Oregon’s FirstNet by the Numbers infographic has been used by states from Maine and Maryland to California and Washington in their respective awareness campaigns. See Figure 5-2 FirstNet by the Numbers.

30 On August 21, 2012, the Department of Commerce through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published guidance on Development of Programmatic Requirements for the State and Local Implementation Grant Program to Assist in Planning for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN). See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_sligp_08212012.pdf 31 Chief Johnson’s presentation at the OACP/OSSA Joint Meeting, September 4, 2013. 32 Fire Chief (2013, April 11). Tualatin Valley (Ore.) training center hosts FirstNet engineers.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_sligp_08212012.pdf



Figure 5-2 FirstNet by the Numbers



Oregon’s state level governance, approval authority, and corresponding actions in response to this federal timeline are discussed in later sections. Section 16. Recommendations and Next Steps, reflects a probable Opt-In decision position for Oregon. Figure 16-2 illustrates the current national and Oregon timeline for public safety broadband communications through 2022.

• FirstNet Progress

Sam Ginn, former FirstNet Board Chairman states that, when completed the FirstNet Network will be “the largest and most complex network in the world.”33 To that end, the FirstNet board and staff have pressed on many fronts to position the program for substantial progress towards that goal.

In 2013, the board adopted a $194 million budget for 2014. FirstNet General Manager Bill D’Agostino highlighted the budget’s objectives by saying, “The 2014 business plan sets the course for us to continue building the foundational elements of the organization and network infrastructure. We will also identify the ultimate structure for public/private partnerships that are essential for FirstNet to achieve and sustain our mission.”34 As input for the development of subsequent Request for Proposals (RFPs), FirstNet released Requests for Information (RFIs) to the industry on topics ranging from network service platforms, network management, and data centers to transport, deployables, and satellite service.35 FirstNet’s early 2013 RFI for devices netted 54 responses which have been analyzed by FirstNet engineers.

Due to contracting difficulties, many of the FirstNet engineering team members on contracts terminating at the end of 2013 were delayed in rejoining FirstNet in the spring. This created a loss of momentum with technical design and RFP development activities during the first quarter of 2014 until the engineers later returned to work under small business contracts. However, during this time FirstNet continued its government hiring and developed a Consultation Process illustrating how FirstNet will consult with states during the design process. See Section 11.

In September 2014, FirstNet issued a Request for Information36 (RFI) and draft Statement of Objectives (SOO) to solicit inputs on areas including network buildout, deployment, operations and maintenance, cost considerations and financial sustainability, system hardening and priority and preemption. FirstNet received 122 responses to the RFI, which was used towards developing the draft Request for Proposal37 (RFP) for a comprehensive network solution, issued in April 33 Ginn, S. (2013, June 24). Keynote address, 2013 Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) Program Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Meeting. 34 NTIA (2013, August 13). FirstNet Board Adopts Business Plan for FY ’14. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-board-adopts-business-plan-fy-14 35 NTIA (2013, July 10). FirstNet Issues RFIs on Technology for Nationwide Wireless Broadband Network. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-issues-rfis-technology-nationwide-wireless-broadband-network 36 FirstNet (2014, September 17) Request for Information for Comprehensive Network Solution(s). http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/Request%20for%20Information%20for%20Comprehensive%20Network%20Solutions.pdf 37 FirstNet (2015, April 27) Special Notice and Draft RFP for Comprehensive Network Solution(s). https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa93b913eb397ddb5aafc2506be60a50&tab=core&_cview=1

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-board-adopts-business-plan-fy-14


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-issues-rfis-technology-nationwide-wireless-broadband-network

http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/Request%20for%20Information%20for%20Comprehensive%20Network%20Solutions.pdf


https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa93b913eb397ddb5aafc2506be60a50&tab=core&_cview=1



2015. Comments were requested by July 2015, and FirstNet in this period received over 650 questions, the majority from states and trade associations. FirstNet plans to incorporate inputs into the final RFP, expected to be released by the end of 2015.

Additionally over the past year, FirstNet released three public notices for comment:

• Public Notice #1, September 2014, focused on users, network elements, and fees.38 The final interpretations were released in October 2015.39

• Public Notice #2, March 2015, focused on technical requirements, network policies, state plan implementation process, and customer, operational and funding considerations.40 The final interpretations were released in October 2015.41

• Public Notice #3, April 2015, refined the preliminary definition of ‘public safety entity’; final definition has not been determined.42

FirstNet has a mandate to be the nation’s single public safety wireless license holder. For the seven BTOP grant early builders to operate regional networks that will interconnect with the national network, they must negotiate a spectrum lease with FirstNet. Five of these entities successfully negotiated spectrum lease agreements, and Table 5-2 highlights status of these early builder projects as of this writing:

Table 5-2 Early Builder Projects

Project Primary Focus Areas Sites On-Air

Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority (LA-RICS)

Secondary responder partnerships, Quality of Service, Priority and Pre-emption (QPP) 77 3Q2015

State of New Mexico, Department of Information Technology

Hosted core, international border spectrum management, Federal partnerships 7 Now

State of New Jersey Deployable assets, Disaster Recovery, training exercises, Network Operations Center notification 29 Now

38 FirstNet (2014, September 24) Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/09-24-2014-FirstNet%20Federal%20Register%20Notice.pdf 39 FirstNet (2015, October 20). Final Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 – Notice 1. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/20/2015-26621/first-responder-network-authority-final-interpretations-of-parts-of-the-middle-class-tax-relief-and 40 FirstNet (2015, March 24) Further Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/FirstNet_Second_Public_Notice_0.pdf 41 FirstNet (2015, October 20). Final Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 – Notice 2. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/20/2015-26622/final-interpretations-of-parts-of-the-middle-class-tax-relief-and-job-creation-act-of-2012 42 FirstNet (2015, April 27) Further Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-third-notice-final-prepublication-version.pdf

http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/09-24-2014-FirstNet%20Federal%20Register%20Notice.pdf

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/20/2015-26621/first-responder-network-authority-final-interpretations-of-parts-of-the-middle-class-tax-relief-and


http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/FirstNet_Second_Public_Notice_0.pdf

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/20/2015-26622/final-interpretations-of-parts-of-the-middle-class-tax-relief-and-job-creation-act-of-2012





Project Primary Focus Areas Sites On-Air

Adams County Communications Center, Inc. (ADCOM) in Adams County, Colo.

Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) program / FirstNet test support, Band Class 14 device testing, demonstration access

20 Now

State of Texas, Harris County (separately funded and not an original BTOP recipient)43

Core migration, data analytics, rural coverage, special events, LTE training 93 Now

Those BTOP recipients not receiving spectrum were:

• Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications Systems Authority (BayRICS) • City of Charlotte, North Carolina • Executive Office of the State of Mississippi

6. SERVICE DESCRIPTION This section discusses current and potential uses for Oregon’s public safety broadband data network. It differentiates and defines “mission critical” vs. “mission support” applications. Further, it describes the LTE network elements and architecture supporting FirstNet and highlights operational considerations.

6.1. USE AND APPLICATIONS

The introduction of software applications (or “apps”), operating on mobile computing platforms, such as Apple’s iPhone together with an integrated back-end service, has dramatically changed the way people communicate, work, and play. In similar fashion, the advent of public safety apps served via a robust, high speed network has the potential to completely change the landscape of daily operations within the public safety community.

Before discussing the many exciting applications and uses of the new network, an important distinction must be made between mission critical and mission support use by public safety users. Harris Corporation, in its response to Oregon’s RFI, provides practical working definitions of these terms:

Mission Critical – Communications that are required to maintain safety of first responders and the people with whom they interact

Mission Support – Communications that provide improved operational efficiency, enhance safety, and augment command and control, but are not essential44

43 Jackson, D., Nolin, J. (2014, August 15). FirstNet board approves spectrum-lease agreement with state of Texas. Urgent Communications. Retrieved from http://urgentcomm.com/public-safety-broadbandfirstnet/firstnet-board-approves-spectrum-lease-agreement-state-texas?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850&caption=Urgent+Communications+-+Urgent+Communications+is+the+technology+source+for+the+communications+technology+industry

http://urgentcomm.com/public-safety-broadbandfirstnet/firstnet-board-approves-spectrum-lease-agreement-state-texas?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850&caption=Urgent+Communications+-+Urgent+Communications+is+the+technology+source+for+the+communications+technology+industry





Currently, mission critical voice communications is provided by Land Mobile Radio (LMR) technology and has a long history of operating over redundant, highly available networks for public safety use. Although FirstNet plans to offer what they refer to as “mission critical data” service,45 in Oregon initial high bandwidth data applications supported by the FirstNet Network such as streaming video are anticipated to be for mission support use only. Regarding the eventual transition of the public safety LTE network to carrying mission critical voice communications, the National Governors Association (NGA) notes that “it will be many years before Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) will be carried over the [LTE] network, so states will need to continue to sustain LMR systems far into the foreseeable future, even as they build toward public safety broadband.”46 This was re-iterated by the FirstNet board at the meeting of the Public Safety Research Consortium in June 2013. Similar statements were released by the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), www.NPSTC.org, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), www.apcointl.org, and L. K. Moore in her report to Congress.47

• Current Oregon Mobile Data Use

Within the context of the above definition for mission support, there exists a myriad countless uses for high speed data applications in support of public safety. Early in 2012, the OEC within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) completed a survey of the current and projected use of public safety broadband data applications in the state of Oregon. Twenty-five state, county, and local agencies contributed to the survey. Participants were primarily from the Portland area with representation ranging from law enforcement, fire and rescue, and emergency management to public works and the Oregon Department of Transportation.

The survey found that many agencies are already using mobile data applications in fulfilling their missions, supported by both private and commercial data networks. Figure 6-1 from the survey shows the general trend of increasing adoption of mobile data applications by public safety agencies.48

44 Harris Corporation (2012, March 2). Response to the State of Oregon’s Request for Information and Expression of Interest (RFI-EI) for Public Safety Long Term Evolution Broadband Spectrum Network Proof-of-Concept Pilot (LTE PSBN Pilot), p. 13. 45 FirstNet (2015, September). Guiding Principles. Retrieved from http://www.firstnet.gov/content/firstnet-will-enhance-public-safety-communications-delivering-mission-critical-data-and 46 National Governors Association (2012, June 28). Preparing for Public Safety Broadband. White Paper, p. 6. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1206PREPAREBROADBANDPAPER.PDF 47 Moore, L. K. (2015, May 7). The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress. Summary, para. 2. 48 OEC (2012, June). Review of Public Safety Wireless Data Usage, State of Oregon, Portland Area, p. 29. Used with permission.

http://www.npstc.org/

http://www.apcointl.org/

http://www.firstnet.gov/content/firstnet-will-enhance-public-safety-communications-delivering-mission-critical-data-and





Figure 6-1 Oregon Public Safety Broadband Survey: Cellular Data Adoption

A separate survey conducted by OEC associated with the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) Goal 2 further illustrates the wide use of mobile data in daily operations throughout the state. 49 See Figure 6-2.

Figure 6-2 OEC Goal 2 Data Collection: Mobile Data Use over Commercial and Private Networks50

49 OEC (2012, July 10). National Emergency Communications Plan Goal 2. 50 OEC (2012, May). NECP Goal 2 Analysis with Workshop Findings & Recommendations, p. 20.



In fact, returning to the broadband survey, 32 percent of the cellular data users surveyed were using advanced 4G technology today, as shown in Figure 6-3.51

Figure 6-3 Oregon Public Safety Broadband Survey: Cellular Data Technologies Used for Wireless Data

For example, the City of Portland is using 4G LTE technology for data applications using available commercial service.52 Further, the Oregon State Police (OSP) uses cellular technology to connect their in-vehicle mobility platform to Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) tools, locally hosted mapping, and the e-Citations electronic ticketing system. In fact, e-Citations and e-Crash electronic ticketing and crash reporting systems are estimated to have saved 55,000 hours of law enforcement time to date.53

In answer to what is driving these increasing public safety data adoption rates and usage, participants in the OEC broadband survey identified their top three wireless data applications as:

• CAD system interface

• Messaging

• Database inquiries

Finally and most importantly, broadband survey respondents identified the top three positive outcomes from their use of current wireless data systems as:

• Enhanced employee safety

• Rapid dissemination of key information

• Decreased response times

51 OEC (2012, June). Review of Public Safety Wireless Data Usage, State of Oregon, Portland Area, p. 30. Used with permission. 52 OEC (2012, June 21). Oregon Broadband Survey Workshop, Portland, Oregon. 53 ODOT (2012, December). “E-Citing things are happening with law enforcement data”. Inside ODOT.



Taken together, these results illustrate that Oregon’s public safety community is both using mobile data networking in an ever increasing manner, and finding value in its use.

In 2015, FirstNet requested that Oregon collect similar data in support of FirstNet’s NPSBN RFP development process. See Section 11. , Consultation and Design Process for details. Over 110 agencies from 31 counties representing law enforcement, fire services, EMS, utilities, military and others participated in an updated version of the DHS online survey.

Survey results show that over 80% of responding agencies issue devices to personnel, including voice and data (smartphones, cellphones), data (tablets, USB modems, mobile hot spots, etc.) and other devices, e.g., private data systems. In addition, over 65% of responding agencies allow the use of personal devices for work purposes, and of these agencies, nearly 80% allows personal devices to connect to official agency systems or applications. As illustrated in Figure 6-4, the survey results show that a large majority of public safety agencies in Oregon utilize mobile data, and encourage its use with both agency issued and personal devices.

Figure 6-4 Oregon FirstNet Data Collection Survey: Major of Public Safety Utilizing Mobile Data

The survey also provided insight on some of the most commonly used applications that public safety is leveraging in their work, highlighted in Figure 6-5. Some of the top applications in use include CAD, location services such as GoogleMaps and ArcGIS, Intranet/VPN solutions such as Citrix and NetMotion, and database inquiries such as RMS. These are followed by field based reporting tools and digital messaging services such as SMS and Active 911. Finally, VoIP, web and video conferencing, e.g., Skype and FaceTime, along with body and car dash cameras are increasing utilized.



Figure 6-5 Oregon FirstNet Data Collection Survey: Most Commonly Used Applications

Potential Public Safety LTE Applications

In addition to increasing the speed and efficiency of current data applications, LTE technology opens the door to entirely new operational processes for public safety operations.54 The expansive data throughput of LTE broadband, which is 10 times faster than 3G cellular data today,55 is truly a transition “from garden hose to fire hose,”56 enabling a broad range of new public safety mission support capabilities that, until now, were simply not possible. For example, from the incident scene it can enable first responders to see real-time situational awareness information via hardened smartphones. This may include viewing detailed building diagrams and dynamic geographic information system (GIS) map data, as well as video feeds from traffic cameras of the severity and extent of an accident, enabling them to act quickly and in coordination. Emergency medical personnel could transmit patient information and health telemetry to emergency rooms and trauma centers while in route to the medical center, with the vital lifesaving data arriving in advance of the injured.57 Motorola Solutions, in its response to Oregon’s RFI, highlights the wide ranging value provided by LTE technology to:

54 DHS Command, Control and Interoperability Division Basic/Futures Research program has developed a compelling video to illustrate broadband’s potential within emergency management. See http://precisioninformation.org for more information. 55 AT&T (2011, October 30). LTE 101. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/bjCvY4utV-o 56Hatch, L. (2012, June 5). [E-mail]. Frequently Asked Questions. (Texas) 57 Roberts, M. R., (2012, May 1). Fire’s Case for Broadband. Urgent Communications. Retrieved from http://urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/mag/fire-ems-broadband-needs-201205/index.html

01020304050607080

Num

ber o

f Age

ncie

s


https://youtu.be/bjCvY4utV-o

http://urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/mag/fire-ems-broadband-needs-201205/index.html



• Coordinate incident response • Ensure critical voice & data • Enhance situational awareness • Improve workforce efficiencies • Connect across resources58

Table 6-1 summarizes frequently discussed applications made viable by LTE.

Table 6-1 High Bandwidth Data Communications are Key to Potential Public Safety Applications

Potential Public Safety Broadband Applications

• Video Surveillance, Remote Monitoring (streaming) • Dynamic Mapping, Weather, Traffic

• Remote Database Access/Queries (mug shots, finger prints, reporting, NCIC, criminal history, hot files)

• Instant Messaging, SMS, One-way Notifications, Tactical Chat Rooms

• Multimedia Command and Control (floor plans, incident stills, surveillance)

• Real-time, One- and Two-Way Video in Vehicles or Handhelds

• Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD), Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1)

• Geo-Location and Asset Tracking (vehicle, personnel, assets)

• Records Management Systems Access (local queries)

• Mobile Office (bulk file transfer, email, Internet web access, VPN)

• Mobile Incident Command • Geospatial Applications

• Medical Telemetry • Automated License Plate Recognition

• Field Based Reporting • Digital Signage, Traffic Alerts, Automated Transactions

• Remote Control of Robotic Devices • Standardized Push-To-Talk (PTT), Voice over LTE (VoLTE) – future

In fact, many of the technologies supporting these applications are in commercial use today. Implementing a reliable and secure public safety LTE network will put them also in the hands of public safety users. In describing how LTE meets public safety needs, the publishers of Government Technology with the help of Alcatel-Lucent illustrate these tangible benefits offered to public safety users:

Situational Awareness – Immediate, dependable communication is critical during an incident response. The capabilities of LTE get everyone on the same page, faster than ever before. Is a firefighter down? Is she trapped or unconscious? A helmet camera streaming real-time video back to the operations center can be the difference between life and death. With LTE, information can be exchanged from anywhere, instantly, in many ways. Video can be sent from the scene to commanders. Messages, images, surveillance videos, floor plans, mug shots – whatever is needed – can be instantly disseminated to all responders who need the information. Data from the field

58 Motorola Solutions, Inc. (2012, March 2). Executive Summary. Response to the State of Oregon’s Request for Information and Expression of Interest (RFI-EI) for Public Safety Long Term Evolution Broadband Spectrum Network Proof-of-Concept Pilot (LTE PSBN Pilot), p. 1.



can be integrated with incident-management databases, for the best possible situational awareness. The result is better decision making by leaders, and better safety for both responders and the public.

Digital Imaging – LTE enables large files to be sent extremely quickly. Detailed images of crime scenes, disaster scenes, suspects and more – all in high resolution – can be sent whenever they’re needed. A photo can be received by a responder in the field in two seconds. It takes minutes with today’s public safety networks, making it impractical in many situations. With LTE, photos can be sent quickly in both directions. If an officer isn’t responding by radio, a dispatcher can instruct the squad car to send a photo. Dispatchers, first responders, commanders and others will be able to communicate more effectively.

Video – LTE gives new meaning to the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Seeing what’s happening at an incident scene is much more helpful than hearing about it. It saves precious time and gives decision-makers at operations centers more data to work with. LTE provides fast transmission of even high definition video. And there are numerous applications for public safety. For example, during a school emergency, LTE, with proper integration, can provide responders with access to the video surveillance feed from inside the school, sending it directly to squad cars. Video streaming of crime scenes and video conferencing are other examples. And video can be sent quickly and easily, in both directions. With LTE, video will likely play a much larger role than ever before.

Large Data Files – If a firefighter needs to see blueprints of a commercial building that’s on fire, there aren’t many options for getting that information today. Sometimes it can be displayed from a CD on a laptop, but that’s time-consuming, and the information isn’t always up to date. With LTE, very large files, such as detailed blueprints, can instantly be sent to numerous devices. And information can be pulled from a variety of other databases as well – hazardous materials, for example. With LTE, volumes of data can be received in just seconds.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) – Mapping has become a very useful tool in many applications. LTE will increase the power of maps for public safety. LTE has functionality that improves on existing Global Positioning Systems (GPS), for greater accuracy. With LTE, commanders will be able to track their people and vehicles more accurately. Having better, real-time map displays will allow them to coordinate a better response and keep their people safe. GIS data can be combined with other data to make these maps even more useful. With a better overall picture, commanders can also leverage LTE to keep everyone on the response team well informed.

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) – LTE makes AVL more accurate and reliable. LTE supports both GPS and assisted GPS. In assisted GPS, LTE base stations are used as additional reference points to more accurately fix the position of fire engines, police cars and other vehicles. The system will no longer rely on satellites alone. This is especially helpful in urban environments, where tall buildings can hinder GPS. And with LTE, photos or other data can be linked to location information. A police officer, for example, can automatically be shown crime or suspect information related to the neighborhood he’s entering in his squad car. Better AVL also gives improved situational awareness, and lets dispatchers quickly send additional information to a vehicle based on its location.



Computer-Aided Dispatching – Today, most information that’s sent from dispatch to a responder is textual. It’s often an address, and not much more. With LTE, dispatch can also send high-definition video, high-resolution photos, detailed maps and other data pertinent to the response. Video from one responder can be sent to dispatch, and then from there it can go out to other responders.

Access to Report Management Systems – LTE gives faster, greater access to central report management systems. Personnel out in the field will be able to access data within reporting systems from mobile devices like never before.

Telemetry/Remote Diagnostics – LTE enables more data to be sent automatically from mobile devices so the data can be analyzed elsewhere. Patient data can be sent from an ambulance to the hospital, for example, so doctors have vital information before the patient arrives. Diagnostic information for a device or a vehicle can be sent automatically as well.

Bulk File Transfer – Information sharing is at an all-time high. Bulk file transfers require high throughput, which public safety networks typically don’t have. With LTE, bulk file transfers will be very fast. Whether for multiple high-resolution images or huge amounts of raw data, large files will get there fast with LTE.

Enhanced Day-to-Day Operations – Efficiency can be greatly increased when people have instant remote access to databases for vehicle records or suspect files, or can submit reports electronically. Public safety personnel are more effective when there’s less paperwork to do, or when they’re not waiting for information. The speed of LTE helps keep public safety personnel focused on their real work. It helps them do their jobs better.

Decreased Load on Narrowband Channels – Without a data system, a police officer needing a license plate check has to call in on his radio and ask a dispatcher to look it up. It can take many tens of seconds to fulfill this simple request, wasting valuable time on the narrowband radio system. With high speed wireless broadband, the officer can do the lookup himself – and get the answer much more quickly. Transmission of large files can also put unreasonable pressure on narrowband channels. For example, it can take ten minutes to download a mug shot on narrowband, but just a few seconds with LTE. By shifting requests like this and others to a broadband system, the narrowband system can handle other tasks more efficiently.59

As mentioned previously, many Oregon public safety users are already using private and commercial data communications to better fulfill their missions. The additional speed and capacity of the FirstNet LTE network will make the applications such as those discussed above an integral part of their operational day, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of limited human resources. Appendix A provides a detailed analysis of the considerations regarding integrating local networks and applications with the FirstNet Network.

In March 2014, the FirstNet Board resolved to accept the Human Factors Report submitted by the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC). The report highlighted the unique application

59 Note: Excerpted from “A How-To Guide for LTE in Public Safety,” pp.14-17. Copyright 2010 by Alcatel-Lucent. Used with permission.



needs of first responders in categories such as device design (e.g., “…provide usability and manipulation of controls through the use of one hand”), applications (e.g., “…control switched video sources at or en route to incident scenes”), policies and procedures, and access (security).60

Since 2013, the PCSR been engaging public safety’s assistance in developing its long term research roadmap. In the area of applications, public safety has shown particular interest in

• User Interface (UI)/User Experience (UX) • Operations Support/Resource Management (where resource = people and assets) • Analytics • Location Services61

Most recently, the PSCR has prioritized its near-term application research focus to location based services (LBS). This interest has been reinforced by the FCC’s rulemaking in January 2015 on improving indoor location accuracy.62 First responders can look forward to applications that will someday leverage 3-D geolocation, for example, providing fire fighters not only the latitude-longitude address of a person in a burning multistory building, but also their vertical floor and room location.63

• FirstNet Non-Mission Critical Voice Services

Although not mission critical grade, FirstNet does plan to offer some voice applications in its initial service offering. Two of particular interest are:

• Non-mission critical voice; i.e., a commercial grade voice service for routine administrative purposes

• A non-mission critical Push-To-Talk (PTT) voice application which will use a gateway to interwork with the local mission critical LMR network64

Based on network architecture information provided by FirstNet, typical Custom Calling Features as well as Caller ID, voicemail, and Multimedia and Short Message Services (texting) will also be included the initial service bundle.65

60 PSAC (2013, November). Public Safety Advisory Committee Human Factors Report. 61 Orr, Derrick (2013, November 15). Recap and Path Forward. PSCR Public Safety Broadband R&D Roadmap Workshop. 62 FCC (2015, January 29). FCC Adopts Rules to Help Emergency Responders Better Locate Wireless 911 Callers. Retrieved from: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-rules-help-responders-better-locate-wireless-911-callers 63 FirstNet (2015, June 29). FirstNet Evaluating Key Indoor Location Technologies to Help Solve 'Z-Axis’ Challenges for Public Safety. Retrieved from: http://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/firstnet-evaluating-key-indoor-location-technologies-z-axis 64 FirstNet (2014, July). How will the FirstNet Network Work with Today’s Land Mobile Radio Networks? p.2. Retrieved from http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-lmr-factsheet.pdf 65 FirstNet (2014, July). FirstNet and LTE Overview. p. 28.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-rules-help-responders-better-locate-wireless-911-callers

http://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/firstnet-evaluating-key-indoor-location-technologies-z-axis


http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-lmr-factsheet.pdf



• FirstNet Service Delivery Platform

FirstNet recognizes the value of its network is in how it is used by the public safety community – the applications made possible by the network. To this end, FirstNet is developing a Service Delivery Platform (SDP) as part of the network core. The SDP will, in due course, consist of computer servers supplying common application services over the network such as:

• Messaging, location, and video services • Non-mission critical voice and push-to-talk applications • Access to data warehouses

An exciting addition will be a FirstNet App Store and developer ecosystem, fostering the creation and wide distribution of mobile device apps developed specifically for public safety use.66 The FirstNet Network offers the opportunity on a regional or national basis to serve up common, best-in-class applications that will be truly accessible by all public safety users across all jurisdictions. Whether an Oregon firefighter, a California firefighter, or an Oregon firefighter fighting a fire in California, all would have access to common applications via the SDP regardless of geographical location.

It’s important to note that useful mobile public safety applications already exist. The anticipated use of mobile device apps by FirstNet has already ignited a creative spark within industry. Just as the opening of Apple and Android app stores has resulted in the development of hundreds of thousands of commercial apps, the opportunity to serve the public safety market has resulted in many apps being developed in anticipation of FirstNet capabilities. In fact, some of these are initiated by members of the first responder community who see both needs and solutions, based on their daily experience. Many examples can be found on APCO’s website for the online applications community, AppComm (www.appcomm.org). See the appendices of this report for a more detailed discussion of the ramifications of these market developments.

6.2. SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION

Figure 6-6 is a high level diagram illustrating the major functional areas of an LTE broadband network system. An operational LTE network consists of the following key elements:

• User Equipment (UE), which communicate with the RAN wirelessly over the air.

• Radio Access Network (RAN), consisting of radio towers, antennas, and base station equipment.

• Backhaul network, which interconnects the RAN to the EPC, typically via suitable fiber optic or microwave links.

• Evolved Packet Core (EPC), which forms the LTE core controller network.

66 Farrill, F. C. (2012, September 25). FirstNet Nationwide Network (FNN) Proposal, p. 14. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_fnn_presentation_09-25-2012_final.pdf

http://www.appcomm.org/

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_fnn_presentation_09-25-2012_final.pdf



• Management functionality, which includes network management, provisioning, billing, accounting, authorization, and access control.

Figure 6-6 Functional Elements of an LTE Broadband System67

Security has been designed into the network end-to-end as part of the LTE standard. Functions such as encryption, authentication, and authorization are implemented using network elements throughout the architecture.

Being an LTE system, FirstNet depicts the FirstNet Network similarly as they describe the network during outreach sessions. See Figure 6-7. Note the FirstNet Network elements are illustrated vertically but functionally remain the same.

Also, FirstNet’s concept includes a Service Delivery Platform (SDP) as part of the LTE distributed network core. The SDP will support common application services, such as messaging, video, and commercial grade voice. See prior Section 6.1. for more information regarding SDP functionality.

67 Note: Adapted from “Ultimate Wireless Broadband Solution for Public Safety.” Strategic White Paper, p. 11. Copyright 2010 by Alcatel-Lucent. Used with permission.



Figure 6-7 The FirstNet Network Reflects an LTE Architecture68

The major network elements supporting these functional areas are described below.

• Operating Frequency Spectrum

An LTE network is a mobile wireless data system. Commercial networks in the United States operate in the 700 MHz band. Band 13 and Band 17 are each 10+10 MHz full duplex channels, spaced 30 MHz apart. The rights to use Band 13 have been purchased by Verizon Wireless while AT&T uses Band 17. The public safety band of 10+10 MHz (753-763 MHz and 783-793 MHz) in Band 14 is not used by either commercial carrier. This is illustrated in Figure 5-1 FirstNet Legislation Doubles Bandwidth for Public Safety by adding 10 MHz D Block

Integrating FirstNet Band 14 service with other commercial carriers, especially those that serve rural areas, poses a challenging task. For example, spectrum in other bands have been purchased by carriers such as Sprint, which has spectrum in the 800 MHz (from Nextel), 1,900 MHz, and 2.5 GHz (from Clearwire) bands. Sprint can currently only run LTE at1.9 GHz in the 5+5 MHz configuration, and its 2.5 GHz spectrum will have to use the Time Division Duplex version of the LTE standard, called Time Division LTE (TD-LTE), which is not presently deployed in the US. Sprint is also expected to deploy Frequency Division Duplex LTE (FDD LTE) in its 800 68 Bratcher, J. (2015, March). FirstNet LTE Overview. p.5.



MHz band. T-Mobile has spectrum in the Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) band around 1700/2100 MHz. Rural carriers also have spectrum in various bands (www.ruralwireless.org). At present, FirstNet is focusing on integrating service with Band 12 and Band 17, owned by Verizon and AT&T. Beginning with Release 10, future versions of LTE will permit Carrier Aggregation or the joint use of frequency blocks in different bands. This will aid companies that are short of spectrum in a single band, enabling them to offer data rates comparable to Verizon and AT&T. It can also increase carrier partnering choices for FirstNet. FirstNet has said that future public safety devices will potentially have chipsets supporting many carrier bands. However, other factors may limit carrier availability. For example, it may be difficult to cost effectively support antenna designs that cover all bands efficiently. Furthermore, the software loads of different carriers have some differences which could further complicate such all-in-one device operation.

• LTE Network Notional Architecture

Figure 6-8 is a conceptual network architecture diagram depicting these elements and the interconnections supporting user application, signaling, and operations and management data communications across a public safety LTE network. These also play a role in the security architecture of the network.

Figure 6-8 High Level Architecture of an LTE System69

69 Note: Adapted from “A How-To Guide for LTE in Public Safety,” p. 11. Copyright 2010 by Alcatel-Lucent. Used with permission.

http://www.ruralwireless.org/



• User Equipment (UE)

UE in a commercial environment is typically a smartphone or LTE wireless data card. These are mass produced and the resulting economies of scale permit these sophisticated devices to be sold to the customer for a few hundred dollars. Such devices could be adapted for public safety in a multi-modal configuration, supporting not only LTE, but also 2G and 3G circuit switched connections. Commercial phones and terminals use 2G or 3G mode for voice calls today, since those technologies are optimized for voice. Appendix B further describes the evolution of UE. FirstNet board members have stated that some form of standardized Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) will be deployed over the FirstNet air interface to enable first responders to use their phones for voice services in the FirstNet spectrum as well, without using 2G or 3G in Band 14.

Present user devices operate with a transmitter power of 200 mW. This low transmitter power is a compromise to achieve reasonable battery life, acceptable radio frequency (RF) radiation into the user, and reasonable data rates. However, it is small in comparison with the 5W transmitter power of an LMR radio, for example. This lower power results in LTE cells that are smaller. So, more LTE cells are required to cover the same area than would be for LMR.

These devices are identified on a network and personalized to a user by inserting a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card (Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC)) in the devices. Device provisioning is discussed in greater detail in Appendix C.

• Radio Access Network (RAN)

RAN is the generic name for the wireless access network in the broadband domain. It is not usually used in LMR. In earlier generations, this was often thought of as a collection of multiple base stations (BS or cell sites) which were hierarchically connected to Base Station Controllers (BSC). One BSC often controlled multiple BS and negotiated cellular hand-off between them rapidly using an intra-BSC handover. A BSC would send control signaling outside the cell to another BSC only when a terminal began to move outside the range of all the base stations controlled by that BSC.

In an LTE network, the base station equivalents are now called eNodeBs. They communicate with each other and one or more Mobility Management Entity (MME), which is part of the EPC for control purposes, over a flat network architecture.

One key feature of the LTE network is that the eNodeBs support multi-homing, enabling them to be connected to more than one MME. This capability could be used to reduce congestion and improve response time, improve reliability, or to connect them to more than one service provider simultaneously.

• Backhaul Network

The transmission of the data and control traffic between the eNodeBs and EPC is performed by the backhaul network. This is a high bandwidth IP-based network designed to avoid delays



which could affect response times. The backhaul may be provided using some combination of fiber optic links, T1, or microwave links.

Since LTE requires an IP network, existing backhaul, such as legacy microwave, may not be suitable if it cannot support IP traffic. This is a very important cost factor for public safety since the backhaul would need to be upgraded with mixed mode equipment to support both the legacy application and the IP standard. Alternatively, a separate IP microwave link may be required for LTE.

The backhauled traffic requires several priority levels to support public safety. Hence it is often implemented as a Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) network. This allows bandwidth reservation for different classes of traffic to ensure that priority and Quality of Service (QoS) are maintained, depending on the application, network load, and other factors. For example, streaming video to a fire chief at an incident scene could have higher class of service than a text message sent between two secondary responders.

The bandwidth required from the backhaul network depends on the number of eNodeBs in the RAN it is serving and the number of sectors, proposed loading, and traffic profile (e.g., applications mix, ratio of active vs. “idle” connected users) proposed at each eNodeB. As more eNodeBs are backhauled to the EPC, the cost to move that data, either in terms of fees charged by the capacity provider, or equipment costs for the backhaul links, will rise.

• Evolved Packet Core (EPC)

The EPC is a high speed, high bandwidth, high capacity, IP-based real-time switching controller that acts as the central controller of the LTE network. It is typically implemented as a powerful high performance multi-processor server and transaction processing computer connected to a web of high speed data trunks. The functional elements of the EPC are shown in Figure 6-8. In principle, a single large EPC could control the LTE network for the entire United States, though networks are often partitioned for reliability and redundancy with multiple geographically distributed physical cores and linked together to form a common network. This could still be referred to as a single central core network, in that the control functions are centralized.

The major functional elements (FEs) of the EPC are:

EPC – Mobility Management Entity (MME)

The MME controls the signaling between the UE and the core network. It handles the establishment, maintenance, and release of the data traffic and initial authentication of a user. It also controls the establishment of the connection between the network and UE, its maintenance during mobility, and supports tracking, roaming, and handovers for the UE. The MME is also responsible for finding the UE by paging for an incoming call or session.

EPC – Home Subscriber Server (HSS)

The HSS maintains subscriber information, including the user’s QoS profile and any access restrictions to roaming outside the FirstNet network, or, possibly, outside the state. It also holds



information about the Packet Data Networks (PDNs) to which the subscriber can connect using Access Point Names (APNs) or a PDN address. This is discussed in Appendix A. The HSS holds real-time information regarding to which MME the subscriber is connected. It also includes the Authentication Center (AUC) to generate the information necessary to authenticate a subscriber. There is one HSS in an EPC, though it may be implemented as a distributed database. Since Oregon will be part of FirstNet, its HSS information will be centralized within the FirstNet core.

EPC – Serving Gateway (SGW)

All user data (packets) are transferred through the SGW. It serves as the anchor when the user’s radio transfers its connection to a different eNodeB within the RAN when the user moves. The SGW in commercial application may collect information for billing, such as the number of user packets transmitted during a session. It also acts as the connection point to legacy networks.

EPC – Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW)

The PGW handles IP address allocation as well as the enforcement of such items as guaranteed bit rate providing QoS in the data and traffic rules from the Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF). It also acts as the connection point to transfer data to other systems that are not standardized by the Third Generation Partnership Program (3GPP) organization70, such as CDMA2000 and WiMAX.

In some implementations, the SGW and PGW may be combined into a single S/PGW router element.

EPC – Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF)

The PCRF provides the rules for maintaining QoS for user traffic with dynamic QoS control. It is responsible for authorizing, maintaining, and enforcing the provisioned QoS profile of the subscriber. It provides the QoS authentication, class identifier, and bit rates for the subscriber to be enforced in the PGW.

FEs in the EPC can be physically separate or combined into same the physical unit; however this can limit the ability to separately scale signaling and user data as efficiently. Alternatively, FEs can also be implemented and run as Virtual Machines (VMs) across multiple hardware (i.e., servers) to increase redundancy.

6.3. RAN DEPLOYMENT AND COVERAGE

Deploying terrestrial macro eNodeBs everywhere across the U.S. to where RF coverage is required would be cost prohibitive. As a result, FirstNet is considering a “3-in-1” network approach for RF coverage comprised of terrestrial eNodeBs, “deployable” eNodeBs (which may

70 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is the standards body responsible for the LTE standard. For more information, see www.3gpp.org.

http://www.3gpp.org/



also include EPC functionality), and satellite.71 For deployment planning to achieve “significant rural milestones,” FirstNet has proposed these definitions72:

• Non-Rural – As a city or area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants.

• Rural or Rural Area – As a city, town or incorporated area that has a population of less than 20,000 inhabitants.

• Substantial Rural Milestone – At least twenty percent (20%) of total covered area for each Band 14 Initial Operating Capability (IOC) deployment phase must comprise areas defined as rural (coverage measured in square miles)

As shown in Figure 6-9 below, RF coverage will be provided to non-rural (i.e., dense urban, urban, and suburban areas) via terrestrial eNodeB sites. “Small cells” or microcells will provide coverage and tactical capacity (up to approximately 1 mile) in dense urban and urban areas, while macrocells will provide coverage (up to 10 miles) in suburban and some rural areas with less population density. As the deployment area transitions to rural and the population becomes much more spread out, macrocells extender or “boomer” eNodeB cells become viable, with sites spaced much farther apart and preferably placed on high terrain points, to provide coverage up to approximately 25 miles. It is anticipated that most “boomer” LTE sites will leverage existing public safety LMR towers, which will either be tall structures (e.g., > 30 m) or placed on higher terrain points. Note that LTE eNodeBs are currently limited to approximately 100 km (62 miles)in the 3GPP standards due to a maximum timing advance to allow for synchronization of all uplink received signals from UEs including UEs at the cell edge. In 2015, the Public Safety Research Communications (PSCR) team in Colorado demonstrated that coverage beyond 100 km was possible while still conforming to 3GPP standards. However, it should be stated that the drive route was very favorable due to lack of terrain shadowing, no loading on the eNodeB, and no real adjacent sites inducing Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR). As result, it may not be feasible in a real world deployment to push LTE uplink coverage up to or beyond 100 km (62 miles). FirstNet has not yet stated if “boomer” cells will be extended beyond 25 miles. FirstNet may also employ “relay” nodes as the land mass transitions from suburban or highway coverage areas to rural. Relays nodes are bi-directional amplifier sites which do not require as much equipment as a normal eNodeB site and extend coverage via an in-band or out of band backhaul link back to a “capacity donor” or “host” eNodeB site as shown in Figure 6-10 below. As the land mass becomes much more rural, satellite and deployable systems comprised of one or more picocell eNodeBs (with optional EPC functionality) mounted on vehicles, or perhaps helicopters or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), will be used. These deployable mobile

71 FirstNet (2014 July). FirstNet and LTE Overview Presentation. p. 21. 72 NPSTC (2015, July 27). Comments of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council. p. 9. Retrieved from: http://www.npstc.org/download.jsp?tableId=37&column=217&id=3493&file=NPSTC_Comments_to_FirstNet_20150727_final.pdf

http://www.npstc.org/download.jsp?tableId=37&column=217&id=3493&file=NPSTC_Comments_to_FirstNet_20150727_final.pdf




communications systems can provide dynamic, tactical coverage up to 1,000 square feet to remote areas where there is no LTE coverage available from terrestrial RAN. “Boomer” sites and deployable systems may also be used for LTE coverage in vessels out to 25 miles along the Oregon coast. Finally, in extremely remote wilderness areas, where there is not even satellite availability for access or backhaul, deployable systems can be used but will be in “off-network” mode as there will be no backhaul to “reach back” to the terrestrial LTE RAN or EPC.

Figure 6-9 FirstNet Plans to Deploy Different RAN Solutions Depending on the Situation

Figure 6-10 High Level Concept of LTE Relay Node

An emerging technology concept introduced by FirstNet to address rural coverage is the Vehicular Network System (VNS).73 The VNS concept is designed to meet the needs of remote first responders when they are outside of terrestrial coverage. Unlike other deployables, such as 73 Bratcher, J. (2015, October 21). CTO Blog: Vehicular Network System (VNS). Retrieved from: http://firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/cto-blog-vehicular-network-system-vns

http://firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/cto-blog-vehicular-network-system-vns



cell on wheels (COWs), VNS technology would be built into first responder vehicles, so they would be there when first responders need them, without the delay of mobilization.

• Deployment Phasing

During the March 2015 FirstNet Board Meeting, the now FirstNet President TJ Kennedy described the following phasing priorities for deployment74:

1. Existing Wireless Infrastructure (Commercial Carriers) 2. Band 14 Coverage (Priority, Preemption, Security, etc.) 3. Additional Rural Coverage, Reliability, Resiliency, Deployables 4. Public Safety Applications, Mission Critical Voice

In its draft RFP, FirstNet packaged these into releases of Initial and Final Operating Capability (IOC and FOC). The four IOCs and FOC and associated significant release features are depicted in the timeline in Section 16. Recommendations and Next Steps.

• Environmental Policy and Historic Preservation Acts

As with any construction program, care must be taken to adhere to the appropriate, federal, state, and local environmental and historic preservation requirements. The FirstNet organization has hired a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator as well as a Federal Preservation Officer charged with assessing FirstNet’s compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). FirstNet began its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process in November 2014, giving interested parties the opportunity to comment during a series of scoping meetings in November and December of that year. To expedite the review process, FirstNet has divided its territory into 5 geographic regions and is preparing regional PEISs that will be released for comment in the coming months.

6.4. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Once a network system has been installed, it must be managed and maintained. The following paragraphs describe FirstNet’s conceptual approach to managing the network and configuring providing service, including local public safety’s responsibilities. They also highlight operational considerations for the associated user equipment and the network based on Oregon’s current knowledge of FirstNet. Included is an initial list of considerations for integrating the existing state and local public safety networks with the new network.

• National Network, Local Control

Craig Farrill, former FirstNet board member and CTO, states that the FirstNet Network will supply “nationwide standardization” and common architecture but with “local control.”75 Technology exists for an operational support systems (OSS) infrastructure to be operated and

74 Kennedy, TJ (2015, March 25). Strategic Program Roadmap - Year 1 Review and Look Ahead. p.5. 75 Farrill, F. C. (2013, May 29). Q&A, FirstNet and NGA State and Territory Consultation Meeting, San Francisco.



maintained at a national level and still accommodate local control to best leverage FirstNet resources and allow public safety personnel to respond to localized events. For example, LTE equipment vendor Alcatel-Lucent has recommended that FirstNet provide an OSS infrastructure based on Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) device management standards already employed in the commercial service provider space.76 This OSS infrastructure would be web-based and allow authorized local administrators to manage devices (including locking and wiping) and applications and services on devices, alter user priority during public safety incident response (with integration into CAD system), enforce security policies, and perform network operations and maintenance (O&M).

FirstNet states that “local control means that agencies will determine who has local priority to use the network to ensure public safety priorities are met” in a way “that aligns with public safety incident management protocols.”77 For example, this may include Communication Leaders (COML) being directed to manually apply localized priority controls during a major incident.78 Via a local control function, PSEs can be in charge of activating user devices, defining who gets what services, as well as identifying the location of assets.79 This last feature, knowing where devices are (and therefore public safety users, too) is particularly useful during a dynamic, unfolding incident, increasing situational awareness and assisting central management of deployed resources.

For the case of local control functions during a major incident where manual intervention is required, for an urban area this may take place at the central command center whereas for a remote, rural incident, it may be performed by incident command as it arrives on the scene as part of mutual aid/incidence response, along with the deployable equipment.80 Ultimately, local control will be a governance issue for Oregon to coordinate (including training) with FirstNet during the consultation and state planning process.

• FirstNet Operational Architecture

In its draft RFP, FirstNet has defined operational functions for the network in an Operational Architecture document and identifies responsibility for them as FirstNet Only, Prime Contractor, and Public Safety, as well as a Shared category. 81 Table 6-2 offers a sampling of the functions assigned to Public Safety and so provides an early look at what local control will mean in a practical sense to public safety organizations. Note that local control responsibilities center around managing devices, users, and service subscriptions.

76 Brouwer, W. (2014, June 5). Presentation at PSCR Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Conference, Westminster, CO. 77 FirstNet (2014). Guiding Principles. Retrieved from http://www.firstnet.gov/about/guiding-principles 78 Johnson, J. (2013, October 24). Presentation at Oregon APCO Conference, Hood River, Oregon. 79 Johnson, J. (2013, May 29). Q&A, FirstNet and NGA State and Territory Consultation Meeting, San Francisco. 80 Smith, Z. (2105, October 8). Comment in response to Q&A during Operational Architecture Overview at Fall 2015 SPOC Workshop in Westminster, Colorado. 81 FirstNet (2015, September 3). Operational Architecture Functional Descriptions.

http://www.firstnet.gov/about/guiding-principles



Table 6-2 Typical Local Public Safety Responsibilities as defined by FirstNet

No. Title Description

A.2.1.2.2 Tier 1 Troubleshooting Agency Support

Agencies will provide the first level of support for users in regards to how to use their devices and applications and new accessories.

A.2.1.3.1.1.2 UICC Installation on Device

Allows agency device administrators, inventory specialists and device users to install, swap, and remove the appropriate UICCs into the devices. Depending on the device type, its UICC may already be pre-installed by the device manufacture or during the fulfillment process, however the function of an agency being able to install UICCs directly into devices is still required.

A.2.1.3.1.2 Policy, Apps & Content Administration

Administration of policies, applications and content on the devices of their users. Guidelines may be provided by FirstNet, prime contractor and device OEMs. (Devices which do not maintain the guidelines for certain policy, applications and content may have limited access to features and functionalities.)

A.2.1.3.1.4 Diagnostics Monitoring and Administration

Administration of remote capture and data collection of customer devices. This data would include items such as data, voice and other application usage, error reports, device configuration and similar. This information will be used by the agencies to optimize the usage of devices and their operation on the FirstNet systems.

A.2.1.3.1.5.2 SW, OS & FW Administration

Administration of devices operating systems, firmware, and software. Guidelines for the proper device operating system, firmware & SW version and their updates may be provided by FirstNet, the prime contractor and device OEMs. Devices which do not maintain the guidelines for certain operating system, firmware and SW version may have limited access to features and functionalities.

A.2.1.3.1.6 Shared Device Management

Allows agencies to manage devices and their associated accessories that are utilized by multiple users. This function manages setting and updating user profiles on the shared devices of an agency.

A.2.1.3.1.7 BYOD Administration Administration of BOYD (Bring Your Own Device) configuration. Prime contractor and FirstNet will provide the necessary certified Mobile Device Management solution as part of the overall program.

A.2.1.3.2 Inventory/Service Fulfillment Management

Provides the agencies an ability to maintain their device and associated device accessory inventory by using the FirstNet systems. This function includes the selection, ordering, storing, and managing the end of life or replacement of devices.



No. Title Description

A.2.1.3.2.4.1 Installation of In Vehicle Devices

Allow agencies to manage the installation of devices and accessories into vehicles. The installations maybe be outsourced by the agencies following guidelines generated by the device manufacturers, FirstNet, contractor(s) and agencies. The installation shall also include the proper testing and certification, as required, to ensure the device and devices operate properly.

A.2.1.3.3 Agency User Subscription Management

Management by the agencies of the individual user activation and deactivation process.

A.2.1.3.3.1.2 De Provisioning of Users

Allows an agency to remove a user or device from the NPSBN and delete associated assignments the user had.

A.2.1.3.3.1.3 User Administration: Provisioning of Users, User Profile Assignment, Rating (Billing) Activation

User provisioning administration via web-based tools (assign profiles, services, group subscriptions and billing). Prime contractor will provide the necessary web-based tools to provision users, assign profiles, assign appropriate billing alignment.

A.2.1.3.3.1.3.3.1 Communications Groups Implementation

Administration of assignment of user or device to appropriate communications groups.

A.2.1.4.1 View Agency Level Network Status

Monitoring network status, such as a local network operations center view for various agencies and/or states.

A.2.1.5.3 Training Users on Agency Specific Applications and Procedures

Training users in the usage of agency specific applications and procedures on FirstNet.

A.2.1.6.1 Provide Verification Services and User Provisioning

Provide verification and provisioning for individually liable accounts.

A.4.10 Implement and Enforce Policy Procedures Across Local Public Safety Entities

Implement and enforce security policies, business processes, and operational procedures within the local public safety community.

A.7.1.4.3.1 PSE Support and Define Local Access Policies

PSEN provides the support and definition of their local access policies for the set up and establishment of PSEN Identity management.

A.7.2.3.1.3 Video Feeds Service Management

There are many fixed video feeds that are vital to public safety and first responders completing their jobs efficiently and safely. These feeds must be available for consumption by FirstNet users who have the proper privileges to access them.



These functions may be performed by whoever does this today in an agency; i.e., these functions are intended to “overlay” what PSEs are doing today, with no appreciable additional cost. For example, large organizations, say a large fire department, the same personnel and process used for ordering and assigning laptops and smart phones today could be responsible. For small organizations, these functions may disappear altogether; a fire chief may fill out a form, provide it to a firefighter, who takes it to procure a smart phone “off the shelf” at a local outlet contracted to support FirstNet service.82 As a counter point, several states have expressed concern that these functions may require more effort and therefore more state and local expense that what FirstNet proposes.

• Network Management, Monitoring, and Surveillance

Regardless of who owns the RAN, FirstNet’s contractor will operate network cores for the east coast, central, and west coast regions and provide 24 hour, seven days a week (24x7) technical support to users. The regional network core (EPC) will be diverse and redundant, both in equipment and network connections. The cores will operate in hardened data centers complying with FirstNet’s reliability and resiliency requirements.

Operations activities such as network management, monitoring, and surveillance are important to supplying reliable wireless service to LTE user equipment. Network management activities include configuration and provisioning of network elements. Other key operation tasks include monitoring for congestion, overload, and mal-operation as well as surveillance (observing) or guarding against hostile attacks, data leaks, and theft. FirstNet’s contractor will be responsible for the monitoring and surveillance of the network, especially since it will manage the network core (EPC), where most processing takes place for these functions. Key operations parameters such as network quality, performance, and repair response time will all be Service Level Agreement (SLA) items that Oregon will want to review and compare to its needs.

• Managing Network Security

For LTE, monitoring network security becomes a centralized function that is associated with the management of the EPC.83 In October 2015, FirstNet released its NPSBN Cyber Security Solution as an RFP appendix for review by industry. Rather than requirements, it describes the concepts FirstNet intends to jointly implement with its awarded contractor. Key concepts in FirstNet’s Cyber Security Solution include:

• Usability – It is essential that the network be usable by public safety entities. Security controls, policy and procedure should provide protection but not prevent operability or interoperability.

82 Smith, Z. (2105, October 8). Comment in response to Q&A during Operational Architecture Overview at Fall 2015 SPOC Workshop in Westminster, Colorado. 83 See Security Policy, NPSTC (2012). High Level Statement of Requirements for FirstNet Consideration. A NPSTC Public Safety Communications Report.



• Mission Primacy – It is essential that the mission of public safety—the protection of lives and property from clear and present danger—takes primacy over protection of the network.

• Operational Security – It is essential that the NPSBN Cyber Security Solution protects public safety users from situations where the breach of that security leads to the breach of operational security. The identity and role of first responders needs to be protected before, during, and after mission critical incident response.

• Responder Safety – It is essential that the NPSBN Cyber Security Solution does not negatively affect responder safety or impair requests for assistance in a responder emergency or immediate peril situation.

• Reliability and Resiliency – It is essential that the NPSBN Cyber Security Solution enhance the reliability and resiliency of the NPSBN.

• End-to-End Encryption – Public safety users have the expectation that their communications and data are secure from end to end. Data loss prevention techniques should apply to all public safety data while at rest on the server/device, in transit, and in use.

• Privacy – Although cyber security is critical, the privacy of the user and the user’s data is as important as its cyber security.

• Authentication – Authentication methodologies on the network and for devices should allow public safety easy access but provide a high level of security. The solution should include a federated Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM) solution.

• Multi-Layer Security – It is critical that the NPSBN support layered security policies that permit public safety jurisdictions to implement their unique security policies, provided that doing so does not compromise the overall security of the NPSBN. Layered on top of the NPSBN, a jurisdictional security implementation will only be interoperable to users authorized by the jurisdictional security authority.84

A broad, important, and encompassing set of concepts, it will be imperative that FirstNet and its contractor strike a fine balance between ensuring the security of the FirstNet network in a cost effective manner while continuing to enable public safety to accomplish its mission.

To realize these concepts, the appendix proposes addressing important topics such as cyber security:

• Key Concepts • Architecture

84 Excerpted from FirstNet (2015, October 5). Appendix C-10, NPSBN FirstNet Cyber Security. Special Notice D15PS00295 – Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN). p. 4.



• Lifecycle • Guidance • Systems Engineering • Risk Management • Incident Response and Security Operations • Continuous Monitoring and Mitigation • Testing and Certification • Network Management and Configuration Management Policy

as well as Environmental and Physical Security, Information Security, and Data Sensitivity.

However, FirstNet Network security can also be dependent on the security of local PDN connected to it. The responsibility for managing and securing the local PDNs is expected to remain with the local administrators. This clearly requires close cooperation and common security standards, since at the national level the combined PSBN+PDN will be only as secure as its weakest link. How these will be audited and enforced is not clear at this time. For example, even simple Internet access is often a source for malware. The FirstNet Network plans implement its own defensive security gateways through which all traffic to the outside flows, to ensure that the larger network is not compromised.85

• Operational Considerations in Preparing for FirstNet

Oregon must consider how it will prepare to manage its portion of the FirstNet Network within the state. Waiting for FirstNet to define everything first before beginning planning will not leave Oregon sufficient time to assess FirstNet’s offer during the governor’s consultation. Upfront planning will prepare Oregon to quickly respond when requested by FirstNet and meet the required timeframes.

For example, some state level operational issues that are better addressed early in the process include:

• Determining a state administrative structure for equipment purchases by statewide agencies, possibly from a FirstNet approved list, as well as user administration and UE provisioning (e.g., device set up and service activation), including where and how they will be performed. These activities could be performed by a single office for all agencies within the state but will more likely take place in an office within each agency.

• Decide whether statewide PDNs should be consolidated or continue to operate separately for each agency.86

85 FirstNet (2014, July). FirstNet and LTE Overview. p. 28. 86 Packet data networks (PDN) are referred to as Public Safety Entity Networks (PSEN) in NPSTC’s Statement of Requirements (SoR).



• To facilitate both security and management, determine which applications should be standardized across statewide agencies. Identify expertise and develop a process for approving special applications to operate inside the state.

• Decide what UE should be standardized across all agencies within the state, as well as determining which specialized but standardized devices meet the needs of individual agencies.

• Identify the provisioning agents who will be authorized to access the FirstNet provisioning software to add or delete users, UE, and services. This role may be performed by state employees within an agency, outsourced to a private firm, or executed by the FirstNet contractor.

• In concert with the SIEC, Oregon’s FirstNet governing body, develop and agree to the processes and procedures for local control. This includes determining how staff responsible for network management will interact with local public safety dispatch and first responders to temporarily change user priority during specific events, such as increasing the priority level for Fire and Rescue during a forest fire.

• Determine the process controls to keep track of these sophisticated user terminals, to assure none “walk away” or are otherwise misplaced or unused. Assess whether these controls can be satisfied by existing asset management policies and procedures.

• Determine lease vs. purchase decisions in a way that keeps equipment current. This is relevant regardless of whether FirstNet dictates equipment choices, since the quantities purchased will depend on state decisions unless FirstNet negotiates nationwide leases.

Corresponding questions at the local level include:

• How can local and county agencies consolidate their PDNs for more efficient operations?

• How can local and county agencies test and verify that their PDNs are accepting and properly processing QoS, such Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCP), and priority marking of packets from the FirstNet RAN and EPC?

• How can local and county agencies consolidate or standardize their applications to create new statewide standards?

• What local applications may FirstNet standardize?

• How will Oregon-specific standardized applications interact with applications from other states?

• Who are the local PSE’s provisioning agents who are authorized to access FirstNet’s provisioning software to add or delete users, UE, and services?



• Could the same UE used by the state also be used by local agencies, including the specialized terminals discussed above? If other terminal types are also needed, can they be standardized across all the relevant local agencies within the state which need them?

• Should state and local agencies implement the same processes and administrative and network controls to ensure that these terminals are not lost or misplaced and are appropriately disposed of at the end of useful operational life? Asset management controls may need to be added to some agencies’ contracts if not already in place.

• Which users would be willing to load UE-based metrics collection software (e.g., NetMotion, RadioIP) on their UEs to verify KPIs, latency, throughput and other metrics to ensure FirstNet is providing the desired performance?

• At what locations will deployable LTE eNodeBs be stored and staged for tactical, temporary LTE coverage in remote areas where there is no fixed, terrestrial coverage or for urban areas where temporary additional capacity is required? In addition, which organizations will be responsible for managing and deploying this equipment in coordination with FirstNet?

Oregon can begin addressing many of these topics now. In 2016, FirstNet plans to sponsor state working sessions that will engage the local public safety leadership in discussions of topics such as training, local control, priority of local users, and selection of entities to access/use the network.87 Engaging in dialogues leading to the necessary upfront decisions and beginning preparations will ensure that Oregon will be ready to respond to FirstNet’s requirements.

7. STAKEHOLDERS The Oregon State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC) represents the public safety stakeholder community and will remain the key representative entity for stakeholders for FirstNet in Oregon. In its First Public Notice, Proposed Interpretations of the Act, FirstNet states,

“…the definition of public safety user, whereby the definition of that term includes any entity that performs public safety services at any time in any non-de minimis amount. Thus, for example, an electric utility could come within the definition of public safety entity (and could also be a party to a covered leasing agreement), but FirstNet policies and procedures, along with local public safety control of prioritization and preemption, would likely regulate its use of the NPSBN.”88

After review of stakeholder responses to this interpretation, FirstNet refined the definition of public safety entity in its Third Public Notice, Further Proposed Interpretations of the Act, to

87 FirstNet (2015, October 8). Regional Discussion Groups Participant Workbook. Fall 2015 SPOC Meeting. p.4. 88 FirstNet (2014, September 17). Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. p. 20. Retrieved from http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-public-notice-middle-class-tax-relief-job-creation-act-of-2012.pdf

http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-public-notice-middle-class-tax-relief-job-creation-act-of-2012.pdf




limit non-traditional public safety responders to personnel reasonably likely to perform public safety services, as opposed to the entire organization.89 While the final definition is pending, the latest thinking is described in the FirstNet notice:

“…where an organization as a whole is charged with providing, and does provide public safety services, the organization qualifies as a public safety entity and all members of the organization can… be given access to or use of the network under the Act… with respect to organizations that do not meet the above criteria… those members of such an organization that provide or are reasonably likely to provide public safety services for a non-de minimis amount of time, qualify as public safety entities under the Act and can… be given access to or use of the network under the Act.90

Hence, traditional law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services public safety users are joined by those that perform public safety activities at least part of the time as stakeholders of the FirstNet network. Other interest groups, such as investor partners, may become important stakeholders for activities such as network planning and deployment.

During network operations, stakeholder user groups will also be coordinated through the existing SIEC. This section highlights the key stakeholder entities requiring representation. The following Governance section describes the structure and functional linkages for stakeholders to the state and to FirstNet.

7.1. STATE INTEROPERABILITY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (SIEC) AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

The SIEC is chartered with developing policy and guideline recommendations, identifying technology standards, and coordinating intergovernmental resources to facilitate statewide wireless communications interoperability with emphasis on public safety. Current members as appointed by the Governor include representation from the following organizations.91,92,93

• Oregon Department of State Police

• Oregon Department of Military

• Oregon Department of Forestry

• Oregon Department of Corrections

• Oregon Department of Transportation

• Oregon Department of Administrative Services

89 FirstNet SPOC Webinar (2015, July 9). Quarterly SPOC Webinar slide 42. http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/20150709_SPOC-Webinar_final.pdf 90 FirstNet (2015, May 5). Further Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. p. 18. Retrieved from http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-third-notice-final-prepublication-version.pdf 91 State Interoperability Executive Council website, http://www.oregon.gov/SIEC/ 92 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 403.450 website: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/403.450 93 House Bill 4301 website http://www.oregon.gov/SIEC/Docs/Supplementals/2014.04.08_House.Bill.4301.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/OSP

http://www.oregon.gov/OMD

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF

http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/index.shtml

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS

http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/20150709_SPOC-Webinar_final.pdf



http://www.oregon.gov/SIEC/

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/403.450



• Oregon Health Authority

• Oregon Office of Emergency Management

• Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training

• Oregon Broadband Advisory Council

• Oregon Tribal Representative

• Association of Public Safety Communications Officials / National Emergency Number Association (APCO/NENA)

• Public Representative

• Oregon Fire Chiefs' Association

• Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police

• Oregon State Sheriff's Association

• Association of Oregon Counties

• League of Oregon Cities

• Special Districts of Oregon

• Technology officer of an Oregon city

• Technology officer of an Oregon county

• Two members of the Legislative Assembly with interest in public safety and wireless communication systems.

Local entities have also been actively involved in Oregon’s public safety broadband efforts to date, such as the BTOP grant and RFI. These include City of Portland, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), City of Salem, Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA), and Clackamas County Communications (C-800).

For the purposes of FirstNet, the list of stakeholders is expected to expand and evolve to include other potential users such as utilities, federal civil and military organizations, as well as public-private partners and private sector entities. The latter may include telecommunications service providers, fiber consortiums, and equipment manufacturers. The former may include federal agencies such as:

• DHS Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

• DHS Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)

• Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

• Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

http://www.oregon.gov/oha/Pages/index.aspx

http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM

http://www.oregon.gov/dpsst/Pages/index.aspx

http://www.orinfrastructure.org/Infrastructure-Programs/Telecommunications/OBAC/

http://500nations.com/Oregon_Tribes.asp

http://oregonapconena.org/

http://oregonapconena.org/

http://www.ofca.org/

http://www.policechief.org/

http://www.oregonsheriffs.org/

http://www.aocweb.org/aoc/default.aspx

http://www.orcities.org/

http://www.sdao.com/index.htm

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/



• Department of Defense (DOD)

For example, DOD users may make use of the network during combat training at training centers and test ranges as well as to support public safety activities at military bases.

7.2. STAKEHOLDER USER GROUPS

Governments (State, Local and Tribal) are key contributors to the FirstNet in Oregon consultation process and are represented by the SIEC. Stakeholder user groups will be coordinated through the existing SIEC, consist of the public safety entity users of the FirstNet Network, and may be organized by region. Users would include public safety, law enforcement, fire, emergency response, emergency medical services, and related personnel, agencies, and authorities.

Tribal Nations in Oregon are listed in Oregon’s Official Fact Book (The Blue Book).94 An excerpt of The Blue Book follows with links to more detailed information:

“Oregon tribal governments are separate sovereigns with powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of their members and to govern their lands. This section describes each of the state's nine tribes with information about the economy, points of interest, history, and culture.

Introduction to Oregon Indian tribes

Burns Paiute Tribe

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw

Coquille Indian Tribe

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians

Confederated Tribes of The Grand Ronde Community

Klamath Tribes

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation ”

Additionally, the user base should include any emergency response agency or authority with Emergency Support Function (ESF) responsibilities as noted in Table 7-1, as realigned by OEM.95

94 Oregon’s Indian Tribes. http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/tribal.htm 95 See http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/docs/ESF%20Realignment%20Issue%20Paper.pdf and http://www.oregonemergency.com/media/OEM-ESF-Structure.pdf

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/tribalintro.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/burns.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/coos.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/coquille.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/cow.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/grandronde.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/klamath.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/siletz.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/umatilla.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/warmsprings.htm

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/tribal.htm

http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/docs/ESF%20Realignment%20Issue%20Paper.pdf

http://www.oregonemergency.com/media/OEM-ESF-Structure.pdf



Table 7-1 Emergency Support Functions

Emergency Support Functions

ESF1 Transportation ESF2 Communications ESF3 Public Works ESF4 Firefighting ESF5 Information and Planning ESF6 Mass Care ESF7 Resources Support ESF8 Health and Medical ESF9 Search and Rescue ESF10 Hazardous Materials ESF11 Food and Water ESF12 Energy ESF13 Military Support ESF14 Public Information ESF15 Volunteers and Donations ESF 16 Law Enforcement ESF 17 Agriculture and Animal Protection ESF 18 Business and Industry

ESFs group governmental and private sector capabilities into an organizational structure to provide support, resources, program implementation, and services that are most likely needed to save lives, protect property and the environment, restore essential services and critical infrastructure, and help victims and communities return to normal following domestic incidents.96 See Appendix I for additional on ESF roles in a major disasters such as a Cascadia Event.

7.3. SECONDARY USERS

In its Final Interpretations of Parts of the Act, FirstNet defines a “secondary user” as any user that seeks access to or use of the NPSBN for non-public safety services.” 97 Therefore, these paying, non-public safety users will also become stakeholders of the new network. Secondary users will be contracted by the awardee under covered lease agreements, offering FirstNet an additional revenue source. See Section 13. Business Model and Financial Considerations for details.

96 Retrieved from http://www.phe.gov/preparedness/support/esf8/pages/default.aspx 97 FirstNet (2015, October 20). Final Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. First Notice, B. Users, 4.

http://www.phe.gov/preparedness/support/esf8/pages/default.aspx



7.4. OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

Additional stakeholders could include entities with a financial interest in the successful implementation of the FirstNet Network. These entities would realize tangible benefits from establishment of the network. Further, other stakeholders may include entities from the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the telecommunications, utilities, and maritime sectors. Local, state, and federal agencies and departments would benefit from the availability of the broadband network to enhance function and operations. Telecommunications service providers would benefit from the use of infrastructure, service, and applications on the network. Likewise, utilities would benefit from shared access on the network for their own data. Stakeholders in the in Oregon’s portion of the NPSBN are summarized in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2 Potential Stakeholders in FirstNet in Oregon

Stakeholder Entities

Local • Municipalities • Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) • Police • Fire • EMS

Telecommunications

• National network service providers • Local and private network service providers • Backbone service providers • Internet Service Providers • Tower owners

State

• Department of Transportation • Oregon State Police (OSP) • Department of Corrections • Department of Forestry • Oregon Military Department • Department of Public Safety Standards &

Training • Oregon National Guard • Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Utilities

• Electrical • Gas • Water • Sewer

Evacuation Sites and Transportation Networks • Schools, Colleges, Universities • Convention and Conference Centers • Parks

Federal

• Homeland Security • Department of the Interior (DOI); U.S. Forestry

Service; Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service

• Department of Defense (DOD) • Bureau of Reclamation, Hydroelectric / Dam

infrastructure; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Maritime

• Merchant Exchange • U.S. Coast Guard • River Guard • Oregon Port Districts

8. STAKEHOLDER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH FirstNet’s initial interactions with states have focused on education and outreach – building an awareness of the Act, of the FirstNet Network, and its future capabilities benefiting public safety. In the first half of 2013, FirstNet conducted six regional meetings nationwide, with



representatives attending from 55 of the 56 states and territories.98 These were led by FirstNet board member Chief Jeff Johnson supported by former board member Craig Farrill. With the hiring of then-Deputy General Manager TJ Kennedy, responsibility for stakeholder outreach transitioned from the board to the FirstNet organization. Under Amanda Hilliard as Director of Outreach, FirstNet built up a Regional Coordination Team, designating regional leads to coordinate FirstNet’s outreach and consultation activities for their region. Steve Noel, former Oregon SWIC, became the Region 10 Lead in April 2015, working with the public safety community in Oregon, Alaska, Idaho and Washington.

In 2014, FirstNet established a strategic roadmap with parallel paths for FirstNet to conduct state consultations and to develop a request for proposal (RFP) for a comprehensive network solution to build and operate the FirstNet Network.

As required by the Act, FirstNet must conduct consultations with Federal, State, tribal, and local public safety entities to ensure that the FirstNet Network is designed to meet the needs of the public safety community. FirstNet held its first state consultation with state, tribal and local agencies in July 2014 and completed all state initial consultations in October 2015 involving over 3400 public safety representatives. Additionally, FirstNet has conducted initial consultations with federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Labor (DOL), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

As part of the consultative process, FirstNet in June 2015 requested states conduct data collection to solicit inputs on network coverage objectives, users and operational areas, applications and data usage, and current services. FirstNet will use the data collection feedback as input towards the RFP for vendors to propose network solutions that meet the network objectives for each state. Data collection inputs were due to FirstNet on September 30, 2015.

• Oregon Outreach and Data Collection Activities

NTIA’s State and Local Grant Program (SLIGP) funding in Phase 1 supports state led outreach, emphasizing rural and tribal awareness. In advance of this funding, in 2013 Oregon initiated a preliminary awareness campaign to assure all stakeholders, both urban and rural receive FirstNet’s message. The preliminary campaign consisted of a tiered series of educational outreach activities including face-to-face meetings and conference presentations, live webinars, informational flyers, and targeted email distributions. The emphasis in Oregon was trips to rural areas and tribes first, then to metro areas.

In 2014, under NTIA SLIGP funding Oregon began a “whistle stop” program of informal drop-in visits, providing repeat visits to those missing an earlier presentation and filling in areas

98 Jackson, D. (2013, September 9). FirstNet Deputy GM Kennedy discusses outreach, innovation. Urgent Communications.



previously not covered in the week-long trip circuits conducted in 2013. These were very well-regarded by the local public safety organizations and provided an opportunity not only to create awareness of FirstNet but also share other state level interoperability information as well, such as field operations guides.

Outreach activities continued in 2015, often targeting scheduled meetings by stakeholders, such as the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) conventions, broadband meetings, and emergency management workshops. In support of the data collection effort, Oregon conducted a series of regional workshops to provide stakeholders with the latest information on FirstNet and to solicit their feedback on the data elements requested by FirstNet. Oregon conducted three trip circuits in June through August, visiting with stakeholders in eastern Oregon (Bend, Baker City, and Pendleton), in the central region (Tigard, Salem and Eugene) and coastal and southern Oregon (Central Point, Coos Bay, and Newport).

Figure 8-1 illustrates the in-person outreach meetings conducted across the state as of November 2015. Outreach conducted in 2013, 2014 and 2015 are represented by green, blue and red pins, respectively. A listing of locations and organizations visited can be found in Appendix F, Stakeholder Education and Outreach Events.

In addition to in-person interactions, the Oregon FirstNet Office has created electronic outreach methods and materials, including an informational website, a FirstNet by the Numbers infographic,99 postings to DHS OEC’s Public Safety Library mobile app system,100 and numerous Microsoft® PowerPoint presentations designed for varying audiences. The FirstNet in Oregon website can be found at www.firstnetinoregon.org and contains a wealth of articles, web links to other FirstNet awareness materials, a video gallery, and news page, aggregating newsfeeds with the latest up-to-minute happenings both nationally and around the world. See Figure 8-2.

99 The infographic is available on the FirstNet in Oregon website and can be downloaded at https://casmnextgen.com/pslib/index.php/webview?docid=105 100 The Public Safety Library can be accessed at https://casmnextgen.com/pslib/


https://casmnextgen.com/pslib/index.php/webview?docid=105

https://casmnextgen.com/pslib/



Figure 8-1 In-Person FirstNet in Oregon Outreach Meetings Conducted

Figure 8-2 Website Provides the Latest Information Regarding FirstNet in Oregon



• State Consultation Meeting

Oregon was one of the first states ready for an initial consultation with FirstNet and held the meeting in October 2014 in Salem. Fifteen representatives from FirstNet came for the event and met with over 90 representatives from Oregon’s public safety community. Stakeholders shared examples of broadband use cases for mobile data today, including a streaming video demonstration from a mobile communications van. The meeting was successful in helping FirstNet better understand the coverage needs and challenges for public safety in Oregon and engaged stakeholders in participating in the ongoing collaboration with FirstNet to implement Oregon’s portion of the NPSBN. More information about the consultation meeting can be found on the FirstNet in Oregon website.

• Public Safety Community Response

Feedback from Oregon’s public safety community as a result of the outreach activities has been colorful and diverse, ranging from enthusiastic anticipation of FirstNet services to skepticism regarding yet another underfunded federal program. The overriding question was: “What is the Road to FirstNet?”

Concerns expressed by those first hearing of FirstNet included:

• Will this project promise then not deliver, like other projects? • How do I justify another cost? • If I have good service now, why should I change? • When should we start putting place holders in our budget for FirstNet? • How can confidentiality of sensitive information be maintained if others outside public

safety access the broadband connection? • What happens to the broadband devices we have when FirstNet becomes operational? • Who decides what second responders are brought into the network and how quickly?

During the interactions, participants identified a number of benefits of a broadband wireless data network dedicated to public safety, including:

• Increased safety of first responders • Improved communication between responders • Increased reliability compared to commercial service currently used • Enhanced support for Search and Rescue (SAR) and mutual aid efforts • Improved access to Law Enforcement Data Systems (LEDS) • Triage during simultaneous incidents • Support of jail systems and safer prisoner transport • Summoning volunteer firefighters • Live training of remote participants, including interactive group projects

http://firstnetinoregon.org/firstnet/index.php/oregons-firstnet-consultation-meeting



Participants also identified some exciting areas for new applications made possible by the FirstNet Network in Oregon. For example, during the FEMA Public Assistance session at the OEMA Annual Conference, useful potential application areas identified could include those assisting with training, advance planning, assessments such as Initial Damage Assessment (IDA) and Preliminary Damage Assessment, response planning, execution, closeout, and after action reporting activities. Currently these processes are conducted using Microsoft® Word forms only.

9. GOVERNANCE This section discusses the national level organizational structures and responsibilities of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), how the national level will coordinate with Oregon, and how Oregon will organize for the planning and implementation of the FirstNet Network.

The federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the Act) was adopted on February 22, 2012. The legislation calls for the establishment of two national governance entities, a time-limited Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability and a standing FirstNet Board of Directors.

• Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability

The FCC Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability (Interoperability Board) was a short-term entity tasked with developing the minimum technical requirements to ensure nationwide interoperability of the NPSBN, i.e., the FirstNet Network. The Interoperability Board is composed of 15 members; four representing public safety, three members of State and local governments, four on behalf of wireless providers, and three representing equipment manufacturers. Upon FCC approval of the technical requirements, the Interoperability Board’s role is finished and the board is terminated. The Interoperability Board completed its Final Report on May 22, 2012.101

• FirstNet Board of Directors

The Act creates the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), an independent authority within the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), charged to take “all actions necessary” to build, deploy, and operate the network in consultation with State, local, tribal, and territorial entities. The FirstNet Board of Directors is the governing authority of the FirstNet Network and the managing entity for the public safety spectrum, the license for which was granted to FirstNet by the FCC on November 15, 2012 for an initial term of ten years.102 The FirstNet Board is designed to have 15 members including the DHS Secretary, the Attorney General, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 12 additional members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. Of the

101 Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability (2012, May 22). Recommended Minimum Technical Requirements to Ensure Nationwide Interoperability for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, Final Report. 102 Press release: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/firstnet-praises-fcc-granting-spectrum-license

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/firstnet-praises-fcc-granting-spectrum-license



final 12 members, at least three are local, state, or tribal, at least three are public safety, at least one has technical expertise, at least one has network expertise, and at least one has financial expertise. These members were announced on August 20, 2012 by the U.S. Commerce Secretary and include Jeff Johnson, the former chair of the Oregon SIEC.103 See Table 9-1. The board held its first meeting on September 25, 2012, where it adopted bylaws and delivered conceptual network and applications presentations.104 The Secretary of Commerce appointed six new members in September 2014. The Secretary of Commerce appointed two new members and reappointed two current members in August 2015.105

Table 9-1 FirstNet Board of Directors106

FirstNet Board of Directors

• Susan Swenson, Chairwoman, former President and CEO of Sage North America and Cellular One; former President and COO of Leap Wireless

• Jeff Johnson, Vice Chairman, Fire Chief (retired), former President, International Association of Fire Chiefs

• Barry Boniface, former Chairman and executive at Barclays Capital and Lehman Brothers

• Chris Burbank, Chief, Salt Lake City Police Department

• Neil Cox, telecommunications /technology executive

• Shaun Donovan, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Ex-Officio)

• James Douglas, former Governor, State of Vermont

• Edward Horowitz, Venture capital/technology executive

• Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security (Ex-Officio)

• Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States (Ex-Officio)

• Kevin McGinnis, Chief/CEO, North East Mobile Health Services

• Annise Parker, Mayor, City of Houston

• Ed Reynolds, Telecommunications executive (retired)

• Richard Stenek, Sheriff, Hennepin County, Minnesota

• Teri Takai, Government information technology expert, former CIO of Michigan and California

FirstNet is responsible for overseeing planning, deployment, and operation of the NPSBN. This includes development of RFPs, roaming agreements, and determination of network infrastructure and grant funding.

While FirstNet is the national governing authority, it is required by statute to consult with state, local, regional, and tribal jurisdictions in areas of management, standards, certified equipment 103 Press release: http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2012/08/20/acting-us-commerce-secretary-rebecca-blank-announces-board-directors- 104 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/firstnet-board-actions-09252012 105 http://www.firstnet.gov/news/statement-chair-swenson-board-member-appointments 6 FirstNet Board: http://firstnet.gov/board/members

http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2012/08/20/acting-us-commerce-secretary-rebecca-blank-announces-board-directors-


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/firstnet-board-actions-09252012

http://www.firstnet.gov/news/statement-chair-swenson-board-member-appointments

http://firstnet.gov/board/members



list, RFPs, commercial infrastructure, contracts, cyber-security, public safety answering points, rural deployment, and prohibition of the provision of consumer services.107

A critical milestone for FirstNet is to provide sufficient information to states to enable objective decision making to opt in or out of the NPSBN. This will require effective communication between FirstNet, states’ representatives, and stakeholders.

• Public Safety Advisory Committee

To maintain continuity and foster relationships with the public safety community, FirstNet adopted the structure and membership of FirstNet’s Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC), which is comprised of 42 representatives108 of public safety organizations. The advisory committee was mandated by the same legislation that established FirstNet. Many of PSAC’s representatives are also members of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Safecom committee. The first official meeting between the PSAC and FirstNet board members took place on September 11, 2013.109

9.1. MANAGING ORGANIZATION

Overseeing FirstNet implementation in Oregon will be a complex undertaking that combines policy, technology, advocacy, and resource allocation. A broad mix of skill sets will be required and includes: management (administration, technical, and fiduciary responsibility); leadership (at the highest levels of state and local governments); stakeholder participation (agencies, governments, and end-users), as well as oversight and governance.

At the federal level, First Responder Network Authority Board Net Resolution 20 approved an operating structure for FirstNet.110 The managing organization is shown in Figure 9-1 below. FirstNet has an extensive user advocacy organization to support state interactions. FirstNet has divided the states and territories into regions for this purpose, designating a local representative for each region. Oregon is in Region X, which has Steve Noel, former Oregon SWIC and FirstNet SPOC, as its FirstNet Consultation and Outreach representative.

7 OEC (2012, April 17). Statewide Communication Plan Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation Workshop, Oregon. 108 FirstNet Public Safety Advisory Committee http://www.firstnet.gov/about/public-safety-advisory-committee 109 Wendelken, S. (2013, September 17). FirstNet Holds First Official Meeting with Public-Safety Advisory Committee. Mission Critical Communications. Retrieved from http://mccmag.com/newsArticle.cfm?news_id=9940 110 NTIA (2013, June 4). FirstNet Board Approves Budget and Organization Structure to Advance Mission. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-board-approves-budget-and-organization-structure-advance-mission

http://www.firstnet.gov/about/public-safety-advisory-committee

http://mccmag.com/newsArticle.cfm?news_id=9940

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-board-approves-budget-and-organization-structure-advance-mission




Figure 9-1 FirstNet Managing Organization Structure111

• Oregon State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC)

Within Oregon, the Oregon State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC), created by Governor’s Executive Order 02-17 in 2002, is charged with improving and developing interoperable public safety communication systems in Oregon. Through the Governor, its advisory recommendations form public safety communication policy in Oregon.112 The Act calls for states to designate a single officer or governmental body to serve as a single point of contact (SPOC) to coordinate with FirstNet. The Governor designated the Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) to serve as the SPOC, with governance by the SIEC.

The Oregon SIEC is the ideal governance structure to engage key stakeholders in the public safety community across Oregon, receiving inputs and communicating information locally regarding the rapidly changing FirstNet initiative.

• Oregon FirstNet Office

To facilitate day-to-day program management and coordination activities with FirstNet for Oregon, the State has established an interim Oregon FirstNet Office to be advised by the SIEC and to interact with FirstNet. The Oregon FirstNet Office initially resided within the Major Projects Branch (MPB) of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and moved to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) in July 2014. The Oregon FirstNet Office 111 Noel, S. (2015, October 14). FirstNet Organization. E-mail. 112 ODOT (2012, December). Voice Radio Communications. Oregon Department of Transportation State Radio Project Draft Discussion Paper, p. 1.



performs as administrative and financial manager for Oregon’s FirstNet effort, with DAS as the state agency that is assigned contracting authority to execute the implementation planning grant.113

In the current arrangement, the Oregon FirstNet Office reports progress through DAS to the Governor’s Office. The established SIEC would continue to serve as the single voice for stakeholders, reporting to the Governor’s Office and functioning in an advisory role to the Oregon FirstNet Office.

See Figure 9-2 for this governance management structure showing the chain of responsibility and lines of communication.

FirstNet

Governor’s Office

DAS

Oregon FirstNet OfficeSPOC

• Financial Coordinator• Outreach Coordinator• Administrative Asst.• SLIGP Consultant

Stakeholders

SIEC

Figure 9-2 Oregon Public Safety Broadband Governance Management Structure

113 On August 21, 2012, the Department of Commerce through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published guidance on Development of Programmatic Requirements for the State and Local Implementation Grant Program to Assist in Planning for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN). See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_sligp_08212012.pdf




9.2. COMMUNICATING STAKEHOLDER NEEDS TO FIRSTNET

In concert with the functions performed by the Oregon FirstNet Office, the SIEC coordinates stakeholder user group representation. See Section 7. for a description of these organizations. The SIEC offers a single voice for the stakeholder user groups, soliciting feedback, and consolidating input for recommendation to the Oregon FirstNet Office.

Figure 9-3 Stakeholder and User Information Flow

Stakeholder groups report through the SIEC, offering inputs regarding the network from a user perspective. Stakeholder feedback is reported via the SIEC to the Oregon FirstNet Office, which provides the input to FirstNet for consideration and action. Figure 9-3 illustrates the complete information flow, from local user to FirstNet at the federal level.

10. OREGON INFRASTRUCTURE SOURCES FirstNet requested Oregon to assist in data collection efforts under the Phase 2 portion of the State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP). The collected information became input to FirstNet’s RFP to industry. Prior to and in preparation for this request, Oregon assembled a listing of potential sources of shareable assets to be leveraged during network deployment and potentially lower the cost and increase the value of service to Oregon public safety users.114 The 2013 document was intended to serve as a starting point for subsequent data collection. Certain privately owned entities were identified as owners of major infrastructure that may be attractive for potential private/public partnerships. In 2015, FirstNet shifted its partnering focus to a commercial partner responsible for nationwide deployment and so also responsible for local network asset agreements.

114 SAIC (2013, November 11). Oregon FirstNet Infrastructure Sources Listing. DCN: SWIC-OPSBN-13-03.



• Asset Infrastructure Information

The 2013 listing identified persons or entities in possession and control of potentially sharable resources. It is representative, and not a definitive, detailed, or all-inclusive listing of the actual resources and capabilities. This listing catalogs pertinent information for major sources of telecommunications infrastructure in Oregon, such as:

• Type of assets – tower, data center, or fiber • Owners – public or private, corporate or individual • Contacts – for follow-up and future discussions

Asset categories within the listing include state, city, and county entities, as well as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), which are often multi-agency entities. Utilities and telecommunications providers are also included. Should FirstNet’s awarded contractor seek these sorts of infrastructure as “gap fillers” or, for example, to satisfy particular rural coverage needs, Oregon will be able to offer this list to FirstNet as a starting point.

• Oregon State Radio Project Sources

Over the past several years, the state of Oregon and its political subdivisions have invested a great deal of time effort and resources in the development of a major land mobile radio project known as the State Radio Project (SRP). That project dealt with many of the same issues facing the FirstNet program such as new tower site identification, existing tower resource sharing, fiber optic and microwave backhaul resources, shared governance, and partnership agreements. A wealth of experience exists within the managers and planners of that program, as well as detailed knowledge of infrastructure locations, ownership, standards, and capabilities. Most importantly, they have established trusted relationships among the partners necessary to reach the sharing agreements that are vital to the success of any joint venture. Many of the entities involved as resource holders are members of associations, consortiums, or leagues formed for the advancement of the common issues of interest to the members.

• Willingness to Partner

At this early stage, determining which entities are willing to partner in a potential FirstNet collaboration is unknown. However, the state of Oregon has benefited from economic development focused on high technology endeavors. These developments have created an uncommonly strong presence of infrastructure, both public and private, essential to the movement of large amounts of data. Strong collaboration groups are in place and well positioned to assist in the coordination of potential asset holders. These all bode well for future partnerships should FirstNet’s contractor seek additional network resources.



11. CONSULTATION AND DESIGN PROCESS The Act requires FirstNet to consult with states when designing the FirstNet Network. In March 2014, FirstNet unveiled a formal process for involving states in its network design activities.115

• FirstNet Consultation Process

The process involves states in the design process using a combination of consultation meetings and data requests to collect and inject states’ needs. This input is used to both inform FirstNet’s acquisition of a contractor to build and operate the network as well to incorporate the unique requirements of each state.

Moving left to right in the middle “swim lane” of Figure 11-1, Oregon has worked with DHS OEC to conduct both the mobile data survey described earlier in this document and a consultation prep workshop. In October 2014, Oregon held its Initial Consultation with FirstNet, one of the first states to do so. At the end of September, Oregon collected and submitted data about Oregon’s public safety needs, corresponding to the orange circle labeled 1 in the graphic, which will be used by FirstNet to finalize its RFP to acquire a contractor for the network.

Figure 11-1 FirstNet will Consult with Oregon during Network Design and Acquisition116

For 2016, FirstNet intends to focus on consulting with states regarding the topics listed in Figure 11-2.

115 NTIA (2014, March 11). SLIGP Workshop. p. 22. 116 FirstNet (2015, June 23). Utah State Consultation. p.18.



Figure 11-2 FirstNet Consultation Focus Areas for 2016117

These represent a transition from the “what” of NPSBN to more of the “how,” addressing topics relevant to deploying service in Oregon, such as the state plan, operations, and training.

11.1. DATA COLLECTION

As part of the first data collection, FirstNet has requested information from Oregon about who, where, how, and how much its public safety community uses wireless mobile data service today. These categories of information are shown in Figure 11-3. This information will be used by FirstNet and its partnering contractor to develop market forecasts and engineering plans for number of subscribers, features offered, and coverage areas, with the goal of providing states a compelling service offer.

117 FirstNet (2015, October 2). Technology and Outreach Public Slides. FirstNet Board Committee meeting. p. 26.



Figure 11-3 FirstNet has asked for Information about Public Safety’s Mobile Data Use in Four Major Areas118

To assist Oregon in identifying coverage needs, i.e., where Oregon’s FirstNet subscribers will use wireless service, FirstNet developed a coverage objectives baseline map, which is shown in Figure 11-4. Part of the data request was to adjust the map to meet Oregon public safety needs.

Figure 11-4 FirstNet’s Coverage Objectives Baseline for Oregon119

118 FirstNet (2015, April 15). SPOC Meeting Day 1 Slides. p.47. 119 FirstNet (2015, March 23). FirstNet Data Collection. Retrieved from email.



The map uses colors to indicate key infrastructure of interest to public safety in Oregon, ranging from public safety agencies, hospitals, and airports, to census data of where people live and work, to major transportation routes. These are illustrated on the left map in the figure. The right side map shows the same information but adds federal lands in dark gray, which are not part of the state data collection request.

To adjust the map and collect the other information requested by FirstNet, over a period of four months the FirstNet in Oregon team contacted 9-1-1 centers requesting incident location data. In parallel, the team collected additional information via online survey using OEC’s Mobile Data Survey Tool (MDST). They also developed an online graphical Webmap tool which local public safety representatives used to mark up the baseline map to indicate where coverage was needed but not yet shown on the map. Oregon’s initial data collection response to FirstNet was submitted October 1, 2015.

• Major Events Listing

Earlier in 2015, an Oregon Major Events listing was developed to identify to FirstNet coverage needs for recurring public and private gatherings requiring public safety support, such as major sporting events.120 Throughout the information collection process, emphasis was placed on input from local stakeholders. Events identified included:

• Large sporting events • Fairs and rodeos • Festivals • Mobile events such as bicycle races or motorcycle runs

The Oregon Titan Fusion Center also supplied events previously identified for homeland security purposes. Potentially sensitive details were removed prior to incorporating them into the list.

Information collected about the events included the physical location of the event whether by address or latitude/longitude, so that the information could be added Oregon’s coverage objectives response to FirstNet.

Returning to Figure 11-3, after the RFP responses from industry have been evaluated, FirstNet may issue a second request for data from states. The information requested at that time is expected to be limited and more detailed, with the objective of filling any gaps in response information as it is used to develop state plans.

11.2. STATE PLANS

The information provided by RFP responses, from state data collection, and from FirstNet will be combined into a draft state plan that will be presented to Oregon for review in an iterative fashion. Due to the volume of information and wide range of topics, FirstNet is planning to

120 SAIC (2015, September 9). Oregon Major Events Listing. DCN: SPOC-FNIO-15-03, Release 1.



conduct section-by-section overlapping reviews of the draft plan. Section topics are expected to include:121

• State Consultation

• State Radio Access Network (RAN) Plan

• Public Safety Grade Recommendations

• Users

• Network Operator/User Training Requirements

• State Decision Process/Requirements/Timeline

• FirstNet Nationwide Design

• Device Strategy, Roadmap, and Support

• Applications

• Network Operations

• Deployable(s) Approach

• In-Building Approach

• Financials (cost to build, user fees)

Once the state plan moves from draft to final, it can then be presented to the Governor to make an Opt-In/Opt-Out decision indicated in Figure 11-1. Upon opting in, network deployment can begin according to the Act.

There remains opportunity to provide FirstNet design input even after the Governor makes an Opt-In decision.122 This iterative, continuous-improvement process extends into deployment, enabling Oregon to inform FirstNet design engineers of coverage gaps and emerging needs, in a manner similar to commercial service providers today who initially construct and then fill-in their networks over time.

12. BENEFITS AND VALUE As described in Section 6.1. , Use and Applications, public safety broadband offers users a vast array of potential applications. In use, these applications greatly improve the speed, efficiency, and resulting effectiveness of public safety operations. This increased mission effectiveness represents the real benefit and value of the public safety broadband network. It is reflected by increased situational awareness, decreased response times, enhanced safety, and improved 121 FirstNet (2015, October 2). Technology and Outreach Public Slides. FirstNet Board Committee meeting. p. 32. 122 Reed, R. (2014, June 4). FirstNet Planning, Consultation, and Outreach Updates. Presentation comments during PSCR Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Meeting.



efficiency. This section further describes these benefits using information supplied by RFI respondents as well as Oregon public safety users in the 2012 broadband survey.

• Increased Situational Awareness

During an incident, situational awareness – knowing what is happening to whom, where, and when – is key for public safety officials to effectively plan and manage emergency response and coordination. Public safety broadband will enhance situational awareness through distribution of messages, images (such as floor plans, mug shots, and incident stills) and videos, including surveillance feeds and on-scene video.123 In the future it will support NG 9-1-1 service, offering life-saving information in the form of images, text, and video, as well as medical telemetry with streaming data. Broadband greatly increases the amount and variety of information flow resulting in rapid dissemination of vital data, enabling a more comprehensive common operating picture; one that improves decision making and response effectiveness.

• Decreased Response Times

Public safety broadband provides interoperable sharing of information in real-time resulting in improved communication among public safety personnel. With increased situational awareness, officials will have the ability to turn data into actionable information. As noted in Harris Corporation’s response to Oregon’s RFI, the ability to monitor high resolution dash cam video, or sending hazardous material abatement information directly to first responders at the scene, increases the knowledge base when responding to an incident.124 Response times are in turn reduced as a result of information being available to responders as they reach the scene, as well as coordinated actions that could immediately be initiated upon arrival at an incident.

• Enhanced Safety

With greater interoperability, situational awareness, and communication, safety can be improved for both first responders and the public. Geo-location services, incident video feeds, traffic alerts, images such as floor plans, hazardous material data, and medical telemetry are just some examples of capabilities that will provide valuable benefit to overall safety through informed response decisions and actions. The wealth of information offered via broadband capably equips responders entering a developing incident or situation.

• Improved Efficiency

Public safety broadband provides an additional benefit of improved staff efficiency in day-to-day operations. For example, web access to databases and remote form entry decreases paperwork, increasing the amount of time personnel spend on patrol.125 As another example, today OSP 123 Alcatel-Lucent (2010). Ultimate Wireless Broadband Solution for Public Safety, pp. 3-4. 124 Harris Corporation (2012, March 2). Response to the State of Oregon’s Request for Information and Expression of Interest (RFI-EI) for Public Safety Long Term Evolution Broadband Spectrum Network Proof-of-Concept Pilot (LTE PSBN Pilot), p. 29. 125 Alcatel-Lucent (2010). Ultimate Wireless Broadband Solution for Public Safety, pp. 3-4.



mobile data terminals (MDTs) must be brought into the field office for upgrades and routine software updates, taking vehicles out of service for up to hours. Using the public safety broadband network to transmit this information would enable routine updates to be carried out in the field rather than in the office. With hundreds of MDTs in service, considerable time and cost savings can be realized with the improved efficiency afforded by public safety broadband. In the future, labor saving applications incorporating license plate recognition, scanning of driver licenses, facial recognition, and other advanced technologies can free time in a busy officer’s day.

As described in Section 6.1. , the FirstNet Network can enable the creation of a public safety data “cloud” that promises significant cost savings and efficiency gains for application users. It can potentially offer public safety applications such as common access to national, state, and local databases, CAD, and other incident response systems on a regional state, multi-state, or even national basis. Offering common, standardized, centralized applications eliminate costly replication of local systems that “can’t talk to each other,” instead offering a common view and access to data by all authorized users regardless of their physical location.

• Benefits over Commercial Networks

It is FirstNet’s mission to enhance the commercial services in use today by building a network designed for public safety that responders can rely on. Specifically, FirstNet cites these six benefits over commercial networks:126

• Dedicated to Public Safety • QoS, Priority & Preemptions (QPP) • Local Control • Public Safety Apps/Services • Situational Awareness • Public Safety Grade

In its response to Oregon’s RFI, Harris Corporation expands on two of these benefits, namely coverage of important geographical areas and the ability to prioritize bandwidth.

• The ability to build a network that provides coverage where public safety operates. Commercial networks are built to cover significant population areas, and geographic areas readily accessed by the public. However, public safety must be prepared to react in both accessible and inaccessible areas. Public safety may also benefit from coverage in court houses, jails, parks, and rural highways where cellular coverage is not deemed commercially viable.

• The ability to control priorities for bandwidth allocation. When a catastrophic event occurs, public safety users cannot be competing with civilians who congest the

126 FirstNet (2015, June 23). Utah State Consultation. p. 5.



bandwidth to send cell phone videos to friends or news outlets. If such a congestion of the broadband network were to occur, the public safety response may be critically hampered or delayed. A public safety broadband network allows public safety administrators to have access to priority control, managing priorities in real time so that the information deemed most important is the information that gets the highest priority.127

Alcatel-Lucent described similar benefits in its RFI response,128 noting that commercial providers only provide a best effort service and typically insufficient bandwidth and QoS compared to what is expected for public safety use. During emergencies, commercial traffic becomes very congested, adversely affecting any public safety communications being carried on the same network. A dedicated public safety broadband network with its own spectrum is needed to provide full control over the priorities associated with the users of the network.

Additionally, once built, the public safety broadband network can be viewed as a “socioeconomic equalizer”129 that brings broadband connectivity to rural areas currently without access – areas where commercial providers would not have invested to due to the low profit margin. Broadband will create opportunities for public-private partnerships to expand access to public safety responders in rural areas.

These benefits are consistent with those identified by users in the State of Oregon Current State Mobile Data Survey Results conducted in April 2012,130 which listed the top three positive outcomes from responder use of current wireless data systems as enhanced employee safety, rapid dissemination of critical information, and decreased response times. The positive impact of wireless data as reported by survey respondents is shown in Figure 12-1.131

127 Harris Corporation (2012, March 2). Response to the State of Oregon’s Request for Information and Expression of Interest (RFI-EI) for Public Safety Long Term Evolution Broadband Spectrum Network Proof-of-Concept Pilot (LTE PSBN Pilot), p. 29. 128 Alcatel-Lucent (2012, March 2). Response to RFI-EI 00060 Oregon Public Safety Long Term Evolution Broadband Spectrum Network Proof-of-Concept Pilot (LTE PSBN Pilot), p. 35-36. 129 Roberts, M. R., (2012, May 1). Fire’s Case for Broadband. Urgent Communications. Retrieved from http://urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/mag/fire-ems-broadband-needs-201205/index.html 130 OEC (2012, June 21). Oregon Broadband Survey Workshop, Portland, Oregon. 131 OEC (2012, May 30). Review of Public Safety Wireless Data Usage, State of Oregon, Portland Area.

http://urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/mag/fire-ems-broadband-needs-201205/index.html



Figure 12-1 Survey Respondents Experience Positive Impacts Due to Wireless Data Use

Oregon’s public safety agencies already recognize the benefits of mobile data. A public safety broadband network would leverage LTE technology to create an interoperable network for public safety that would increase situational awareness, decrease response times, enhance safety, and improve efficiency of operations. Their successful use of wireless data today is the best demonstration of how LTE broadband network will enhance public safety mission support capabilities tomorrow.

13. BUSINESS MODEL AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS This section discusses the funding and financial considerations associated with FirstNet. It provides an overview of the anticipated business model for sustaining FirstNet Network operations and analyzes the overall implications for Oregon, offering suggestions to ensure a solid financial footing.

• Funding Associated with FirstNet

As described in Section 5. in February 2012 the President signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, establishing and funding FirstNet. The Act authorized NTIA to provide $135 million shared across 56 states and territories to support state and local efforts to plan and integrate with the NPSBN through the State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP). This grant required a 20 percent match by the state unless waived by NTIA. The amount of funding available under the SLIGP to states was cut to $118.15 million due to sequestration. The Act further authorizes the FCC to conduct incentive auctions to raise $7 billion for constructing the NPSBN; i.e., the FirstNet Network, and establishes the Public Safety Trust Fund to support



NPSBN efforts. The funding will not be available to build the network until FirstNet completes the supplier RFP process and contracts are awarded. A timeline for these events can be found in Section 16. The law also provides up to $2 billion in borrowing authority for building that FirstNet can draw upon until proceeds from the auctions are available.132 As auction revenues are deposited in the Fund, they are allocated in priority order. Table 13-1 shows the funds available for NPSBN legislated by the Act. In the long term, current plans foresee the network being sustained primarily by fees paid by users and secondary use of excess capacity.

Table 13-1 NPSBN Funding Afforded by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act133

No. Fund Distribution Description

1. State and Local Implementation Fund (NTIA)

$118.15M

Supports state and local efforts to plan and integrate with the NPSBN. Represents the 80% Federal share. (NTIA may borrow the entire amount upfront)

2. Network Construction Fund (FirstNet)

$7B Supports the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the NPSBN (NTIA may borrow up to $2B upfront)

• FirstNet Funding Implications

Oregon was awarded its share of the initial $118.15 million SLIGP grant on August 23, 2013, receiving $2.1 million.134 The efforts under the grant will be conducted in two phases over a three-year period with the funding split evenly between the two phases. Phase 1 started in late 2013 and provides Education, Outreach, and Governance. Phase 2 was authorized by NTIA in March 2015. Phase 2 focuses on the collection of data for FirstNet.

For Fiscal Year 2016 FirstNet has an approved budget of $126 million. FirstNet management is authorized to obligate spending up to $86 million on acquisition activities to include the finalization and evaluation of the Request for Proposal (RFP), cyber security, and spectrum relocation; $28.7 million for consultation and outreach to the states, territories, federal agencies, tribal governments, and local jurisdictions; and $11.3 million in corporate services and other expenses.135 FirstNet is developing an RFP for a comprehensive network solution that it expects to be release by the end of 2015.

Of the $7 billion total funding planned for FirstNet, $2 billion was available immediately, being advanced by the U.S. Treasury in the form of a loan against the proceeds from future spectrum 132 National Governors Association (2012, June 28). Preparing for Public Safety Broadband. White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1206PREPAREBROADBANDPAPER.PDF 133 OEC (2012, April 17). Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation Workshop, Oregon, p. 36. 134 NTIA (2013, August 23). NTIA Awards Additional SLIGP Grants to Assist FirstNet Planning. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/ntia-awards-additional-sligp-grants-assist-firstnet-planning 135 http://www.firstnet.gov/news/firstnet-board-approves-126-million-fy16-acquisition-consultation-spectrum-relocation


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/ntia-awards-additional-sligp-grants-assist-firstnet-planning

http://www.firstnet.gov/news/firstnet-board-approves-126-million-fy16-acquisition-consultation-spectrum-relocation




auctions.136 The rest becomes available as spectrum is auctioned, with the last auction set to complete in 2022. As much as $3 billion is anticipated to be set aside for “hardening” broadband service providers’ existing core networks. The Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)-3 spectrum auctions held at the end of 2014 raised over $40B, fully funding FirstNet.137

Clearly, additional funding will be needed beyond the $7 billion for a nationwide deployment. To put this into perspective for Oregon, the cost estimate for Oregon State Radio Project’s (SRP’s) 335 LMR sites for the whole state was originally $600 million. LTE technology requires a higher tower site density than LMR. Assuming similar site build scenarios and a 1:5 LMR to LTE density ratio, the over 1,500 LTE sites required to offer the same coverage would likely exceed $1 billion in cost for Oregon alone.138 Separately, at the August 2012 Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) annual meeting, Verizon stated it has spent $9 billion so far to upgrade some of its sites to LTE, and well over $100 billion to build its combined 2G, 3G, and 4G networks to date. Further, in March of 2014 the Congressional Research Service noted that: “The cost of building a new wireless communications network is likely to be in the tens of billions of dollars. To meet these costs, the expectation is that FirstNet will have access to existing infrastructure for some of the network’s components and that it will be able to invest through partnerships – with commercial wireless carriers or other secondary users of its spectrum and infrastructure – that generate revenue.” 139 These support the need to monetize some of the unused spectrum through sale or subleasing to commercial carriers in order to generate the needed revenue to finance the build out of FirstNet.

• Business Model

FirstNet service is being planned to be financially self-sustaining. The legislation offers no funding for ongoing operations and maintenance and the fees from the use of the FirstNet spectrum must be sufficient each year to cover annual expenses of FirstNet to carry out required activities.140 Any remaining revenue must be reinvested into the network.141 Under FirstNet, the business model is fee based and comes with three primary revenue sources:

• Network User Fee – Fees from public safety subscribers that use the network

• Lease Fee for Network Capacity – Fee for agreement between the FirstNet and secondary user(s) to permit secondary access

136 Barnett Jr., J.A. (2012, September 24). What Should FirstNet Do First? State Integration into the National Public Safety Broadband Network, p. 37. 137 http://www.telecompetitor.com/aws-3-auction-finally-ends-raising-45-billion/ 138 Discussion points from the OPSBN Business Plan Kickoff Working Session, June 8, 2012. 139 Moore, L.K. (2014, March 12). The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress. p. 4. Congressional Research Service, R42543. 140 P.L. 112-96, Section 6208 (b) 141 PSCR Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Meeting, June 11, 2013 Westminster, CO.

http://www.telecompetitor.com/aws-3-auction-finally-ends-raising-45-billion/



• Lease Fee for Network Equipment and Infrastructure – Fee for entity that seeks access or use of antennas, towers, and other assets constructed or owned by FirstNet142

Initially FirstNet anticipated that the revenue from recurring public safety user subscriber fees would be the largest source of funding. The NTIA is to review and approve the annual schedule of fees charged to public safety agencies and other users for access to FirstNet’s resources.143

FirstNet intends to offer a compelling set of services to public safety communications users at or below what they are paying now.144 FirstNet has not yet fully developed a business plan that provides funding details on how this goal is to be achieved. Rather, the general manager update provided at the FirstNet Board meeting in March 2014 stated that FirstNet is developing a program roadmap evaluating a number of models in assessing the path to sustainability.145 At the March 2014 Board Meeting, General Manager Bill D’Agostino stated that it is challenging to determine the revenue based assumptions needed to define the business plan, saying, “Perhaps the most important assumption in our models to date is the value of secondary use of our excess network capacity through covered leasing agreements. Focusing on and being successful in public-private arrangements to realize this value will be an important aspect in executing a sustainable business model.”146 More recently FirstNet has continued the significant emphasis on the value of excess network capacity. At the August 2015 Industry Day FirstNet CEO Mike Poth noted that the contractor to build the network would receive up to $6.5 billion in cash, all future NPSBN revenue from public safety entities, and use of band 14 network capacity to serve commercial needs and generate additional revenue, when that capacity is not used by public safety. Importantly, the NPSBN revenue and excess capacity provided to the contractor(s) are likely to be significantly more valuable than $6.5 billion in cash and could more than offset costs of deploying and operating a nationwide network.147 Clearly the realization that the cost to build and maintain the nationwide network far exceed the initial funding has led FirstNet to focus on additional revenue streams available to the private sector and to adopt an objectives-based acquisition approach that provides potential contractors the flexibility to propose the best solutions that they deem possible by emphasizing higher performance on certain objectives over others.148 In the October 19th 2015 Industry Analyst Webinar, Firstnet referred to the available spectrum as “beachfront property” emphasizing it high value.149 The 700 MHz band spectrum allows signals to penetrate buildings and to cover larger geographic areas with less infrastructure than the higher frequency PCS band.

142 OEC (2012, April 17). Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation Workshop, Oregon, p. 42. 143 P.L. 112-96, Section 6208 (c) 144 Johnson, J. (2013, June 19). FirstNet Vision for the Future, FirstNet Regional Workshop, p. 12. 145 FirstNet Board Meeting General Manager Update, Bill D’Agostino, March 11, 2014 146 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_program_roadmap_executive_summary_03112014.pdf 147 http://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/win-win-win-business-model 148 ibid 149 http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/October%202015%20Industry%20Analyst%20Webinar.pdf

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_program_roadmap_executive_summary_03112014.pdf

http://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/win-win-win-business-model

http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/October%202015%20Industry%20Analyst%20Webinar.pdf



There is no information yet available as to whether future fees will be a flat rate, e.g., monthly flat rate per subscriber, or usage based arrangement. FirstNet could choose to negotiate a flat fee with carriers that includes all roaming. A tiered pricing model is also possible, with flat prices for in-network and roaming users depending on usage up to a certain number of megabytes, or for unlimited data usage.

For an Oregon perspective, the DHS OEC in 2012 on behalf of Oregon conducted a survey on public safety wireless data usage. The purpose of the survey was to establish a baseline of data regarding the current state of wireless services in the Portland, Oregon region, which included questions on current user preferences in rate structures and billing formats. The most widely used rate structure for wireless device billing was a flat rate per device, with 80 percent of commercial service offered at a flat rate and 100 percent for privately owned networks. This was felt as preferred because it is predictable and therefore easier to budget. Figure 13-1 shows the rate structures for the commercial users surveyed. The OEC survey results also noted that paper billing was the predominant invoice format, as depicted in Figure 13-2.

Figure 13-1 Survey Reported Rate Structures for Commercial Wireless Service150

Figure 13-2 Survey Reported Billing Formats for Commercial Wireless Service151

150 OEC (2012, June). Review of Public Safety Wireless Data Usage, State of Oregon, Portland Area, p. 19. Used with permission.



In 2015, FirstNet requested states collect data in preparation for the FirstNet Network solutions RFP, including information on service cost and structure, via an online Mobile Data Survey Tool (MDST). Oregon received inputs from over 100 public safety agencies and submitted its data collection inputs to FirstNet on October 1. As illustrated in Figure 13-3 below, nearly half of responding agencies to the MDST survey in Oregon prefer the cost certainty of a fixed price plan for mobile data regardless of usage. Twenty-nine percent preferred a variable plan based on usage, while 22% did not state a preference.

Figure 13-3 Oregon FirstNet Data Collection Survey: Preference for Fixed or Variable Price Plans

Another consideration from the MDST survey was the agencies are currently paying cost for voice and voice/data service. This information is helpful for FirstNet in developing an offering that will be attractive to subscribers and increase the adoption rate for FirstNet. Currently the cost for voice and voice/data service averages between $50-$70 per month, with ranges from $10 to $200 per month.

Regarding billing, it has not been determined whether invoices will come from FirstNet or the contracted service provider and whether roaming charges will be billed separate or together with FirstNet charges.

• Impacts to Oregon

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act establishing and funding FirstNet allows the governor of each state to opt out of FirstNet, if the governor rejects the deployment plan that FirstNet has for the state or territory. Initially some vendors in the public safety communications industry were lobbying state leaders to opt out and build their own broadband networks. This was especially appealing to state officials that were told that public-private partnerships used to deploy a first-responder broadband network could result in new revenue streams for their cash-strapped states. However, a state that opts out will not be allowed to use any “profits” from the

151 OEC (2012, June). Review of Public Safety Wireless Data Usage, State of Oregon, Portland Area, p. 19. Used with permission.



network to address financial shortfalls elsewhere, and may face the very real possibility of having a never-ending drain on its state budget to pay for ongoing operations, maintenance and technology upgrades.152 So even if an Opt-Out state decides to form a public-private partnership in order to enter commercial markets or lease access to its network, any revenue to the state from a partnership can only be used for costs associated with states broadband network, not to supplement other funding needs.153

Unlike opt-out states, states opting into FirstNet service will not incur network core fees, since these costs are incorporated in the recurring subscription fees charged to local PSEs. From the core network, FirstNet will always provide functions such as authentication, mobility, routing, security, prioritization rules, and support system functions, including billing and device services, along with connectivity to the Internet and public switched network. Further, for opt-in states FirstNet will assume RAN responsibilities and as such would also provide customer-facing roles, such as marketing, execution of customer agreements, billing, maintaining service responsibility, and generating and using fees from public safety customers.154

As a rural state, Oregon’s geography and demographics impact the relative importance of the major cost elements associated with a network deployment such as the FirstNet Network. These major cost elements include:

1. Radio Access Network (RAN)

2. Backhaul (both from eNodeBs and out to EPC)

3. LTE Core Network (Evolved Packet Core, or EPC)

4. Roaming on to commercial networks155

The decision on whether to opt in or opt out typically revolves around the first three items. For example, FirstNet will allow an Opt-Out state to build its RAN and backhaul network but still use FirstNet’s core. Or, the Opt-Out candidate may choose to build everything: RAN, Backhaul, and EPC. This assumes it can connect seamlessly to the FirstNet EPC and access all FirstNet features, such as enabling security and sub-network mobility to flow through the state network. Assuming that the Opt-Out builder conforms to the same network performance requirements and covers the same geography as the FirstNet builder, all costs at a macro level remain approximately the same for these three areas regardless of Opt-In or Opt-Out decision. What changes is who is responsible for implementing them. Note that an exception could be the cost of implementing a local EPC. This would increase local hardware costs while decreasing backhaul cost since the amount of user and control data traveling cross-country to the FirstNet EPC would

152 Jackson, D. (2014, January 16). If FirstNet does its job, ‘opt out’ is not a practical choice for states. p. 1. Retrieved from http://urgentcomm.com/blog/if-firstnet-does-its-job-opt-out-not-practical-choice-states 153 P.L. 112-96, Section 6302 (g) 154 SAIC (2015, July 16). An Opt-In State’s Costs for FirstNet Service. DCN: SPOC-FNIO-15-01. 155 See Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8 in Section 6.2. for more information regarding network architecture elements.

http://urgentcomm.com/blog/if-firstnet-does-its-job-opt-out-not-practical-choice-states



be reduced. Also FirstNet’s requirement that the state network should track the FirstNet Network in revision level could be an expensive mandate. Further, FirstNet will require and charge opt-out states fees for use of its nationwide network core.

However, it’s the fourth item – roaming to the commercial network when out of range of the dedicated FirstNet Network – that varies greatly between regions. For example, a police officer in densely populated New York may almost always be in the area served by the dedicated private network and rarely require roaming to the commercial network. A higher roaming rate would be incidental and of little consequence to this user. Not so in rural Oregon. For large areas of the state, public safety users may be on the commercial network more than the dedicated private network. Therefore, FirstNet negotiating favorable roaming agreements and rates may become paramount to Oregon. Alternately, FirstNet could negotiate a flat roaming rate across the country, enabling the densely populated big cities to offset the cost to the rural states. This approach is similar to commercial service providers’ roaming arrangements with other carriers within the United States. This arrangement was adopted over time by the service providers since no commercial carrier covers the entire country uniformly.

Another important implication to consider is the long, multi-year deployment horizon for FirstNet. The goal is to have as large a subscriber base as possible, to make FirstNet service affordable and lower the cost per user. However, many areas, such as Portland and Salem, have 4G LTE service now, with growing numbers of public safety agencies using the commercial service, as is illustrated in Figure 6-1, Figure 6-2, and Figure 6-3 in Section 6.1. If Oregon gets scheduled in the later years for deployment, many more public safety users will already be on commercial service and will also have the dense coverage of a mature commercial network. Therefore, the cost, coverage, and quality of FirstNet service must be very competitive or else cash-strapped agencies may forego FirstNet altogether.156 This has the potential to create a dwindling user base amidst an ever increasing service cost. NTIA and FirstNet are aware of this concern and may attempt to have states commit to a certain amount of usage before building. However, that merely transfers the risk to the state. A build in the early years, extending the subscriber base to secondary users such as utilities, federal, and DOD users, and negotiating tiered rates for rural use will help to mitigate this risk.

FirstNet will be forced to upgrade its infrastructure regularly in order to remain compatible with commercial technology development and rollout and to continue to enable roaming. This transfers more of the risk to FirstNet, especially with respect to the EPC. This may be mitigated by future terminal chipsets having the more advanced capabilities of the then current commercial networks, while still supporting an older FirstNet air interface, should the FirstNet Network fall behind.

156 See “The Other Opt-Out” in: Barnett Jr., J.A. (2012, September 24). What Should FirstNet Do First? State Integration into the National Public Safety Broadband Network, p. 26.



In light of the above observations, the following are recommended actions to prepare for a financially sustainable and timely FirstNet Network implementation:

• Prior to receiving the network deployment offer from FirstNet, develop a pro forma cost-benefit comparative analysis to understand the key drivers for Oregon. That way, when an official offer is presented, accompanied by a tight response deadline, decision makers will already know what aspects of the offer are important for Oregon and for which estimates to obtain the most precision. This will enable a rapid, complete, and confident response to FirstNet. Note that this knowledge of critical financial drivers, such as Oregon’s rural-metropolitan mix mentioned earlier, is important even for Oregon’s Opt-In position. This information will become critical when negotiating FirstNet rate structures and SLA terms favorable to the state’s public safety agencies.

• Make the most use of existing information in advance of data collection to establish a rough financial baseline against which to compare incoming new information for reasonableness. As a start, a high level summary of ODOT’s BTOP grant proposal is attached as Appendix E. This information can also be used to initially populate a financial model that can later be filled with more refined data as it becomes available.

• Leverage the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Oregon Broadband Mapping Project data to reduce data collection efforts. The project, with input from approximately 103 service providers, illustrates existing broadband coverage across Oregon and makes this data available at www.oregon.gov/broadband.

• Once sufficient information becomes available during data collection, perform financial analyses to answer key questions to assist Oregon decision makers, including:

o Given current adoption rates for commercial service by public safety users, at what price point(s) will a particular region forego private FirstNet Network service and rely on existing 3G or 4G commercial service for data communications?

o Conversely, are private network specific capabilities, such as preemption, added network reliability, and private network specific applications sufficient to make private service a “must have” for effective public safety mission support use? If so, what is the added premium that users would be willing to pay?

• Identify and engage participation of non-traditional public safety users such as secondary responders and public services, including utilities to increase the user population base and so reduce overall cost per user to a sustainable level. A separate pricing plan for certain types of secondary use should also be considered, such as for Machine-to-Machine (M2M) use for automated meter reading by utilities.

• Work closely with FirstNet to develop financially viable commercial roaming agreements with carriers offering SLAs suitable for public safety mission support activities.

http://www.oregon.gov/broadband



• Propose FirstNet offer service tiers that accommodate rural needs at a lower, more affordable cost. Identify what compromises will need to be made in return.

• Under FirstNet, offer arrangements that incorporate 3G data service in rural areas that are unsupported by 4G LTE service providers.

14. BOUNDARIES AND ASSUMPTIONS An important aspect for success for any program is to have a clearly defined scope that is fully communicated by the program owner or sponsor to the delivery team, program management, and stakeholders. When defining this for a major nationwide effort such as FirstNet, it is important not only to describe what it is, but also what it’s not. This section complements Section 6. Service Description, by identifying the constraints, exclusions, and assumptions that underlie implementation and operation of the FirstNet Network in Oregon.

14.1. CONSTRAINTS

The FirstNet legislation defines many of the constraints that will apply to the planning, installation, and ongoing network operation. The following list represents these and others items constraining and so further defining the FirstNet Network.

C1. The FirstNet Network must satisfy the PSBN Minimum Technical Requirements to the extent adopted by FirstNet.

C2. Oregon is not allowed to use the FirstNet Network to offer commercial service at a profit to consumers according to the Act. Revenue from all shared use must go to offset network costs.157

C3. In applying for and accepting federal funds for planning consultation grants, Oregon must conform to the federal grant conditions, such as providing 20 percent matching funds or receiving a waiver from FirstNet.

C4. Any matching contributions or other program expenditures must be part of the legislative budget.

C5. For the state to authorize and allocate funds to the program, the state must have visibility into FirstNet Network cost assumptions and calculations, as required by law for justification.

C6. Current public safety LTE devices offer data and not mission critical “public safety grade” voice communications. Voice communications using “commercial grade” Voice over LTE or similar technology may be offered by FirstNet but standardized PTT voice capability is not yet generally available.

157 OEC (2012, April 17). Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation Workshop, Oregon, p. 31.



C7. Adoption of FirstNet Network service is voluntary for local agencies. Therefore, FirstNet must offer compelling value to users; i.e., a robust and reliable service that satisfies user needs at a competitive cost.

C8. The rate of technology adoption will be limited by human change capacity, i.e., successful technology adoption will require implementing a change management strategy that includes a communications plan and training.

14.2. EXCLUSIONS

The following items help bound the scope of the FirstNet program by illustrating areas that are not within the program’s scope. These areas include:

E1. Initially, FirstNet will be building an LTE data services network. It is not a converged network that provides an intrinsic mission critical voice service as well as data communications.158 However, FirstNet does plan to offer a gateway service to integrate the local LMR voice network into the LTE FirstNet Network.

14.3. ASSUMPTIONS

As with any new initiative, defining assumptions are critical in successfully executing the program as well as understanding and communicating it to stakeholders. For FirstNet, key assumptions include:

A1. Oregon’s initial position will be to opt in to the FirstNet Network.

A2. Oregon will not perform as builder agent or operate Oregon’s portion of the FirstNet Network. Therefore, many of Oregon’s initial decisions will be business, financial, or process in nature; in contrast to technical decisions regarding network performance, for example.

A3. The governance of the Oregon FirstNet Office will take place within the department to which the Governor assigns administrative, technical, and fiduciary responsibility for the execution of funding for FirstNet planning within the State.

A4. The State will be expected to act as the central clearinghouse authority for information coming from local jurisdictions in Oregon to FirstNet. Further, the State will represent Oregon public safety interests to FirstNet.

A5. The SIEC will represent stakeholders and advise the Oregon FirstNet Office on issues from a user perspective.

158 FirstNet LMR Fact Sheet: http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-lmr-factsheet.pdf




A6. The FirstNet Network in Oregon will be used to offer mission support and not supply mission critical services, such as public safety voice communications, within the initial planning horizon.159

A7. Secondary users will be allowed use of the network, but would be subject to prioritization and/or preemption by public safety users.

A8. Gaps in coverage are expected in the initial deployment of the dedicated public safety network. Therefore, means to bridge the gaps will be required. This may include use of a commercial LTE network.

A9. Use of and roaming onto commercial carrier LTE networks is a necessary capability for FirstNet users.

There are many areas yet to be defined regarding FirstNet and its interactions with the states, and therefore, also with the implementation of the FirstNet Network. As such, the set of boundary conditions above are part of the “living document” aspect of this plan and will be refined and added to in the coming months prior to implementation.

15. RISK MANAGEMENT Every program worthy of execution has risk. Risks pertain to the threat of potential events or circumstances that could jeopardize success of the endeavor.160 The State of Oregon categorizes risk for its Information Technology (IT) projects into two main areas, Business or Organizational Risks and Technical Risks.161 Table 15-1 lists the risks and potential mitigations associated with successful planning, deployment, and sustainable operation of Oregon’s portion of the FirstNet Network. Risks are numbered for ease of reference and are in no particular order. Identifying a risk does not constitute a criticism.

159 See Section 6.1. Applications and Use for definition of “mission support” vs. “mission critical.” 160 State of Oregon, Business Case Template Appendix v1.6, Risk and Mitigations, p.11. 161 Ibid.



Table 15-1 FirstNet Planning, Deployment, and Operations Risks and Potential Mitigations

No. Risk Potential Mitigation

Business or Organizational Risks 1. As a rural state with low population density,

Oregon may not receive the attention that other states may when vying for the limited implementation grants for initial consultation and coverage needs in the subsequent deployment.

Remain active at the federal level during FirstNet launch and participate in planning activities by key agencies such as the FCC, DHS, and NTIA. Work on a regional basis to create a larger, more visible constituent base, such as with Washington state, Idaho, and Utah to represent the Northwest. Or, via the Western Governors Association (WGA) or other affinity group, such as FEMA or FirstNet Region 10, which includes Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska. Actively identify and support nominations for the FirstNet board that are knowledgeable of the Northwest and Oregon. Volunteer Oregon as the best candidate for a FirstNet “rural state” pilot or other visible, near term activity.

2. FirstNet deployment may be uneven, favoring metro localities and not sparsely populated areas, exacerbating a stakeholder division of “haves vs. have-nots” between the more rural coastal, southern, central and eastern areas of Oregon and the Willamette River Valley.

In negotiating with FirstNet, especially during the consultation phase, equally emphasize rural and metropolitan needs and alternatives. For example, an alternative for providing coverage in Bend might be leveraging current service offered by the local LTE service provider, rather than an expensive new build by a national carrier. This has been referred to as an “Opt-In plus” scenario. Propose that FirstNet offer service tiers that accommodate rural needs at a lower, more affordable cost. Propose that FirstNet offer arrangements that incorporate existing 3G data service in rural areas unsupported by LTE service providers.

3. The long, multi-year schedule for FirstNet deployment creates the risk that its technology could be obsolete by the time it is implemented in Oregon. Further, the extended duration increases the likelihood that local public safety users will have already established long term contracts with commercial service carriers, making it unattractive for them to move to a higher (or additional) cost FirstNet service offering relatively few differentiators to their current service.162

Enhance the “Opt-In” decision by advocating a “bolt-on” deployment strategy that is synergistic with commercial service providers’ implementation strategies to minimize time-to-market for FirstNet service and to get FirstNet applications in the hands of users as soon as possible.

162 See “The Other Opt-Out” in: Barnett Jr., J.A. (2012, September 24). What Should FirstNet Do First? State Integration into the National Public Safety Broadband Network, p. 26.




4. The later that Oregon is scheduled in the multi-year FirstNet deployment schedule, the less likely that sufficient funding will be available for Oregon’s deployment.

Although the “first mover” advantage of requesting an early deployment may assure finances and momentum, a later adopter position enables Oregon to benefit from the learning curve of other regions. Therefore, work to position Oregon as a “fast follower” and “rural/tribal/coastal pilot” to maximize the benefit of learning and FirstNet’s sufficient funding during execution.

5. The deployment proposal offered by FirstNet may be perceived by stakeholders as an unfavorable or unsustainable business model for ongoing operations.

Actively identify and engage the participation of non-traditional public safety users such as “second responders” and “public services” including public utilities to increase the user population base and so reduce overall cost per user to a sustainable level.

6. When the time for commitment arrives, Oregon may be unable to act promptly enough to commit resources and speak with a single voice to the FirstNet via a single POC as required by FirstNet legislation.

Establish a Public Safety Broadband office quickly to position Oregon for prompt response. Leverage the existing Oregon Broadband Advisory Council (OBAC), SIEC, and other established organizational structures for engaging and obtaining consensus of state and local stakeholders.

7. Elections at the federal or state levels may introduce government officials unfavorable to FirstNet implementation, halting progress.

Maintain the collaboration and grassroots support at the local public safety stakeholder level as was established by the waiver participants, using it to educate and influence new lawmakers regarding the continued importance of FirstNet.

8. The lack of visible progress at the federal level creates the impression at the state level that FirstNet is losing momentum. This hampers state efforts to build awareness and gain local stakeholder support.

Continue to participate in shared governance at the national level, actively encouraging action. For example, provide Oregon inputs to FirstNet inquiries and information requests.

9. FirstNet’s consultation and design process has states first declare coverage and penetration needs and then have FirstNet’s contractor design states’ networks. This creates a concern regarding how trade-off decisions will be made when simplifying a design that is too costly, i.e., the value engineering phase, and how Oregon’s voice will be heard during the process.

Keep this concern in mind during consultation and communicate Oregon priorities to FirstNet to keep this in check. Keep stakeholder representatives like SIEC highly engaged to help make the tough decisions. Advocate that FirstNet publish sooner rather than later how funding will be allocated between states, including the decision parameters and criteria.

10. FirstNet apps face trade-offs between ease of use and security. There is a risk that apps made overly secure may become too difficult to use or require public safety users to redesign their business processes.

Incorporate different security modes for different public safety situations, routine vs. incident. Most of the time, apps will be used during day-to-day routine operations. Encourage apps that are “plug and play” and operate equally well whether used on the dedicated public safety or commercial broadband networks.

11. There is concern that the federal level is running FirstNet like it manages a grant and not as a network deployment project. Further, NTIA and FirstNet actions are not tightly synchronized or fully coordinated, creating the potential for stalls and conflicts.

To assure a tightly coupled implementation, advocate that FirstNet be given authority to lead, break ties, and make decisions in this governing space. This authority comes with the commensurate responsibility of balancing deployment needs with fiscal accountability.




Technical Risks 12. Minimal deployment funding may be allocated by

FirstNet for Oregon, resulting in insufficient coverage after initial deployment.

Work closely with FirstNet to develop financially viable commercial roaming agreements with carriers offering SLAs suitable for public safety mission support activities. Collaborate with other state legislated and local efforts that have been funded from other sources to create a larger combined coverage.

13. The nationwide design template offered by FirstNet may not reflect the needs of Oregon.

Join in requirements development and design efforts at the national level, bringing Oregon’s needs to the table early in the game. Perform an integral role during design review. Actively participate in the overall process.

14. The federal top-down, one-size-fits-all approach of FirstNet may limit rural states’ choice of service mix and features as well as cost tiers. Local users may have little control or influence in the process. The rates established may not be equitable across states, creating a situation similar to being a gas tax “donor” state wherein operation fees collected exceed the value of services returned.

Maintain active participation with NPSTC and other federal entities engaged in FirstNet design to voice this concern and guide requirements development. Aggressively assert the needs of Oregon during the consultation phase. Establish a strong and communicative relationship with local FirstNet board members and regional representatives.

15. The public safety community may add such highly specialized equipment requirements and unique conditions to the FirstNet Network that it could become too costly to deploy and prohibitive to upgrade. Restated, there may be the danger of the public safety community creating an “LMR 2.0” exhibiting all the drawbacks of existing proprietary LMR systems and none of the advantages of scale offered by using the same technology as commercial networks.

Maintain active participation with NPSTC to voice this concern and guide requirements development. Inject a “younger” voice and experience into conversations regarding these topics. The current generation has grown up using mobile devices, is comfortable with the technology, and can offer new use cases for public safety based on personal experience. Consider succession planning for key public safety leader positions that incorporate this younger voice.

Since development is in the beginning planning stages, many other risks will be identified as plans become more detailed and additional information is released regarding FirstNet. These risks will be added to the table in future releases, reflecting the spirit of the plan as a “living” document.

As more becomes known regarding the risks themselves, risk management processes will be used to estimate the probability and quantitative or qualitative impact of individual risks, pre- and post-mitigation, creating a “risk register.” Using this information, risks will be prioritized and ranked, and decisions will be made regarding which mitigations will be executed and when it is more cost effective to leave risks below a specified threshold un-mitigated.

Impacts and mitigation activities documented within the register will be used as input to program planning and scheduling. During execution, the information can also be used to designate trigger



points for actions or program reviews. These are points at which the cost or scope changes to the extent where commitment to the program needs to be revisited. Formal documentation of the change and approval may be required before continuing. Once FirstNet publishes its deployment schedule for Oregon, it can be reviewed in this context and check-in milestones identified and assigned.

Throughout program deployment, the risk register will be periodically revisited and updated, closing risks that are no longer relevant, updating impacts, and entering new risks and mitigations as they are identified.

16. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS This section lists near and long term recommendations to ensure successful FirstNet implementation in Oregon by leveraging state level planning performed in prior years and past experiences with statewide technology deployments such as the SRP. For the purposes of this section, near term is assumed to be within the next 6-12 months and includes recommendations that are expected to be more tactical and schedule-driven. Long term is considered to be 12 months and beyond, with the corresponding recommendations more strategic in nature.

It is followed by a calendar of next steps for Oregon in response to FirstNet developments and closes with a timeline that includes estimates for FirstNet deployment releases.

16.1. RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 16-1 and Figure 16-2 display near and long term recommendations, respectively, and are designed as starting worksheets for future prioritization, assignment, action, and tracking. The rationale for each recommendation is included for context and to aid in prioritization. Shaded rows indicate closed actions.

These recommendations were developed from the information in prior sections of this planning document, including network architecture and performance, program risks and mitigations, and the anticipated timeline of FirstNet events and responsibilities. Most importantly, they support the potential uses for this network in improving public safety capability and response. Significant themes include:

Near Term

• Engage at the federal level to ensure Oregon’s interests and concerns are considered and addressed, especially during the critical early stages of developing deployment strategies and technical requirements for the network.

• Actively plan for and participate in the FirstNet Consultation and state plan processes, assuring Oregon’s coverage and design requirements are incorporated in FirstNet designs for the state.

• Prepare for and perform the activities required of Oregon by NTIA’s State and Local Implementation Grant Program.



• Prepare Oregon to respond with one voice to FirstNet consultation requests, building support and consensus among stakeholders.

Long Term

• Empower the SIEC and Oregon SPOC to facilitate deployment efforts. FirstNet responsibilities were formally added effective July 2014 with the passing of HB4031.163

• Propose solutions to FirstNet that address Oregon’s service requirements and rural coverage needs.

163 https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2014R1/Measures/Text/HB4031/Enrolled

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2014R1/Measures/Text/HB4031/Enrolled



Table 16-1 FirstNet in Oregon Recommendations – Near Term (6-12 mo.)

No. Near Term Recommendation Rationale Responsible Organization

Status Date Status

1. Propose a position of opt-in for Oregon, provided close collaboration and interactions are maintained between the FirstNet organization and Oregon stakeholders.

Taking a proactive stance based on an engagement model given available information.

9/16/15 July 2015: Submitted Oregon comments to FirstNet’s draft RFP May 2014: Initial consultation response to FirstNet provided by SPOC/SWIC July 2012: The recommendation of an Opt-In position has been presented to the Governor’s office.

2. Remain active at the federal level and participate in planning activities for FirstNet with agencies such as the FCC, DHS, and NTIA.

As a rural state with relatively low population density, Oregon may not receive the attention that other states may when vying for the limited funds for initial consultation and subsequent deployment.

9/16/15 June 2015: Represented Oregon at PSCR conference March 2015: Represented Oregon at SPOC workshop June 2014: Represented Oregon at PSCR conference and FirstNet Board meeting April 2014: Presented at Rural Telecommunications Association conference March 2014: Presentation at IWCE, participation in NTIA SLIGP workshop June 2013: Sent representative to PSCR and FirstNet Board of Directors meeting. May 2013: Provided strong representation at FirstNet regional meeting.




Status Date Status

3. Recommend to FirstNet that deployment funding be allocated using consideration of coverage area and terrain requirements to service a state rather than solely based on census population data. Volunteer Oregon as the best candidate for a FirstNet “rural state” pilot or other visible, near term activity.


10/7/13 July 2013: SLIGP monies allocated based on both geographic area and population. Provided feedback in RFI response to NTIA that Oregon does not support population as a main criterion for granting funds.

4. Oregon should request a waiver of the 20% match requirement for FirstNet implementation planning grant funding.

Oregon’s challenged economy and prior in-kind participation in waiver activity. Expecting grant to be released in 1Q2013, therefore a near term decision.

10/7/13 Closed. Oregon provided 20% match via in-kind services in SLIGP response. June 2012: Provided feedback supporting waiver of 20% match in RFI response to NTIA.

5. Actively identify and support nominations for the FirstNet board that are favorable and knowledgeable to the Northwest and Oregon. Establish a strong and communicative relationship with local FirstNet board members and regional representatives.


8/20/12 Closed. Chief Jeff Johnson named to the FirstNet board.




Status Date Status

6. Although the “first mover” advantage of an early deployment may assure finances and momentum for Oregon, a later adopter position enables the state to benefit from the learning curve of others. To maximize the benefit of learning and sufficient funding during execution position Oregon as a “fast follower” and “rural pilot.”

The later that Oregon is scheduled in the multi-year FirstNet deployment schedule, the less likely it is to receive sufficient funding for its deployment.

5/14/14 December 2013: Submitted pilot white paper for Bend, OR, to FirstNet October 2013: Offering Bend Broadband, Warm Springs Tribe as potential rural pilots. September 2013: Board member Chief Jeff Johnson says to OSSA/OACP joint meeting attendees that Oregon is a nation leader regarding FirstNet of the non-early builders.

7. Leverage the existing Oregon Broadband Advisory Council (OBAC) and SIEC structures for engaging and obtaining consensus of state and local stakeholders when performing planning activities and responding to FirstNet requests.

When the time for commitment arrives, Oregon may be unable to act promptly enough to commit resources and speak with a single voice to the NTIA FirstNet via a single POC as required by FirstNet legislation.

9/16/15 September 2015: Providing support and longstanding representation at OBAC and SIEC and extending presence via other stakeholder groups, such as OEMA-WSEMA, CJIS Users, and ATNI tribal gatherings. July 2014: Implemented legislation HB 4031 moving SIEC and SWIC from ODOT to DAS to tighten organizational reporting lines and increase communication.

8. Develop sources, such as consultants and partners, for LTE broadband Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to assist in the consultative phase.

NTIA’s implementation grant requirements for states include leveraging and incorporating broadband technology experts in consultations with FirstNet.

5/14/14 April 2014: Added senior LTE design engineer to consultant team. March 2013: Reflected use of SME consultants in approach submitted to NTIA for SLIGP.




Status Date Status

9. Begin identifying approaches for collecting input and feedback from local and tribal stakeholders.

NTIA implementation grant requirements will include a plan for collecting data and representing the needs of local and tribal jurisdictions.

9/16/15 January 2014: Developed initial How to Prepare your Organization for FirstNet document DHS is building a Data Collection Tool for FirstNet.

10. Outline strategies for education and outreach to stakeholders, including local and tribal constituents.

NTIA implementation grant requirements include a process for education and outreach to local, tribal, public safety, and other users.

9/16/15 September 2015: Continued tribal outreach presence through participation in ATNI conferences. May 2015: Developed and executed a series of outreach and data collection workshops and webinars for local stakeholders, including in-person meetings in eastern, Portland-Salem, and coastal Oregon. May 2014: Conducting trip circuits, public safety conference and tribal cluster presentations, drop-in visits, and webinars. Developed informational website and infographic. March 2013: Outlined high level approach in SLIGP response to NTIA.

11. Begin to identify major sources of existing infrastructure in preparation for developing and negotiating standard MOUs with owners.

NTIA implementation grant requirements include that standard MOUs be executed to facilitate use of existing assets.

9/16/15 Closed. FirstNet has shifted focus to leveraging commercial infrastructure assets. May 2014: Received approval for DHS OEC CASM data import. November 2013: Developed a “starter” asset sources listing in preparation for future data collection activities.




Status Date Status

12. Actively participate in system requirements development and design efforts at the national level, bringing Oregon’s needs to the table early.

The nationwide design template offered by FirstNet may not reflect the needs of Oregon.

9/16/15 July 2015: Provided technical, financial, and strategic comments to FirstNet in response to draft RFP. November 2013: Participated in PSCR R&D workshop June 2013: Sent representative to NPSTC BBWG SoR meeting in Boulder, CO.

13. Maintain active participation with NPSTC and other federal entities engaged in NPSBN design to voice the concern that the federal top-down, one-size-fits-all approach of FirstNet may limit rural states’ choice of service mix, features, cost tiers, or other aspects.

Local users may have little control or influence in the process. The rates established may not be equitable across states, creating a situation similar to being a gas tax “donor” state.

5/14/14 Leveraging INL Wireless National User Facility director participation in NPSTC working groups to channel input and receive feedback.

14. Appropriately comment on the draft Statement of Requirements (SoR) under development.

The public safety community may add such highly specialized equipment requirements and unique conditions to PSBN that it could become too costly to deploy and prohibitive to upgrade.

9/16/15 July 2015: Provided technical comments to FirstNet in response to draft RFP. August 2014: NPSTC now working on Phase 1 Launch Quantitative Statement of Requirements (SoR), adding metrics to include specific quantitative elements. Phase 2 Year 1-3 Qualitative SOR: the BBWG will extract from the main SoR what the public safety community needs in Year 1 through Year 3. This is the next phase beyond the work that created the Launch SoR.




Status Date Status

15. Inject “younger” voices, viewpoints, and experience into technical discussions. The current generation has grown up using mobile devices, is comfortable with the technology, and can offer new use cases for public safety from a perspective not overly influenced by LMR.

The public safety community is dominated by a generation so accustomed to LMR and its unique equipment that adaptation of existing commercial technology and more cost effective solutions may be overlooked or discarded, yielding a system that could become too costly to deploy and prohibitive to upgrade.

5/14/14 Identified potential process of “growing” younger SMEs, including conducting outreach presentations at DSSPT to fire and police classes to draw interest, identifying potential candidates, providing training, and finally providing opportunities for participating.

16. Work on a regional basis to create a larger, more visible constituent base, such as with Washington, Idaho, and California and via organizations such as WestNet and the Western Governors Association (WGA).


9/16/15 September 2015: Participate in FirstNet region X activities, held joint data collection meetings with Idaho and Washington, support joint ATNI and OEMA-WSEM interactions. July 2015: Participated in California’s Consultation with FirstNet. June 2014: Presented at Cal FRN board meeting April 2014: Joint outreach border meetings with Idaho and California March 2014: Participated in Region X break-out session September 2013: conducted joint outreach meeting in Gorge with WA FirstNet POC. July 2012: The Washington SIEC group has invited Oregon to jointly participate in strategic planning.




Status Date Status

17. Maintain the collaboration and grassroots support at the local public safety stakeholder level as was established by the waiver participants, using it to educate and influence new lawmakers regarding the continued importance of NPSBN.

Elections at the federal or state levels may introduce government officials unfavorable to FirstNet implementation, halting progress.

9/16/15 August 2015: Oregon CIO met with FirstNet leadership and public policy representatives. July 2012: The DHS OEC is developing a new charter that is relevant to the new FirstNet environment.

18. Oregon should press FirstNet for answers to what stakeholders can do now to prepare, even as FirstNet progresses in its planning. Similarly, FirstNet can create a communications process for fielding technical questions and advice from FirstNet’s engineering team to state and local planners.

Esp. given impending FirstNet delays and extensions, local planners need the latest information so they can make near term decisions. For example, a recurring question is, “I need to upgrade my radio/data device/etc. equipment now and vendors want to charge me more for a ‘FirstNet Ready’ model. Should I buy it?”

9/16/15 March 2015: The FirstNet data collection request provides local stakeholders an opportunity to engage by identifying coverage needs, service features, and cost benchmarks. August 2014: New recommendation added.



Table 16-2 FirstNet in Oregon Recommendations – Long Term (12 mo.+)

No. Long Term Recommendation Rationale Responsible Organization

Status Date Status

1. In negotiating with FirstNet during the consultation phase, equally emphasize rural, tribal needs and alternatives when considering options for coverage. For example, consider leveraging current service offered by a local commercial LTE service provider, rather than an expensive new build by a national carrier. This has been referred to as an “Opt-In plus” scenario.

FirstNet deployment may be uneven, favoring metro vs. sparsely populated localities, creating a “haves vs. have nots” split between the more rural eastern Oregon and the Portland Metro area of the state. FirstNet and NTIA SLIGP echo the importance of rural and tribal coverage. Rural areas may not have the money or the needs that metro public safety has, creating an opportunity for service tiers.

9/16/15 March 2015: FirstNet has moved to a position of leveraging existing commercial service provider infrastructure rather than “building new.” October 2014: Oregon heldl consultation with FirstNet on 10/8, emphasizing rural coverage.

2. Actively identify and engage the participation of secondary users such as “second responders” and “public services” including utilities, increasing the user population base to reduce subscription cost per user to a sustainable level.

The deployment proposal offered by FirstNet may be perceived by stakeholders as an unfavorable or unsustainable business model for ongoing operations when compared to commercial non-“public safety grade” mission support options currently in use.

9/16/15 March 2015: FirstNet’s new interpretation of PSE includes an entity from a non-traditional public safety agency, like a utility, as well as part time service. October 2013: Currently proposing a broad view of public safety community to FirstNet. For example, citing that a school becomes an evacuation center in times of emergency as well as a school bus becomes a means of evacuation transportation.




Status Date Status

3. During the consultation phase, take the position that Oregon FirstNet Office does not wish to act as the billing aggregator and that FirstNet service should be billed directly to the end user organization, including by state agency.

The federal government may propose a FirstNet billing scenario that makes the State of Oregon responsible for subscription tracking and collecting service fees without compensation. This would force the state to “tax” its users to support the staff needed to perform these tasks; increasing operations costs and damaging the state’s relations with local jurisdictions.

10/7/13 Closed. May 2013: FirstNet Board states at regional meeting that local end users will receive bills directly from FirstNet or its partnering service provider.

4. Establish a Public Safety Broadband office within ODOT to act as POC for Oregon, for example within Major Projects Branch. The office will act as a focal point for statewide multi-agency collaboration.

When the time for commitment arrives, Oregon may be unable to act promptly enough to commit resources and speak with a single voice to the NTIA FirstNet via a single POC as required by FirstNet legislation.

7/24/12 Closed. Feb 2012: Established interim office within ODOT Major Projects Branch with COPS grant funding for planning. June 2010: ODOT Major Projects Branch acting informally as Public Safety Broadband Office in BTOP grant response.

5. Work closely with FirstNet to develop financially viable commercial roaming agreements with carriers offering Service Level Agreements (SLAs) suitable for public safety mission support activities.

Minimal deployment funding may be received for Oregon from FirstNet, resulting in insufficient coverage after initial deployment.

9/16/15 March 2015: FirstNet’s contractor may be responsible for establishing roaming agreements. Aug 2014: In addition, may wish to broaden effort to include exploring other forms of financially attractive arrangements to reduce costs.

Nov 2013: Plan to emphasize FirstNet’s 3-in-1 network approach and coverage objective planning activities to leverage negotiate favorable terms.




Status Date Status

6. Propose FirstNet offer service tiers that accommodate rural needs at a lower, more affordable cost. Encourage FirstNet to utilize lessons learned from rural electrification program, rural telephone service, or similar programs.

The federal top-down, one-size-fits-all approach of FirstNet may limit rural states’ choice of service mix and features as well as cost competitive service tiers. Local users may have little control or influence in the process.

8/13/14 Oregon had initial consultation with FirstNet on 10/8, an opportunity to emphasize tiered services.

7. Under FirstNet offer arrangements that incorporate existing 3G data service in rural areas unsupported by 4G LTE service providers.

FirstNet deployment may be uneven, with deployment timing favoring metro vs. sparsely populated localities. Incorporating available 3G data services into the FirstNet service package would bring rural users into the system sooner, increasing the user population.

11/1/13 Nov 2013: Emphasize FirstNet’s 3-in-1 network approach and include 3G data service in coverage objective planning activities.

8. Advocate a deployment strategy that is synergistic with commercial service providers’ implementation strategies (e.g., “bolt-on”) to minimize time-to-market for FirstNet service and to get FirstNet applications in the hands of more users sooner. Seize and leverage the value of “quick wins”, for example, by removing roadblocks to LA-RICS’ early builder activities. Also consider “regional bolt-ons” e.g., leveraging Oregon’s local networks for backhaul such as those owned by Bonneville Power, Pacific Railway, Defense Research and Engineering Network (DREN), etc.

The long, multi-year schedule for FirstNet deployment may create the risk that its technology could be obsolete by the time it is implemented in Oregon. Further, the extended duration increases the likelihood that local public safety users will have already established long term contracts with carriers for commercial service. This may make moving to a higher cost FirstNet service, which offers relatively few differentiators to their current service, unattractive or unfeasible.

8/13/14

Aug 2014: Communicated the value of LA-RICS “quick win” to California SPOC.




Status Date Status

9. Encourage FirstNet to be thinking and planning about not only 4G LTE, but 5G and beyond. For example, FirstNet can help to future-proof their network by working with suppliers now to plan the transition to 5G to be as simple as changing a card in the eNodeB rather than a forklift upgrade. Also, can future-proof contract language when negotiating with commercial providers being inclusive, e.g., cover current “and future technologies” and to require FirstNet equipment be on the same software releases as commercial equipment.

There is concern that, at the rate FirstNet is progressing and present delays, public safety deployment won’t even be to 4G while commercial users will have already moved on to 5G service.

9/16/15 June 2015: PSCR is beginning to monitor global 5G developments. August 2014: New recommendation added.

10. Engage a lobbyist to act on behalf of the state’s interests or add FirstNet to the responsibilities of current ODOT lobbyist.

The federal top-down, one-size-fits-all approach of FirstNet may limit rural states’ choice of service mix and features as well as cost tiers. Local users may have little control or influence in the process. The rates established may not be equitable across states, creating a situation similar to being a gas tax “donor” state.

5/14/14 Closed. Will not require lobbyist.



16.2. OREGON TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS

For the past three years, the FirstNet organization has been publically releasing planning information in at most 6–12 month planning horizons, making it difficult for states to determine their long term planning response. However, 2015 has been different. In its public meetings, FirstNet has outlined its major activity themes for the next two years, 2016 – 2017, and has released a high level deployment schedule in its draft RFP, consisting of Initial Operating Capabilities (IOC) 1–4 and Final Operating Capability (FOC) 5, enabling Oregon to better forecast, budget, and plan its response.

Near term, major activities for the next two years are depicted as blue arrows in Figure 16-1.

Figure 16-1 FirstNet Near Term Activity Timeline and Oregon’s Responsibilities

As indicated in its 2016 plan164, FirstNet’s focus for 2016 will be on

• Acquisition – releasing to industry and evaluating responses to the NPSBN RFP • Consultation – continued outreach to states, territories, local, tribal, and federal governments,

including state plan development

164 FirstNet (2015, August 17). FirstNet Board Approves $126 Million for FY16 For Acquisition, Consultation, Spectrum Relocation. Retrieved from: http://www.firstnet.gov/news/firstnet-board-approves-126-million-fy16-acquisition-consultation-spectrum-relocation





• Spectrum Reallocation – initiating a grant program to pay for the spectral relocation of 700 MHz narrowband systems currently operating in the public safety Band 14

These activities lay the groundwork for deployment, estimated to begin in 2017. As indicated in Figure 16-1, once RFP response information is available, state plans can be completed and presented to governors, tentatively beginning in late 2016 and continuing into 2017. After the RFP has been awarded, contractor planning, engineering, and deployment can begin with the network core and then IOC-1 service, expected in the 2018 timeframe.

As indicated in the lower half of Figure 16-1, this results in a steady stream of data collection, outreach, planning, and decision making activities for Oregon over the next 2–3 years, which include:

Oregon SWIC/SPOC Responsibilities165

• Supporting Oregon public safety interoperability stakeholders • In Oregon FirstNet SPOC role, interacting with local, regional, legislative, Governor’s

Office stakeholders • Collaborating with border states of California, Washington, Nevada, and Idaho • Participating in WestNet. WestNet is a collaborative consortium of western states.

Consultation and Engagement

• Technical review, analysis, and comment for Notice of Request for Interpretations • Technical review, analysis and comment of Draft and Final RFP • Representing Oregon nationally at SPOC, PSCR, PSAC, and NTIA meetings

SLIGP Phase 1 – Outreach and Education, performing

• Recurring representation: SIEC, OBAC, Connections • Recurring outreach: CJIS, ATNI, APCO, NENA • Planned activities: education and outreach trip circuits, webinars • Electronic media publishing: website, infographic, flyers and brochures, email listserv

distributions

State Plan Review and Evaluation

• Review, analysis, and comment for draft and final state plan

Specific activities resulting from Oregon’s responsibilities above are identified in an activities calendar in Table 16-3. This calendar will be updated periodically as activities are completed and new information is generated by FirstNet.

165 The Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) and FirstNet Single Point of Contact (SPOC) are combined responsibilities in Oregon.



Table 16-3 FirstNet in Oregon 2015 – 2018 Activity Calendar

Timeframe FirstNet Activity Oregon Response Status

September 2015 FirstNet Data Collection first submission Oregon team developed response plan in May for this 9/30 submission. Execution is under way.

10/1/15 Data submitted to FirstNet. 9/12/15 Nine data collection workshops with local stakeholders complete. 101 surveys submitted to-date, as well as 56 coverage areas and 23 Calls for Service files. Final outreach webinar held 9/14.

October 2015 Fall FirstNet SPOC meeting SPOC and SAIC team member to participate in SPOC meeting 10/7-10/8 in Westminster, CO.

10/7/15 Attended SPOC meeting, representing Oregon. 9/12/15 Attendees registered.

October 2015 PCSR Location Based Services (LBS) Summit

SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation given SAIC will be there in support of Idaho.

No action.

October 2015 CJIS Users Workshop Oregon team to provide outreach speaker for the 10/18-10/21 event in Seaside.

10/18 Bob Wideman attended, presenting at two sessions.

October 2015 Oregon Connections conference Oregon team to provide outreach representation for the 10/21-10/22 event in Hood River.

10/22 David Soloos, Rick Williams, Adam Lake attended.

November 2015 NCSWIC Joint In-Person Meeting SPOC to attend. 11/3 David Soloos attended.

November 2015 OFDDA Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

November 2015 Oregon AOC Annual Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

November 2015 APCO Emerging Technology Forum SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

December 2015 Oregon APCO/NENA Meeting SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.




December 2015 OSSA Winter Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

December 2015 FirstNet Board Meeting SAIC rep to attend remotely and report to team.

December 2015 FirstNet releases final NPSBN RFP Oregon team to review final RFP and submit questions or comments to FirstNet if allowed as part of procurement process.

Est. December 2015 – January

2016 FirstNet Consultation with SPOC Oregon team to prepare for consultation KO

meeting with FirstNet for 2016 consultations

1Q2016 FirstNet Consultation with Governance Body

Oregon team to coordinate with SIEC to prepare for consultation meeting with FirstNet

Est. February 2016

FirstNet Consultation Task Team (CTT) Webinar

Oregon team to prepare SMEs (public safety grade, priority and preemption) and respond to tasking packets.

2H2016 FirstNet CTT Regional Meetings Oregon team to coordinate participation and review of CTT results.




1H2016 Second Oregon Consultation with FirstNet

SPOC to negotiate consultation date, Oregon team to prepare for, coordinate, and host Consultation meeting. Preparation will include reviewing preliminary state plan information provided by FirstNet and data collection information provided by Oregon 9/30/15.

2H2016 FirstNet Consultation with Executives Oregon team to coordinate with Governor’s staff, CIO, Attorney General, Chief of Staff and other executive leaders for the meeting.

January 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. February 2016 SIEC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in

Oregon.

February 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

February 2016 9-1-1 Goes to Washington SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

March 2016 IWCE 2016 SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

March 2016 FirstNet support of 2016 APCO Western Regional Conference

SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this regional event, occurring 3/8-3/12.

April 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

April 2016 Oregon Association Chiefs of Police Annual Conference

SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

Est. March 2016 FirstNet SPOC meeting SPOC and team to represent Oregon, participating in SPOC meeting activities.




May 2016 IACP Law Enforcement Information Management Conference & Expo

SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

May 2016 NASCIO Mid-Year Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

May 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. May 2016 SIEC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

2H2016 FirstNet evaluates NPSBN RFP responses from bidders.

SPOC to determine whether to participate in the evaluation process.

June 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

June 2016 NENA Conference & Expo SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

June 2016 Cascadia Rising SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

Est. June 2016 2016 PSCR workshop SPOC and team to represent Oregon, participating in workshop activities.

Est. June-August 2016

Oregon Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS); preliminary draft and formal public comment period

Oregon team to review and comment on document; estimated to be 500-1000 pages.

July 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. July 2016 AOC RADIO Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.




Est. August 2016 SIEC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

August 2016 APCO National Annual Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

September 2016 NASCIO National Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

September 2016 League of Cities Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

September 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

October 2016 IACP Annual Conference SPOC to determine level of Oregon team participation in this event.

October 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. October 2016 2016 PSCR Summit SPOC and team to represent Oregon,

participating in summit activities.

Est. November 2016 SIEC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in

Oregon.

November 2016 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

January 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. February 2017 SIEC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in

Oregon.




February 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

4Q2016/1Q2017 FirstNet delivers final state plan to Oregon

SPOC to facilitate the analysis, recommendation, and approval activities necessary to bring the final state plan to the governor for opt in/opt out decision.

Est. March 2017 FirstNet SPOC meeting SPOC and team to represent Oregon, participating in SPOC meeting activities.

April 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

May 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. May 2017 SIEC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

June 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. June 2017 2017 PSCR workshop SPOC and team to represent Oregon, participating in workshop activities.

July 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. August 2017 SIEC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

September 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.




September 2017 League of Cities Conference

Est. October 2017 2017 PSCR Summit SPOC and team to represent Oregon,

participating in summit activities.

October 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

Est. November 2017 SIEC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in

Oregon.

November 2017 OBAC Meeting SPOC and/or team to represent FirstNet in Oregon.

January 2018 NTIA SLIGP Grant funding ends.

Grant funded outreach, planning, and data collection activities must end and alternate means of funding must be identified for SPOC role and FirstNet in Oregon Office.

9/12 In July draft RFP comments, provided recommendation that state SPOC responsibilities be funded with service revenues in the same manner as is planned for the federal FirstNet organization.



16.3. FIRSTNET DEPLOYMENT TIMELINE

As mentioned in prior sections, FirstNet is planning to deploy service in 5 phases, IOC-1-4 and FOC-5. IOC-1 service launch is scheduled for 6 months after contract award and IOC-2 after 12 months. Subsequent IOC deployments are spaced at 12 months, and end with the Final Operating Capability being delivered in 2022, which by the Act is when the network must be substantially in operation. Figure 16-2 illustrates these timing intervals, assuming a 2018 deployment start. Significant service features and capabilities for each release are indicated in the figure.



Figure 16-2 Public Safety Broadband Communications National and Oregon Timeline 2016 through 2022



17. CONCLUSION Broadband data applications enable exciting new possibilities for improving the operations and effectiveness of public safety activities in life changing – and lifesaving – ways. However, the road to convergence is a long one and will take many years. It will be extremely important to manage expectations as well as plan during these early implementation phases.

• Manage Expectations

The FirstNet Network is an entirely new approach to public safety communications. Further, public safety users have widely differing expectations of what LTE can deliver. Users with a long history of narrow band LMR voice communications, with its extended range and high reliability, may either expect the same of this new data network or dismiss it as not worthy of serious consideration for public safety use. Others may embrace LTE technology, seeing it as a complete replacement for mission critical voice, for which LMR has been public safety’s “gold standard.” Some public safety administrators are already having difficulty receiving funding approval for LMR upgrades because local government officials believe that LTE is completely replacing LMR near term.

To avoid unrealistic expectations and disappointment, it is important to manage the expectations of the public safety community by socializing these key messages:

• LTE is not a replacement for LMR technology today.

• LMR will continue to provide mission critical voice communications for a long time.

• LTE introduces new capabilities to assist the first responder. It is a supplementary technology that offers the first responder new data and video services, providing additional and timely information.

• LTE is a data transport mechanism. Its true power and value will be realized only after useful and interoperable applications are in the hands of users.

• To makes applications interoperable, users will need to coordinate with one another to interconnect their private networks using middleware or by implementing developing standards.

• Plan for the Future

With appropriate expectations set, the OEC offers these keys to planning an effective network convergence:166

• Maintain adequate funding for LMR and the FirstNet data network deployment.

• Develop appropriate partnerships at all levels.

166 Excerpts from OEC (2012, June 22). Realizing the Future of Public Safety Communications – DRAFT.



• Design effective policy and governance structures.

• Build the consensus required to make FirstNet effective on a larger scale.

To that end, this document is intended to be a hands-on, “living” planning tool to provide direction and record progress towards successful FirstNet implementation and operation in Oregon.



18. REFERENCES 3rd Generation Partnership Project: www.3gpp.org

3GPP (2013, July). Delivering Public Safety Communications with LTE.

Alcatel-Lucent (2012, March 2). Response to RFI-EI 00060 Oregon Public Safety Long Term Evolution Broadband Spectrum Network Proof-of-Concept Pilot (LTE PSBN Pilot).

Alcatel-Lucent (2010). Ultimate Wireless Broadband Solution for Public Safety.

Alcatel-Lucent (2010). A How-To Guide for LTE in Public Safety.

AT&T (2011, October 30). LTE 101. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/bjCvY4utV-o

Blanchard, N. (2015, July 23). FirstNet developing base stations for police cars, but deployment still several years away. http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/firstnet-developing-base-stations-police-cars-deployment-still-several-year/2015-07-23

Barnett Jr., J.A. (2012, September 24). What Should FirstNet Do First? State Integration into the National Public Safety Broadband Network.

Bratcher, J. (2015, October 21). CTO Blog: Vehicular Network System (VNS). http://firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/cto-blog-vehicular-network-system-vns

Bratcher, J. (2015, March). FirstNet LTE Overview

Brouwer, W. (2014, June 5). Presentation at PSCR Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Conference, Westminster, CO.

Cascadia Rising 2016 Exercise. http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/2015annualmeeting/CascadiaRising.pdf

Department of Commerce (2012, August 20). FirstNet Board Members Appointed by Acting U.S. Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank: Member Statements. http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2012/08/20/firstnet-board-members-appointed-acting-us-commerce-secretary-rebecca

Department of Commerce (2012, August 20). Acting U.S. Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank Announces Board of Directors for the First Responder Network Authority http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2012/08/20/acting-us-commerce-secretary-rebecca-blank-announces-board-directors-


http://youtu.be/bjCvY4utV-o

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/firstnet-developing-base-stations-police-cars-deployment-still-several-year/2015-07-23


http://firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/cto-blog-vehicular-network-system-vns

http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/2015annualmeeting/CascadiaRising.pdf









Department of Homeland Security Command, Control and Interoperability Division Basic/Futures Research http://precisioninformation.org.

Devasirvatham, D., Neel, J., Tompsett, C., Link, K. (2013). 3 Layers of Communications

Recovery. Mission Critical Communications.

DHHS, Public Health Emergency, Emergency Support Functions. http://www.phe.gov/preparedness/support/esf8/pages/default.aspx

DHS (2012). Public Safety Broadband: Fulfilling a 9/11 Commission Recommendation.

DHS Command, Control and Interoperability Division Basic/Futures Research program video to illustrate broadband’s potential within emergency management. www.precisioninformation.org

Engebretson, J. (2015, January 29). AWS-3 Auction Finally Ends, Raising $45 Billion. Telecompetitor. http://www.telecompetitor.com/aws-3-auction-finally-ends-raising-45-billion/

Farrill, F. C. (2013, May 29). FirstNet and NGA State and Territory Consultation Meeting, San Francisco

FCC (2015, September 28). What You Need to Know About Text-to-911. https://www.fcc.gov/text-to-911

FirstNet Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC). http://www.firstnet.gov/about/public-safety-advisory-committee

FirstNet (2015, October 8). Regional Discussion Groups Participant Workbook. Fall 2015 SPOC Meeting

FirstNet (2015, October 5). Appendix C-10, NPSBN FirstNet Cyber Security. Special Notice D15PS00295 – Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN).

FirstNet (2015, June 29). FirstNet Evaluating Key Indoor Location Technologies to Help Solve 'Z-Axis’ Challenges for Public Safety. http://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/firstnet-evaluating-key-indoor-location-technologies-z-axis

FCC (2015, January 29). FCC Adopts Rules to Help Emergency Responders Better Locate Wireless 911 Callers.https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-rules-help-responders-better-locate-wireless-911-callers


http://www.phe.gov/preparedness/support/esf8/pages/default.aspx

http://www.precisioninformation.org/



https://www.fcc.gov/text-to-911









FCC (2012, July 30). Order FCC-12-85A1.

FCC (2012, March 16). Order DA 12-423.

FCC (2010, December 10). PS Docket No. 06-229, DA 10-2342.

Fire Chief (2013, April 11). Tualatin Valley (Ore.) training center hosts FirstNet engineers.

FirstNet (2015, October 20). Final Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 – Notice 1. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/20/2015-26621/first-responder-network-authority-final-interpretations-of-parts-of-the-middle-class-tax-relief-and

FirstNet (2015, October 20). Final Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 – Notice 2. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/20/2015-26622/final-interpretations-of-parts-of-the-middle-class-tax-relief-and-job-creation-act-of-2012

FirstNet (2015, October 2). Technology and Outreach Public Slides. FirstNet Board Committee Meeting

FirstNet (2015, September). Guiding Principles. http://www.firstnet.gov/content/firstnet-will-enhance-public-safety-communications-delivering-mission-critical-data-and

FirstNet (2015, September 3). Operational Architecture Functional Descriptions.

FirstNet (2015, August 31). The Win-Win-Win Business Model http://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/win-win-win-business-model

FirstNet (2015, August 17). FirstNet Board Approves $126 Million for FY16 For Acquisition, Consultation, Spectrum Relocation http://www.firstnet.gov/news/firstnet-board-approves-126smillion-fy16-acquisition-consultation-spectrum-relocation

FirstNet (2015, June 23). Utah State Consultation.

FirstNet (2015, May 5). Further Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-third-notice-final-prepublication-version.pdf

FirstNet (2015, April 27) Special Notice and Draft RFP for Comprehensive Network Solution(s) https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa93b913eb397ddb5aafc2506be60a50&tab=core&_cview=1







http://www.firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/win-win-win-business-model

http://www.firstnet.gov/news/firstnet-board-approves-126smillion-fy16-acquisition-consultation-spectrum-relocation

http://www.firstnet.gov/news/firstnet-board-approves-126smillion-fy16-acquisition-consultation-spectrum-relocation







FirstNet (2015, April 15). SPOC Meeting Day 1 Slides

FirstNet (2015, March 24) Further Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/FirstNet_Second_Public_Notice_0.pdf

FirstNet (2015, March 23). FirstNet Data Collection

FirstNet (2014, September 17) Request for Information for Comprehensive Network Solution(s). http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/Request%20for%20Information%20for%20Comprehensive%20Network%20Solutions.pdf

FirstNet (2014, September 24) Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/09-24-2014-FirstNet%20Federal%20Register%20Notice.pdf

FirstNet (2014, September 17). Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-public-notice-middle-class-tax-relief-job-creation-act-of-2012.pdf

FirstNet (2014, July). How will the FirstNet Network Work with Today’s Land Mobile Radio Networks? http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-lmr-factsheet.pdf

FirstNet (2014, July). FirstNet and LTE Overview

FirstNet (2014 March 11). FirstNet Board Meeting General Manager Update Presentation

FirstNet LMR Fact Sheet (2014): http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/firstnet-lmr-factsheet.pdf

FirstNet (2014). Guiding Principles. http://www.firstnet.gov/about/guiding-principles

FirstNet (2013, August 13). 2014 Business Plan Summary, Bill D’Agostino.

FirstNet (2013, July 10). Deployables RFI https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=60cfdeb95699be5a43d48132431cb7fb&tab=core&_cview=0

FirstNet (2013, July 10). Microwave Backhaul Equipment RFI https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7ed9d4feefe9fd0c6d47f3b6d4ef80c8&tab=core&_cview=0

http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/FirstNet_Second_Public_Notice_0.pdf










http://www.firstnet.gov/about/guiding-principles

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=60cfdeb95699be5a43d48132431cb7fb&tab=core&_cview=0


https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7ed9d4feefe9fd0c6d47f3b6d4ef80c8&tab=core&_cview=0




FirstNet (2013, July 10). EPC RFI https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=87b3e1e1758e8c5c9e9485b0c68f4300&tab=core&_cview=0

FirstNet http://www.firstnet.gov

FirstNet By the Numbers Infographic https://casmnextgen.com/pslib/index.php/webview?docid=105

FirstNet in Oregon http://www.firstnetinoregon.org

Gabriel, C. (2015, September 24). Verizon introduces mission critical QoS on LTE

Ginn, S. (2013, June 24). Keynote address, 2013 Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) Program Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Meeting.

GPO (2004, July 22). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf

Harris Corporation (2012, March 2). Response to the State of Oregon’s Request for Information and Expression of Interest (RFI-EI) for Public Safety Long Term Evolution Broadband Spectrum Network Proof-of-Concept Pilot (LTE PSBN Pilot).

Hatch, L. (2012, June 5). [E-mail]. Frequently Asked Questions. (Texas)

History of GSM (2014). 5G. Retrieved from: http://www.gsmhistory.com/5g/ (Accessed on 4 September 2014)

Hume, K. (2013, October 25). Richmond police try out body cameras on patrol. Oakland Tribune http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland-tribune/ci_24389069/richmond-police-try-out-body-cameras-patrol

ITU (2014). ITU towards “IMT for 2020 and beyond.”

Jackson, D., Nolin, J. (2014, August 15). FirstNet board approves spectrum-lease agreement with state of Texas. Urgent Communications. http://urgentcomm.com/public-safety-broadbandfirstnet/firstnet-board-approves-spectrum-lease-agreement-state-texas?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850&caption=Urgent+Communications+-

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=87b3e1e1758e8c5c9e9485b0c68f4300&tab=core&_cview=0


http://www.firstnet.gov/

https://casmnextgen.com/pslib/index.php/webview?docid=105




http://www.gsmhistory.com/5g/









+Urgent+Communications+is+the+technology+source+for+the+communications+technology+industry

Jackson, D. (2014, January 16). If FirstNet does its job, ‘opt out’ is not a practical choice for states. Urgent Communications. http://urgentcomm.com/blog/if-firstnet-does-its-job-opt-out-not-practical-choice-states

Jackson, D. (2013, September 9). FirstNet Deputy GM Kennedy discusses outreach, innovation. Urgent Communications.

Johnson, J. (2013, October 24). Presentation at Oregon APCO Conference, Hood River, Oregon.

Johnson, J. (2013, June 19). FirstNet Vision for the Future, FirstNet Regional Workshop.

Johnson, J. (2013, May 29). Q&A, FirstNet and NGA State and Territory Consultation Meeting, San Francisco.

Kassa, B. (2015, June 1). Panel discussion during Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Meeting

Kassa, B. (2015, June 1). FirstNet Quality of Service, Priority and Preemption (QPP) Framework

Kennedy, TJ (2015, March 25). Strategic Program Roadmap - Year 1 Review and Look Ahead

Lawson, S. (2012, June 15). US pushes forward on public-safety LTE network. Network World. www.networkworld.com/news/2012/061612-us-pushes-forward-on-public-safety-260253.html

Lemko. http://www.lemko.com/

Lum, D. (2011, July 12). “Sizing Up PMR Devices,” Radio Resource Magazine. www.mccmag.com/onlyonline.cfm?OnlyOnlineID=255

McEwen, H. (2015, June 2). PSAC Update. FirstNet Board Meeting

McEwen, H. (2012, March 15). Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. NTIA Communications & Technology Committee presentation.

Moore, L.K. (2015, May 7). The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress.







http://www.lemko.com/

http://www.mccmag.com/onlyonline.cfm?OnlyOnlineID=255



Motorola Solutions, Inc. (2015). WAVE Work Group Communications. http://www.motorolasolutions.com/en_us/products/voice-applications/wave-work-group-communications.html

Motorola Solutions, Inc. (2012, March 2). Executive Summary. Response to the State of Oregon’s Request for Information and Expression of Interest (RFI-EI) for Public Safety Long Term Evolution Broadband Spectrum Network Proof-of-Concept Pilot (LTE PSBN Pilot).

Motorola (2006). Standards and Guidelines for Communications Sites

National Governors Association (2012, June 28). Preparing for Public Safety Broadband. White Paper www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1206PREPAREBROADBANDPAPER.PDF

Noel, S. (2011). Oregon LTE at a Glance. Internal planning document.

NPSTC (2015, July 27). Comments of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council. http://www.npstc.org/download.jsp?tableId=37&column=217&id=3493&file=NPSTC_Comments_to_FirstNet_20150727_final.pdf

NPSTC (2013, July 18). Public Safety Broadband Push-to-Talk over Long Term Evolution Requirements.

NPSTC (2012). High Level Statement of Requirements for FirstNet Consideration. A NPSTC Public Safety Communications Report.

NTIA (2014, March 11). FirstNet Program Roadmap Executive Summary http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_program_roadmap_executive_summary_03112014.pdf

NTIA (2014, March 11). SLIGP Workshop.

NTIA (2013, October 25). Selection of New Office Location. First Responder Network Authority Board Resolution 45. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_resolution_no._45_re_new_office_locations.pdf

NTIA (2013 September). The Promise of FirstNet http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fact_sheet_promise-9-27-13.pdf










http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fact_sheet_promise-9-27-13.pdf



NTIA (2013, August 23). NTIA Awards Additional SLIGP Grants to Assist FirstNet Planning. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/ntia-awards-additional-sligp-grants-assist-firstnet-planning

NTIA (2013, August 13). FirstNet Board Adopts Business Plan for FY ’14. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-board-adopts-business-plan-fy-14

NTIA (2013, July 10). FirstNet Issues RFIs on Technology for Nationwide Wireless Broadband Network. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-issues-rfis-technology-nationwide-wireless-broadband-network

NTIA (2013, July 10). FirstNet – Deployables Solicitation. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=60cfdeb95699be5a43d48132431cb7fb&tab=core&_cview=0

NTIA (2013, July 10). FirstNet – Enhanced Packet Core (EPC) Solicitation. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=87b3e1e1758e8c5c9e9485b0c68f4300&tab=core&_cview=0

NTIA (2013, July 10). FirstNet – Microwave Backhaul Equipment Solicitation. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7ed9d4feefe9fd0c6d47f3b6d4ef80c8&tab=core&_cview=0

NTIA (2013, June 4). FirstNet Board Approves Budget and Organization Structure to Advance Mission. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-board-approves-budget-and-organization-structure-advance-mission

NTIA (2012, November 16). FirstNet Praises FCC for Granting Spectrum License. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/firstnet-praises-fcc-granting-spectrum-license

NTIA (2012, September 25). FirstNet Board Actions 9/25/12. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/firstnet-board-actions-09252012

NTIA (2012, August 21). Development of Programmatic Requirements for the State and Local Implementation Grant Program to Assist in Planning for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN). http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_sligp_08212012.pdf

Oceus Networks. http://www.oceusnetworks.com/














http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/firstnet-praises-fcc-granting-spectrum-license




http://www.oceusnetworks.com/



Oceus Networks (2013, July 11). Oceus Networks Flies Deployable LTE Solution Above the Clouds to Support Public Safety. http://www.oceusnetworks.com/oceus-networks-flies-deployable-lte-solution-clouds-support-public-safety/

ODOT (2012, December). Voice Radio Communications. Oregon Department of Transportation State Radio Project Draft Discussion Paper.

ODOT (2012, December). E-Citing things are happening with law enforcement data. Inside ODOT.

ODOT/MPB (2012, June 8). OPSBN Business Plan Kickoff Working Session.

OEC (2014, June 4). Mobile Applications for Public Safety (MAPS) Presentation at the PSCR Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Conference.

OEC (2012, June 22). Realizing the Future of Public Safety Communications – DRAFT.

OEC (2012, June 21). Oregon Broadband Survey Workshop, Portland, Oregon.

OEC (2012, June). Review of Public Safety Wireless Data Usage, State of Oregon, Portland Area.

OEC (2012, May). NECP Goal 2 Analysis with Workshop Findings & Recommendations.

OEC (2012, April 17). Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Implementation Workshop, Oregon.

OEC (2012, July 10). National Emergency Communications Plan Goal 2.

OEC (2011, November). Interoperability Planning for Wireless Broadband. www.publicsafetytools.info/oec_guidance/docs/Interoperability_Planning_Wireless_Broadband_Web_111711.pdf

OEC (2011, November). Public Safety Communications Evolution. www.publicsafetytools.info/oec_guidance/docs/Public_Safety_Communications_Evolution_Brochure.pdf

OEMA. Oregon’s Emergency Management Functions. http://www.oregonemergency.com/media/OEM-ESF-Structure.pdf

OEMA. Emergency Management Function Realignment. http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/docs/ESF%20Realignment%20Issue%20Paper.pdf

http://www.oceusnetworks.com/oceus-networks-flies-deployable-lte-solution-clouds-support-public-safety/






http://www.oregonemergency.com/media/OEM-ESF-Structure.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/docs/ESF%20Realignment%20Issue%20Paper.pdf



Oregon House Bill 4301 http://www.oregon.gov/SIEC/Docs/Supplementals/2014.04.08_House.Bill.4301.pdf

Oregon’s Indian Tribes. http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/tribal.htm

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 403.450. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/403.450

Orr, Derrick (2013, November 15). Recap and Path Forward. PSCR Public Safety Broadband R&D Roadmap Workshop.

Powell, R. (2013, October 17). Verizon’s Q3 Helps Cheer the Markets. Telecom Ramblings. http://www.telecomramblings.com/2013/10/verizons-q3-helps-cheer-markets/

PSAC (2013, November). Public Safety Advisory Committee Human Factors Report.

PSCR (2015, June 3). International Standards Presentation at Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Conference

PSCR (2013, June 11). Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Meeting, Westminster, CO

Public Law 112-96, “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.” FirstNet is found in Title VI of PL112-96, entitled “Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctions.” www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW-112publ96.pdf

Public Safety Library https://casmnextgen.com/pslib/

Reed, R. (2014, June 4). FirstNet Planning, Consultation, and Outreach Updates.

Roberts, M. R., (2012, May 1). Fire’s Case for Broadband. Urgent Communications. www.urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/mag/fire-ems-broadband-needs-201205/index.html

Robinson, F., Lee, M. (2014, June 16). Speedy Web Access To Get a New Push. The Wall Street Journal.

SAIC (2015, September 9). Oregon Major Events Listing. DCN: SPOC-FNIO-15-03, Release 1

SAIC (2013, November 11). Oregon FirstNet Infrastructure Sources Listing. DCN: SWIC-OPSBN-13-03.

http://bluebook.state.or.us/national/tribal/tribal.htm

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/403.450

http://www.telecomramblings.com/2013/10/verizons-q3-helps-cheer-markets/

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW-112publ96.pdf

https://casmnextgen.com/pslib/

http://www.urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/mag/fire-ems-broadband-needs-201205/index.html

http://www.urgentcomm.com/networks_and_systems/mag/fire-ems-broadband-needs-201205/index.html



SAIC (2012, May 2). Numbering Scheme Document for Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) National Network Identifiers.

Smith, Z. (2105, October 8). Comment in response to Q&A during Operational Architecture Overview at Fall 2015 SPOC Workshop in Westminster, Colorado.

Space Data http://spacedata.net

State Interoperability Executive Council, www.oregon.gov/SIEC

State of Oregon, Business Case Template Appendix v1.6, Risk and Mitigations.

Svensson, P. (2012, August 3). AT&T 2G Shutdown To Be Complete In 2017: Get Ready To Upgrade. Huff Post Tech. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/att-2g-shutdown-2017_n_1739175.html

Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability (2012, May 22). Recommended Minimum Technical Requirements to Ensure Nationwide Interoperability for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, Final Report. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021919873

United States House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee (2016, June 16). “Progress Toward a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network.”

Verizon, Total Equipment Coverage. support.verizonwireless.com/clc/features/calling_features/equipment_protection.html

Wendelken, S. (2013, September 17). FirstNet Holds First Official Meeting with Public-Safety Advisory Committee. Mission Critical Communications. http://mccmag.com/newsArticle.cfm?news_id=9940

http://spacedata.net/

http://www.oregon.gov/SIEC/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/att-2g-shutdown-2017_n_1739175.html


http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021919873

http://support.verizonwireless.com/clc/features/calling_features/equipment_protection.html

http://mccmag.com/newsArticle.cfm?news_id=9940



19. ACRONYM LIST 2G Second Generation 3-D Three Dimensional 3G Third Generation 3GPP Third Generation Partnership Program 4G Fourth Generation 5G Fifth Generation

AC Access Class ACB Access Class Barring ADCOM Adams County Communications Center AES Advanced Encryption Standard AOC Association of Counties APCO Association of Public Safety Communications Officials API Application Programming Interface APN Access Point Name ARP Allocation and Retention Priority ATIS:INC Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions: Industry Numbering

Committee ATNI Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians AUC Authentication Center AVL Automatic Vehicle Location AWS Advanced Wireless Service

BATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications Systems Authority BBWG Broadband Working Group BC Band Class BLM Bureau of Land Management BS Base Station BSA Base State Analysis BSC Base Station Controller BTOP Broadband Technology Opportunities Program BWC Body Worn Camera BYOD Bring Your Own Device

CAD Computer-Aided Dispatch Capex Capital Expense CBP Customs and Border Protection CD Compact Disc CDMA Code Division Multiple Access



CDMA2000 Code Division Multiple Access – Third Generation CEO Chief Executive Officer CFO Chief Financial Officer CIO Chief Information Officer CISO Chief Information Security Officer CJIS Criminal Justice Information System CLS Covered Lease Agreement CO Colorado COML Communications Leader COW Cell on Wheels CS Circuit-Switched CSFB Circuit Switch Fallback CSZ Cascadia Subduction Zone CTCLUSI Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians CTO Chief Technology Officer CTT Consultation Task Team CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

dB Decibel dBm Decibel-milliwatt DAS Department of Administrative Services DAS Distributed Antenna System D.C. District of Columbia DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DHS Department of Homeland Security DOC Department of Commerce DOD Department of Defense DOI Department of the Interior DOJ Department of Justice DOL Department of Labor DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point

EAB Extended Access Barring eCSFB Enhanced Circuit Switch Fallback EIDD Emergency Incident Data Document EM Emergency Manager eMBMS Enhanced Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Services EMS Emergency Medical Services EMT Emergency Medical Technician eNodeB Evolved Node B EPC Evolved Packet Core



EPS Evolved Package System ESF Emergency Support Function ESINet Emergency Services IP Network EV-DO Evolutionary Data Only

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FCC Federal Communications Commission FDD LTE Frequency Division Duplex Long Term Evolution FE Functional Element FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFO Federal Funding Opportunity FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard FirstNet First Responder Network Authority FOC Final Operating Capability FOIA Freedom of Information Act FSA Farm Service Agency FW Firmware FY Fiscal Year

GBR Guaranteed Bit Rate GCSE_LTE Group Communication System Enablers for LTE GHz Gigahertz GIS Geographic Information System GM General Manager GPO Government Printing Office GPS Global Positioning System GSCE LTE Group Communication System Enablers for LTE GSM Global System for Mobile Communications GSMA GSM Association

Het-Net Heterogeneous Network HO Handover HSA Homeland Security Advisor HSS Home Subscriber Server

IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police ICAM Identity, Credential, and Access Management ID Identification IDA Initial Damage Assessment IMS IP Multimedia Subsystem IMSI International Mobile Subscriber Identity IOC Initial Operating Capability



IOPS Isolated LTE Radio Access Network Operations IP Internet Protocol IPv4 Internet Protocol Version 4 IPv6 Internet Protocol Version 6 IT Information Technology ITRS International Technical Rescue Symposium ITS Institute for Telecommunication Sciences ITU International Telecommunications Union IWCE International Wireless Communications Expo

kbps Kilobits per Second KPI Key Performance Indicator

LA-RICS Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority LBS Location Based Services LCOG Lane Council of Governments LEDS Law Enforcement Data Systems LMR Land Mobile Radio LOS Line-of-Sight LTE Long Term Evolution

M2M Machine-to-Machine MAC Media Access Controller MANET Mobile Ad Hoc Network MB Megabyte MC-PTT Mission Critical Push-to-Talk MCC Mobile Country Code MCS Mission Critical Services MCU Mobile Communications Unit MCVideo Mission Critical Video MDT Mobile Data Terminal MDST Mobile Data Survey Tool MEID Mobile Equipment Identifier MHz Megahertz MIMO Multiple Input Multiple Output MME Mobility Management Entity MNC Mobile Network Code MOCN Multi-Operator Core Network MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPB Major Projects Branch MPH Miles per Hour



MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switch MPS Multimedia Priority Service ms millisecond MSIN Mobile Subscriber Identity Number mW milliwatt

NASCIO National Association of State Chief Information Officers NASEMSO National Association of State EMS Officers NCIC National Crime Information Center NCSWIC National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators NECP National Emergency Communications Plan NENA National Emergency Number Association NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NG 9-1-1 Next Generation 9-1-1 NGA National Governors Association NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIEM National Information Exchange Model NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NLOS Non-Line-of-Sight NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NOC Network Operating Center NPSBN Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network NPSTC National Public Safety Telecommunications Council NRTC National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative NSC Near Space Corporation NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration NWTEMC Northwest Tribal Emergency Management Council

O&M Operations and Maintenance OAC Operator Advisory Committee OACP Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police OAGITM Oregon Association of Government Information Technology Management OBAC Oregon Broadband Advisory Council ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OEC Office of Emergency Communications OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer OEM Office of Emergency Management OEMA Oregon Emergency Management Association OFDDA Oregon Fire District Directors Association OIPP Office of Innovative Partnerships Program OMA Open Mobile Alliance



OPM Office of Personnel Management OPSBN Oregon Public Safety Broadband Network OS Operating System OSP Oregon State Police OSS Operational Support System OSSA Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association OSU Oregon State University OTA Oregon Telecommunications Association OTT Over-the-Top OWIN Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network

P25 Project 25 PCRF Policy and Charging Rules Function PCS Personal Communications Services PDCC Portland Dispatch Center Consortium PDN Packet Data Network PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement PGW Packet Data Network Gateway PII Personally Identifiable Information PL112-96 Public Law 112-96 PLMN Public Land Mobile Network PMO Program Management Office POC Point of Contact ProSe Proximity Services PS Public Safety PSAC Public Safety Advisory Committee PSAP Public Safety Answering Point PSBN Public Safety Broadband Network PSBB Block Public Safety Broadband Spectrum PSCR Public Safety Communications Research PSE Public Safety Entity PSEN Public Safety Enterprise Network PSEN Public Safety Entity Network PTT Push-To-Talk

QAM Quadrature Amplitude Modulation QCI QoS Class Identifier QoE Quality of Experience QoS Quality of Service QPP Quality of Service, Priority and Pre-emption



RADIO Radio Activities, Discussions, Interoperability in Oregon RAN Radio Access Network Rel-9 Release 9 RF Radio Frequency RFI Request for Information RFI-EI Request for Information – Expression of Interest RFP Request for Proposal RMS Record Management System RPS Regional Preparedness Staff

S/PGW Service/Packet Gateway SAR Search and Rescue SCIP Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan SDP Service Delivery Platform SGW Serving Gateway SIEC State Interoperability Executive Council SIM Subscriber Identity Module SINR Signal-to-Interference plus Noise Ratio SLA Service Level Agreement SLIGP State and Local Implementation Grant Program SME Subject Matter Expert SMS Short Message Service SOC Security Operations Center SON Self-Organizing Network SOO Statement of Objectives SoR Statement of Requirements SPOC Single Point of Contact SRF State Recovery Function SRP State Radio Project SRVCC Single Radio Voice Call Continuity SU Subscriber Unit SVLTE Simultaneous Voice and LTE SW Software SWIC Statewide Interoperability Coordinator

T1 T-carrier 1 TA Tracking Area TCCE TETRA and Critical Communications Evolution TD-LTE Time Division Long Term Evolution TDM Time Division Multiplex TETRA Terrestrial Trunked Radio



TIA/EIA Telecommunications Industry Association/Electronic Industries Alliance TS Technical Specification TTL Time-to-Live TVF&R Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue TXT2SMS Text-to-Short-Message-Service

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UE User Equipment UI User Interface UICC Universal Integrated Circuit Card UMRDD Umatilla Morrow Radio and Data District UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System U.S. United States USB Universal Serial Bus USCG United States Coast Guard USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USIM Universal Subscriber Identity Module UX User Experience

VM Virtual Machine VNS Vehicular Network System VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol VoLTE Voice over Long Term Evolution VPN Virtual Private Network

W Watt WCCCA Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency WGA Western Governors Association WiMAX Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access WITA Washington Independent Telecommunications Association WPS Wireless Priority Service WSEMA Washington State Emergency Management Association

XML Extensible Markup Language

YCOM Yamhill Communications Agency Council


See disclaimer on title page A-1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX A - Integrating Local and National Networks and Applications This appendix analyzes the challenges and implications of integrating local networks and applications with the NPSBN. Various integration aspects are analyzed in the areas of network operations, local applications, and network security.

A.1 NETWORK OPERATING CHALLENGES

Deploying a high speed data network is a challenge; operating it, even more so. There are many issues and resulting implications of operating a public safety broadband network that must be addressed during planning stages as well as in network design, engineering, installation, and integration. The following sections raise several important areas for consideration regarding the provisioning and operation of the FirstNet Network.

• User Management

An overarching element of the NPSBN is the management of users. One important consideration is whether user management will be centralized under FirstNet, with the states sending in requests to add or delete users. Or, whether this should be a state or local agency function, where devices and users are controlled and provisioned at the state or local level, and the information transmitted to FirstNet central databases. Of the two approaches, the Operational Architecture provided by FirstNet in the draft RFP assigns the responsibility for user, service, and device management to the PSE. See Section 6.4. , Operations and Maintenance, for listing of PSE functions in this area.

• Commercial Roaming

Given the limited initial funding, it is generally understood by first responders that the FirstNet Network will likely involve spectrum and infrastructure sharing with commercial nationwide LTE carriers. Therefore most LTE coverage in non-rural (i.e, urban, suburban) and some rural areas will be provided via commercial networks. Further, in more rural areas, public safety may need to “fallback” to commercial 3G/2G mobile data technologies such as Evolutionary Data Only (EV-DO). As a result, public safety users will be roaming onto commercial 4G/3G networks. Some first responders are subscribed to Wireless Priority Service (WPS) which currently provides priority for Circuit-Switch (CS) voice calls on CDMA,167 GSM, and UMTS168 in addition to mission critical voice provided on their LMR networks. However, WPS does not currently provide priority for data, therefore first responders roaming onto commercial networks using data applications generates some challenges, because:

167 Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) digital voice technology used by nationwide carriers Verizon Wireless and Sprint. 168 Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) are the 2G and 3G digital voice technologies used by nationwide carriers AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile. Note that AT&T plans to sunset GSM by 2017.



• Commercial systems do not currently implement stringent enough QoS on their networks to differentiate a public safety data user from a general public data user – especially for 3G technologies.

• Commercial networks do not implement preemption. Although WPS calls have priority on the commercial wireless networks, they are given precedence (or priority for the next available traffic or signaling channel) not preemption.

• Commercial networks do not implement user priority, excluding use of WPS for CS voice calls, under normal operations.

• Commercial networks do not implement stringent enough application priority, especially on 3G technologies.

However, as commercial carriers build out their LTE networks and these networks become more congested, carriers will begin to move further toward tiered services and LTE has many mechanisms to provide QoS and priority based on users and applications. Verizon recently announced a “mission critical” service called Private Network Traffic Management that leverages QoS and offers a “Public Safety” service tier.169

Hence FirstNet, the states, and FirstNet Network users who roam onto these networks need to be prepared for the implications of the realities of operating on commercial networks. Suitable operational protocols may need to be devised to mitigate any problems. Some examples of these operational mechanisms in LTE for QoS, priority, and even preemption which must be employed by FirstNet and their commercial LTE carrier partners are discussed in Section 6.2. 6.2. It is likely that the initial applications that first responders use via the commercial networks will not require a dedicated private network in terms of bandwidth, response time, and availability.

Session and call continuity across these networks will need to be thoroughly tested. Presently, session continuity is provided by certain middleware, which could also help to maintain a secure session across the networks.

• Network Reliability

First responders pride themselves on the ruggedness and physical reliability of their LMR networks. This is achieved through codes of construction and deployment, as exemplified by the Motorola R56 document. For example, these guidelines include requirements for eight hours of battery backup, generator backup with several days of fuel on site, and siting the location of generators to be above flood level and shielded from wind damage.170 Commercial cellular systems, on the other hand, are typically not designed for more than four hours of battery backup unless a site covers a large area. On a promising note, however some commercial providers over the last five years have begun to harden their sites with on-site generators and eight or more

169 Gabriel, C. (2015, September 24). Verizon introduces mission critical QoS on LTE. 170 Motorola (2006). Standards and Guidelines for Communications Sites. Also known as R56.



hours of battery back-up. This is due to strong pressure from customers and legislators who are heavily dependent on their cellphones and have a growing need for the higher reliability.

The level of commercial network reliability varies with each provider and is site dependent. Further, most commercial carriers typically do not design for RF coverage availability to exceed 95-98% even in urban areas due to cost constraints. In addition, many cell sites in commercial networks connected by Ethernet microwave are “daisy-chained” or are end sites in a “hub and spoke” topology without redundant links. Therefore, ensuring the availability of the FirstNet Network could be difficult, especially when infrastructure is collocated with commercial LTE systems or shares common elements such as power and backhaul.

Evaluating renewable or “green” technology, such as solar and small wind technology, may offer alternatives for reducing the need for external and backup electrical power. These new sources, when combined with low power consumption electronics, provide innovative ways to improve overall network reliability.

While these developments were being considered, super storm Sandy, which struck the east coast in October 2012, became a turning point in the discussion of network reliability. A confluence of weather conditions resulted in a 1,000 mile sized storm with high winds, the eye of which came ashore over Atlantic City, N.J. Even though the winds were relatively modest, less than 100 MPH, it pushed water far inland into large parts of the northeast coastal areas, causing major flooding. It was reported that about 25% of cell sites in its path were put out of commission by the storm. This caused a major re-evaluation by public safety of the wisdom of collocating with commercial carriers and of using their networks. A call for building the FirstNet Network to “Public Safety Grade standards” ensued. However, LTE cell sites are quite unlike LMR sites. The variety of site locations and types of eNodeBs, including micro/pico cells also complicate the powering and reliability of these networks. In many instances cell sites failed because of loss of commercial power or damage to the backhaul, not to the cell site itself. It also became clear that the TIA/EIA-222 standards-based grades (e.g., Class 2 and various revision levels) used by commercial carriers for towers were less robust than, for example, Class 3 Rev G installations under which new public safety installations might be constructed. Furthermore, most commercial towers were not owned by carriers, but by several tower companies. Also, for example, rooftop installations, cellular antennas in church steeples, and microcells with antennas on sides of building walls were clearly not amenable to be ruggedized in the same manner as LMR towers.

Consequently, NPSTC started a working group to define “Public Safety Grade” for LTE networks. Also, APCO’s Broadband Committee set up several working groups. These included a site-hardening subcommittee which is working to understand the various guidelines used by the carrier industry and individual branches of government to come up with a workable set of common requirements for site installations. Given that, for example, the DOI uses different site criteria from CBP for their LMR installations, reconciling these with cost-effective deployment criteria for LTE is a challenging work in progress. On May 22, 2014 NPSTC issued a Public Safety Communications Report entitled “Defining Public Safety Grade Systems and Facilities”



to provide guidance to FirstNet as it constructs and implements the NPSBN.171 The report includes recommendations and requirements for environmental factors (wind, ice, flooding, etc.), SLAs, network reliability and resiliency, coverage, PTT, applications, site hardening, installation and operations and maintenance (O&M). It is expected that FirstNet will issue deployment guidelines using some of these insights. However, most commercial LTE networks will not be able to meet all of the requirements and recommendations in the NPSTC report and FirstNet, with limited funds, will need to determine a suitable “middle ground” for site hardening requirements in their SLAs with LTE commercial carriers. FirstNet intends to carry this conversation out to states in 2016, proposing working sessions to determine what areas in which to harden sites and by how much. This dialogue becomes critical to Oregon and other northwestern states when planning for major natural disaster response, e.g., for a major earthquake such as the Cascadia Event. See Appendix I for more information about Cascadia Event planning.

• Coverage Requirements

In its public safety broadband requirements, the FCC mandated data speeds of 768 kbps downlink and 256 kbps uplink at the cell edge.172 In the draft FirstNet Comprehensive Network RFP, FirstNet initially stated that overage is defined as having a minimum of 768Kbps downlink and 256 Kbps uplink at the cell edge with 50% loading. However, commercial networks may be designed to different guaranteed cell edge downlink/uplink criteria for a given Signal-to-Interference +Noise Ratio (SINR). In addition, most commercial LTE networks are also being designed for VoLTE. However, downlink/uplink throughput performance at the cell edge will have to be negotiated with potential spectrum and infrastructure sharing partners. FirstNet is considering a “3-in-1” network approach for RF coverage comprised of terrestrial eNodeBs, “deployable” eNodeBs (which may also include EPC functionality), and satellite. FirstNet plans to provide coverage to approximately 60% of the geography of the U.S. via terrestrial eNodeBs similar to what commercial wireless carriers provide today. For the remaining 40% of the U.S geography, specific solutions will include deployables and satellite systems.173 The use of deployable and mobile satellite communications for rural coverage uses the concept of “Coverage when Needed.” This is an appropriate solution to cover these sparsely populated areas. From the point of implementation and cost, there are few mobile satellite network operators in the United States and they operate satellites using different air interfaces. Hence the practical issues of integrating these in a cost effective manner into first responder terminals, inherent data transmission delays, relatively lower data rates, and separate network operations involved are yet to be resolved, unless the contract is given to a single satellite service provider. Deployable communications could form a relatively inexpensive way to establish

171 NPSTC (2014, May 22). Defining Public Safety Grade Systems and Facilities. 172 FCC (2010, December 10). PS Docket No. 06-229, DA 10-2342. 173 FirstNet (2014, March 11). FirstNet Program Roadmap Executive Summary Discussion during FirstNet Board Meeting.



communications in remote areas, especially when an incident is ongoing and providing proper backhaul is available. FirstNet supporting the development of an approach it terms as mobile communications unit (MCU), recently renamed vehicular network systems (VNS). VNS mounts LTE eNodeB or even EPC technology onboard public safety vehicles, eliminating the delay of calling up a special deployable if already at the incident scene.174

• Network Security

Broadband, flat-IP technologies such as LTE introduce new cybersecurity threats to public safety with many more attack vectors which were not present in LMR systems. Further, LMR systems use 256-bit Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption that meets FIPS 140-2, encryption provisioning/key fill via physical connection to the subscriber unit (SU). Currently, LTE commercial networks use 128-bit AES encryption, but are looking at moving to 256-bit AES in 3GPP Release 12 with standards functionally frozen in March 2015. A nationwide network such as FirstNet is only as secure as its weakest link. The plethora of local public safety data networks across the nation represents a serious concern as agency networks with varying security levels connect to FirstNet. The FirstNet Network will be a very inviting target, not only for mischief makers, but also for espionage. Infiltrating it could provide information endangering public safety during a crisis. It could also reveal tactics and operational methods which could be damaging in the hands of the infiltrators. Federal agencies using FirstNet could have their data compromised as a result. Sensitive information that public safety produces and collects includes medical information and patient history, critical infrastructure information, sensitive investigative, dispatch or operational information, and Personally Identifiable Information (PII) including social security numbers and birthdates.175

FirstNet is keenly aware of these concerns and in September 2015 issued for review a Cyber Security appendix C-10 to its draft RFP. However, FirstNet also indicates that its security jurisdiction will stop at the state boundaries.176

Therefore, it is expected that local network administrators will also bear the responsibility to make their networks secure. They could be required to perform security audits and take corrective actions to secure their systems. The State can support these local efforts by setting up a framework for managing network security at the state level, helping to survey and stress test the existing network security, coordinate the implementation of remedial actions, and finally, to certify to FirstNet that the networks are secure for verification by FirstNet and interconnection to the national network.

174 Blanchard, N. (2015, July 23). FirstNet developing base stations for police cars, but deployment still several years away. Retrieved from: http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/firstnet-developing-base-stations-police-cars-deployment-still-several-year/2015-07-23 175 OEC (2014, June 4). Mobile Applications for Public Safety (MAPS) Presentation at the PSCR Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Conference. 176 PSCR (2013, June). FirstNet response at the Public Safety Research Consortium Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Workshop in answer to question.





States, and FirstNet, will also need to develop security policies regarding information’s time of validity and time-to-live (TTL). Policies will be needed to specify whether an agency can forward incident-related information it receives from one agency to another agency. It’s widely known that most information carried by the Internet is never deleted and can be recovered by third parties, often without cost, or by businesses that seek to make money from such data. This must not be allowed to happen within FirstNet. This causes a tension with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements. It must be noted that calls to 9-1-1 are increasingly being played on news networks after incidents. Policies concerning information distribution, retention and forwarding must take their place among those addressing other privacy and sensitivity concerns.

• Secondary Users

The Act also permits the use of the public safety spectrum by federal and other commercial agencies under the control of FirstNet. FirstNet intends to allow its contractor to monetize secondary use of excess capacity via covered lease agreements (CLAs). This is made possible using a concept called Multi-Operator Core Networks (MOCNs), which allows RAN and spectrum sharing while keeping the security sensitive core networks separate. This capability has been built into LTE Release 8 and later. It allows several EPCs to connect directly to a common set of RANs, which then stream all the networks’ data packets over the air on the same spectrum. The individual network packets may be identified by different PLMN IDs. Hence terminals will only pick up packets from their authorized networks. The RAN is set up to treat all packets fairly, so that eNodeBs will not be swamped by any one network’s traffic.

Commercial users’ devices and applications may be provisioned at a lower priority level. FirstNet should be made aware if their commercial LTE network partners begin provisioning certain users under Enterprise agreements with higher access classes (e.g., above 0-9). Where commercial networks choose to use the PSBN for machine-to-machine (M2M) communications for automated meter reading, for example, these applications could be set to the lowest priority level, leaving public safety traffic relatively unaffected. Further, FirstNet should ensure that any M2M devices on their commercial LTE partner networks will not be exempt from Extended Access Barring (EAB). EAB is used to control signaling congestion from machine UEs via barring all EAB UEs (low priority, can take longer delay) in one or more access classes similar to legacy access class barring in GSM.

• IPv6 Considerations

Most local public safety data networks are based on the Internet's main communications protocol, Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4). However, IPv4 is reaching the end of its useful life in large scale networks since it is running out of address space, among other issues. LTE uses Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), which is the upgrade to IPV4. The DOD and other entities in the federal government have already transitioned, or are in the process of transitioning, to IPv6.



Commercially, Verizon requires that any device connecting to the 700 MHz LTE network "shall support IPv6" and "the device shall be assigned an IPv6 address whenever it attaches to the LTE network." 177 IPv4 support is optional. However, any device supporting IPv4 "shall be able to support simultaneous IPv6 and IPv4 sessions." The latter is often known as dual stacking. Other carriers have similar policies.

Therefore, administrators of local networks which will be connected to an LTE network should begin planning for integration with IPv6. At the start, this would include using dual stacked border gateways for interconnection to the NPSBN. Deploying IPv6 in the local network itself can be a long term proposition. To prepare, network administrators should consider adding requirements for IPv6 support in future procurements of network elements and applications such as CAD systems.

A.2 APPLICATION INTEGRATION

Challenges will also arise when integrating and interworking existing local applications with the new nationwide network. The following paragraphs highlight some of the issues to be addressed when migrating applications to the new NPSBN architecture.

• Applications Integration and Standardization

Oregon’s state and local agencies already operate several data networks. These PDNs, described in Section 6.2. , are referred to as PSEN in the SoR. PSENs tend to be agency-specific. Different types of agencies in an area, such as police and fire, often do not share their PSENs. The agency-specific, localized applications that run in these PSENs include services such as PTT voice, application layer authentication, QoS management, CAD, Record Management Systems (RMS), and Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) call taker systems. Some of these services are not interoperable across agencies. Furthermore, even the same type of agencies, such as police in different cities, each have their unique PDNs and applications. Even common application types, such as license plate readers may be different and not interoperable. They may also use different databases.

Under LTE, the apps in each agency’s broadband terminals, such as smartphones, have APNs which correspond to the specific PDNs serving the applications described above. Supporting these unique applications creates challenges because:

• Each agency’s terminals would have to be programmed specifically for that agency, with its own applications and APNs.

• Programming devices even in a regional manner within a state could become complex since each terminal will have to be custom programmed to its agency’s requirements.

177 http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/061009-verizon-lte-ipv6.html and originally from http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/780/VerizonandIPv6.aspx

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/061009-verizon-lte-ipv6.html

http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/780/VerizonandIPv6.aspx



• While later versions of LTE are capable of analyzing the entire UICC ID to determine the agency association of each terminal, it is often more efficient not to evaluate the lower order data bits, but analyze the UICC ID only down to a block level to determine its home agency. This requires that IDs for agencies be clustered together in blocks. Hence, programming would also be most efficient at the block level.

• As discussed in Appendix C, the Network Numbering Authority may issue blocks of IDs to a state for distribution to its agencies. At the state’s request, they may be partitioned by agency types. Any finer partitioning could become very problematic, since there is always a concern about “stranded” IDs. This can occur when the limited sets of IDs are issued in large blocks to agencies that may never use them all, leaving large number of agency-specific IDs unused while exhausting the available pool of IDs for the state. Hence, common programming becomes desirable.

FirstNet is expected to standardize a common set of national applications and APNs. However, existing legacy applications need to be integrated as well. Therefore, based on the above, it is advantageous for common agency types, such as law enforcement, to:

• Consolidate their PDNs into a common or a few local PDNs.

• Standardize the applications which run on their common or local PDNs.

• Integrate the databases which are connected to these applications.

Statewide agencies such as the state police may already have a common PDN. It is also possible that state fire and EMS have their own network. However, it is not clear if these could be integrated into a statewide PDN serving all the different types of statewide public safety agencies. At minimum, there are a manageable number of statewide PDNs that could be operated, provisioned, and managed at the state level.

However, when local PSENs are considered, the problem becomes complex. Discussions with local agencies should begin now to see if networks could be standardized or integrated, perhaps by agency type. For example, since these PSENs are funded locally today, it may be more realistic to consider a local common PDN to serve all the agency types in a city. This reduces the number of APNs required in a city to one, with an applications gateway within that PDN directing the data packets to the appropriate applications server. Who controls the common local PDNs must also be decided. This could prove to be a difficult political as well as operational decision.

• Applications Interconnection and Middleware

While common applications across several agencies may be a longer term goal, there are several steps that are being implemented or developed today to facilitate interconnecting applications. These are being driven by the advent of Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1) driven features such as Text-to-Short-Message-Service (TXT2SMS), photo, video, and other multimedia and voice reports of an incident. However, NG 9-1-1 uses a protocol stack called ESINet (Emergency



Services IP Network). This will also need to be integrated with the FirstNet Network. All of these inputs also need to be integrated into a single developing incident report and portions forwarded to the appropriate agencies and responders. The different types of data that may be needed to manage a complex incident today also requires information that comes from different sources. Public safety is recognizing that it could be very useful for key applications to talk to each other to exchange data. Some of this is being accomplished today by commercial middleware such as HipLink®. However, these are custom solutions from these specialized vendors who have, over time, built translation middleware to facilitate interoperation between various applications.

• Applications Interconnection Standardization using EIDD

Meanwhile, a joint working group of APCO/NENA is working on a data interchange model for PSAP-to-PSAP communications using Extensible Markup Language (XML). Oregon is represented in this effort. An Emergency Incident Data Document (EIDD) is being developed to transfer the information across systems. This is a National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) conformant approach that will enable application vendors to build systems that can communicate with each other. Oregon should verify that new applications will support the EIDD approach when it is released by the EIDD Working Group. It can also write it into contracts as a required update when preparing to replace key applications. Other efforts are looking at standardizing the CAD-to-CAD data exchange so that information can be transitioned seamlessly between different dispatch systems.

• Market Forces and Apps Development

The anticipated use of mobile device apps by FirstNet has already ignited a creative spark within industry. Just as the opening of Apple and Android app stores has resulted in the development of hundreds of thousands of commercial apps, the opportunity to serve the public safety market has resulted in many apps being developed in anticipation of FirstNet capabilities.

For example, consider APCO’s website for the online applications community, AppComm (www.appcomm.org). These applications are not formally approved by FirstNet. Rather, they represent a first step in the creation and selection of applications for use on the FirstNet Network. While most applications that are on this site will probably not become part of FirstNet’s standardized suite, several of these may be adopted by individual agencies or states. There are positive and negative ramifications to this open-ended approach, including:

• Security Concerns

Clearly, the proliferation of un-vetted apps running over FirstNet could form a major security challenge. FirstNet plans to permit the deployment of apps that it has verified as free of malware and confirmed stable and approve them for use on FirstNet Network. In addition, NPSTC has recommended to FirstNet that the NPSBN shall have a vetting process to approve all Application

http://www.appcomm.org/



Programming Interfaces (APIs).178 It is not clear to the extent FirstNet, or their LTE commercial network partners, will allow un-examined apps on the network.

• Application Interoperability

A bane of LMR technology was interoperability. But, if voice interoperability was considered a serious problem, data and application interoperability has the potential of presenting even greater challenges. While an unfettered approach has been successful in a commercial environment, it could cause many problems for public safety users.

• Deployment Issues

A key element of the FirstNet Network must be reliability and continuity of operation. This implies that even if there is network damage, key applications should continue to function. Hence both the service delivery platform and the associated databases should be decentralized with edge-centric architectures. The technology for this is already in use in companies like Netflix and YouTube. The challenge for FirstNet is to deploy this architecture with the appropriate level of decentralization, control, and local content.

A compromise approach that leverages the creativity of the marketplace while preserving operational reliability and interoperability is needed. This is one of the key challenges facing FirstNet as it designs the FirstNet Network.

It should also be noted that mobile device apps such as those on the AppComm website are working over commercial broadband networks today. Hence, one approach is that not all apps be delivered via the FirstNet Network but that some operate on the commercial networks. This is not foolproof, of course. Users cannot rely on the integrity and availability of the commercial networks in a crisis, and public delivery has the potential of compromising of app databases due to hacking or poor design. Therefore, the need to test and certify apps is still present. Furthermore, this certification process must be done several times over the life of each app, as new releases are produced, given the potential for malware and bad code to be introduced at each step.

FirstNet has proposed in its draft RFP that bidders offer a public safety app store. To address the concerns mentioned above, part of this functionality includes review and testing of a developer’s app before making it available to the public safety community.

178 NPSTC (2014, May 22). Defining Public Safety Grade Systems and Facilities. p.36.


See disclaimer on title page B-0 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX B - User Equipment Evolution Responders to the Oregon PSBN RFI identified a variety of mobile and handset terminals for use in the PSBN. These include tablets, smartphones, and mobile routers that act as local hotspots; e.g., offering an umbrella of Wi-Fi coverage surrounding a vehicle. The following paragraphs highlight important aspects of the rapidly changing LTE user equipment market, including the blurring of categories as they branch out beyond the traditional ruggedized “public safety grade” hardware.

• Multiband, Multimode Devices

The almost forgone conclusion that commercial networks will share spectrum with public safety in frequency Band 14 will increase the economic attractiveness of the band for commercial vendors. Commercial smartphones which also operate in the PS band under certain network permitted conditions could be sold in large quantities, making them less expensive. Until that happens, the cost of producing a limited number of dual band LTE smartphones to support only public safety could be quite high.

The dual band chipsets necessary to support a commercial band and Band 14 are now available and several terminals have been shown with this capability. It is not clear if or when chipsets covering all commercial bands and Band 14 will be available and installed in the smartphones of all the network device suppliers, since there is little financial incentive to add the capability for a phone to operate in a rival network’s band. However this mentality may be altered per whatever spectrum sharing and infrastructure sharing agreements are struck with LTE commercial network partners interested in access to the 10x10 MHz spectrum owned by FirstNet. Further, the Act states “…the Director of NIST, in consultation with the First Responder Network Authority and the Commission, shall ensure the development of a list of certified devices and components meeting appropriate protocols and standards for public safety entities and commercial vendors to adhere to, if such entities or vendors seek to have access to, use of, or compatibility with the nationwide public safety broadband network.”179

However, FirstNet Board members have indicated that there will be at least some user terminals that will support multiple, and perhaps every commercial service provider’s bands. FirstNet has stated that location-enabled smartphones, tablets, and modems operating in Band 14 as well as on CDMA and HSPA will be available in the second half of 2014. Specialized devices such as drones, rovers, and portable repeaters will be available sometime after 2015 as FirstNet builds economies of scale and LTE chipset prices lower. A PSAC working group led by Harlin McEwen (PSAC Chairman) and Dave Marutiak (FirstNet consultant) has recently been initiated to determine what UEs public safety will require on the NPSBN and who makes UEs and at what

179 Infrastructure Provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, P.L. 112-96, Section. 6206. Powers, Duties, and Responsibilities of the First Responder Network Authority, (c) (6).



cost.180 This work will also include Vehicle Network Systems (VNSs), which were previously referred to by FirstNet as Mobile Communications Units (MCUs).

• Making Changes in a Standards Environment

Public safety devices operating in Band 14 have been proposed to be installed as mobile terminals in vehicles. In an analogous manner to public safety LMR terminals, recent requests have been made to build higher transmit power mobiles for this use. However, unlike LMR, LTE device characteristics are defined by the global 3GPP standards body.181 In 3GPP Release 11, a work item was created for 3GPP to study the radio requirements for a high power UE for use by public safety in Region 2 (i.e., the Americas). Prior to this work item, commercial LTE UEs had only one power class, Power Class 3, limiting UEs to a maximum transmit power of 23 dBm. Power Class 1 was specified for a high power UE for use in Band 14 with a maximum transmit power of 31 dBm (with a tolerance of +2/-3 dBm) allowing for greater coverage and throughput for public safety, especially in rural areas. A Power Class 1 UE for use in Band 14 is specified in 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 36.101 V12.4.0. However, it is not clear what the equipment cost would be for Power Class 1 UEs which would not be used by the general public. Hence attention needs to be placed on better antenna placement, minimizing power loss in cables and similar aspects, since every dB of cable loss further reduces the relatively small cell sizes of LTE systems by reducing the available transmitter power or by increasing the received signal loss.

The importance of traditional LMR features has been recognized by the worldwide standards community and hence, higher power and other public-safety related proposals, such as permitting direct mode operation (or terminal-to-terminal operation without going through the network, much like talk-around in LMR technology) when off network or deep inside buildings, are now being worked on and will be included in future releases of the standards. Direct mode operation is called “Proximity Services” or “ProSe” in the developing standards. It is believed that these services will permit peer-to-peer MANET-like services with a maximum of two hops. Group call features, common in LMR, are also being incorporated as “Group Services”. Push-to-talk capability is being included as well. See Appendix H for a more in-depth discussion on 3GPP standards work related to ProSe and Group Communication System Enablers for LTE (GCSE_LTE).

Non-standard push-to-talk capability is being provided currently by proprietary apps running on phones, together with manufacturer proprietary gateways, which do not interoperate with other manufacturers implementations. However, manufacturers have shown the ability to interconnect their LTE terminals with P25 LMR system using their own gateways.

180 McEwen, H. (2015, June 2). PSAC Update. FirstNet Board Meeting. 181 3rd Generation Partnership Project: www.3gpp.org




• Commercial Grade vs. Public Safety Grade User Equipment

Public safety radio manufacturers have sought to differentiate their products by building “public safety grade” hardened and ruggedized terminals. This raises important issues that are especially relevant when making business decisions regarding their purchase.

Commercial networks have sought to keep their costs low by mass producing low-cost terminals, priced in the hundreds of dollars. They compete on visual appeal, ease of use, features, and functionality. If a smartphone is damaged, it is usually replaced for about $50 deductible by the carrier’s insurance plan if a per-monthly insurance fee is paid.182 Also, most cellphones and smartphones are replaced every 18-24 months as their subsidized contract period expires. Some are even replaced yearly by new contract types and early technology adopting consumers seeking the latest and greatest device. This is accelerated by the fact that the network itself has sustained an evolutionary pace of upgrade every five to seven years (from 2G to 3G, to 3.5G to 4G, for example). In some countries, 2G service is being turned off in favor of higher capacity later generation networks, rendering customer 2G phones useless. In the United States, AT&T announced that it plans to phase out 2G GSM service by the end of 2016.183

Public safety land mobile radios could cost thousands of dollars and are expected to perform over a seven to ten year life span. The network over which they operate may be designed for a 15 year lifespan. A public safety LTE network that, by necessity, has to interoperate with commercial networks cannot continue to run older versions of the network. While some of these may be software upgrades, major system upgrades such as the Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) LTE Release 10 revision, that has already been standardized to significantly increase speed and capacity, will require separate new radio equipment and user devices to take advantage of their capabilities. For example, an LTE UE must be a Category 5 UE to support 64QAM on the uplink and 4x4 MIMO on the downlink.

Terminal software upgrades are somewhat easier and can be performed over the air. As an example, in 2014 Apple provided iOS 7 as an over-the-air upgrade to its iOS 6 operating system (OS). iOS 7 OS, which was about 400 MB in size, downloaded over the air and updated the phone very simply. However, it was found to contain some bugs and has been updated multiple times since initial release. Also, its user interface has changed somewhat over the earlier, iOS 6 OS. It is unclear if such user interface and internal changes would be acceptable to public safety terminals. Another example, Microsoft pulled out its Windows Release 8.1 after problems developed with some devices, which it has decided to fix before releasing 8.1 again. Given that even Apple and Microsoft have stumbled over their upgrades, such changes would need to be pushed down by FirstNet after suitable verification of its suitability and after initial problems have been resolved.

182 http://support.verizonwireless.com/clc/features/calling_features/equipment_protection.html 183 Svensson, P. (2012, August 3). AT&T 2G Shutdown To Be Complete In 2017: Get Ready To Upgrade, Huff Post Tech. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/att-2g-shutdown-2017_n_1739175.html

http://support.verizonwireless.com/clc/features/calling_features/equipment_protection.html




• Voice over LTE (VoLTE)

LTE, is by design, an IP based system. It has been designated primarily as a data system by carriers. In order to carry voice traffic, service providers actually use the 3G and 2G parts of their radios, since these are isochronous networks which are designed to carry voice signals. When the signals reach the infrastructure network, they are being carried on isochronous network element, such as time division multiplex (TDM) microwave links.

For LTE commercial carriers, there are four main approaches in handling voice calls on their networks. They are:

• Voice over LTE (VoLTE)

o Requires IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) which is expensive, complex, and requires centralized service platform

o When roaming out of LTE onto 3G “CS” voice, will use Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC)

o Still not deployed nationwide on any commercial carrier, still in “soft launch” in some markets

• Circuit Switch Fallback (CSFB)/Enhanced (eCSFB)

o Does not require IMS

o LTE does not support voice calls (just some signaling to set-up and terminate), voice calls fall back to 2G/3G (CDMA, GSM, UMTS)

• Simultaneous Voice and LTE (SVLTE)

o Requires dual-RF chain UE as voice (2G/3G) and data (LTE) services are handled by two separate networks simultaneously

• Third Party Voice over IP (VoIP)

o Carry the voice packets over the LTE IP air interface and keep them in the IP version of the infrastructure.

o Examples are Skype™, Facetime or Google Voice™ call which are over-the-top (OTT) applications, in other words not implicitly provided by the commercial network provider

First responders have been requesting voice capability over the FirstNet Network. Unlike the carriers, since FirstNet will not be investing in a legacy TDM infrastructure, FirstNet is planning a VoLTE solution for non-mission critical voice communications. However, the exact implementation of voice on an LTE network will depend on what implementation is being used by the commercial LTE provider with which FirstNet partners. In addition, Mission Critical Push-to-talk (MC-PTT) will most likely not be available on LTE for public safety use for another 5+ years and, even then, may not provide the coverage that current LMR voice service does. As



a result, LMR voice networks will most likely be required for the next 10+ years as even FirstNet President TJ Kennedy has stated that “LMR systems should continue to be maintained. They are very valuable to public safety. Maintain the LMR networks you have now and add broadband.” 184

The industry is also working to define what constitutes ruggedized public safety grade smartphones. Therefore, smartphone costs continue to change. At the outset, public safety specific mobile terminals will be much more costly than commercial mass market devices simply due to their small production volume. The additional cost of producing more rugged versions of MDTs is also not known. It must be noted that this ruggedness cannot be simply obtained by enclosing a regular device in a tough external case. They conform to higher standards of protection against the ingress of water, dust, damage from shock, heat, etc. As a highly simplified example, consider the difference between an ordinary laptop and a “Toughbook” class of computer. Hence, a major decision that faces the public safety community is whether it will be more cost effective to buy “throw away” commercial grade equipment wherever possible and to specify a compromise grade of “robust” (as opposed to “rugged”) mobile terminals. These would be built to withstand the mobile (vehicular) environment, yet not cost so much that they could be affordably replaced if they fail in a year or two. They could even be leased from a commercial provider using a contract that includes periodic equipment refresh. If the current LMR market is any indication, several manufacturers who already build less rugged LMR terminals for well under $1,000 could step into the LTE market, increasing competition and further lowering cost for “robust” mobile terminals as well. However, there will continue to be a market for equipment that will not fail in a hostile environment, such as under high ambient temperature conditions. These do not have the option of simple replacement upon failure, since the primary criterion is that they cannot fail while in operational use.

As part of this technology convergence, it is expected that manufacturers could start integrating broadband into their traditional LMR radios, possibly as a plug-in. However, this may also be driven by a lower cost LMR terminal market. Otherwise, merging a 15 year lifespan ruggedized LMR with a two year lifespan smartphone may not make sense unless that module is easily replaceable or upgradeable at low cost. The differences between public safety and commercial grade equipment are summarized in Table B-1 below.185

184 (2016, June 16). Progress Toward a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. Hearing, Energy and Commerce Committee, United States House of Representatives. 185 Note: Includes information from Lum, D. (2011, July 12). Sizing Up PMR Devices, Radio Resource Magazine. Retrieved from http://mccmag.com/onlyonline.cfm?OnlyOnlineID=255

http://mccmag.com/onlyonline.cfm?OnlyOnlineID=255



Table B-1 Comparison of Public Safety LMR and Commercial Grade LTE Equipment

Equipment Characteristic

Public Safety Grade LMR

Public Safety Grade Cell Phones

Commercial Grade Cell Phones

Availability Today Soon, some UEs meet or exceed MIL-spec standards

Today

Cost Portables: $1000s <$1000 $100s

Nominal Useful Life 7 Years 3 Years (per warranties) 1-2 years

Ruggedized Yes, standards exist No standards No. Modest ruggedizing may be accomplished using tougher external cases

Safety in Hazardous environments

Yes, with Intrinsically Safe radios

Some models No

High Power Portables and Mobiles

Available today Power Class 1 (31-33 dBm) defined in standards but not yet commercially available.

None defined in standards

Encryption Strong Encryption is an Available Option 256 bit AES

See Commercial Some encryption available by design. End-to-End encryption provided separately. 128 bit AES, moving to 256 bit AES in 3GPP Release 12

Direct Mode Yes NA Not yet released in Standards, to be finished in 3GPP release 13

Loudspeakers High powered audio Lower powered audio Low powered audio

Usability with Heavy Gloves

Yes Special versions No

Interoperability Protocol standardization is far advanced. Multiband radios available at additional cost.

Yes Standardized. Routinely cover multiple bands and protocols.

IP Capability No Yes, built in. Yes, built in

VoIP P25 is a VoIP protocol Yes in smart phones with SkypeTM, etc.

Yes, in smart phones with SkypeTM, etc

Voice Over LTE (VoLTE)

NA See Commercial ”Soft launches with network techs” but still no nationwide deployment

In summary, evaluating equipment and making broadband UE purchases for public safety requires both a different set of criteria and a different way of thinking about these devices than in the past.


See disclaimer on title page C-1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX C - PSBN Numbering & Operational Implications The association of the device information, the network information, and the subscriber is a key element of provisioning a user device, and has to be performed for every device that is permitted to use the network. In commercial systems, this provisioning process is started at the retail store upon purchase of a cellphone. The same operation needs to be performed in FirstNet, both for user devices and for network equipment.

Driven by the LTE 3GPP standard, a foundational element of the PSBN will be the establishment of a consistent numbering scheme. The PSBN is uniquely identified by its Public Land Mobile Network Identifier (PLMN ID), which was assigned by ATIS:INC (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions: Industry Numbering Committee). The PSBN PLMN ID is 313-100, and is made up of the Mobile Country Code (MCC) of 313, and the Mobile Network Code (MNC) of 100. Hence all sub-networks of the PSBN would carry the same PLMN ID. This ID is incorporated into several other key System Identifiers which are used to provision the various elements of the individual EPCs and RAN. It would also be used in the programming of USIM cards which are used to identify and personalize the UE associated with the PSBN. The makeup of the PSBN PLMN ID is shown in Figure C-1 and is described in detail in an earlier PSBN numbering document.186

Figure C-1 Public Land Mobile Network Identifier (PLMN ID) = 313-100

• Mobile Subscriber Identity Number (MSIN)

Each user device has certain built-in device-specific numbers such as its unique Mobile Equipment Identifier (MEID) and its Media Access Controller (MAC) address. Additionally, every UE is assigned a Mobile Subscriber Identity Number (MSIN) for networking purposes. When the MSIN is joined to the PLMN ID it creates the globally unique IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) which identifies each device uniquely to all networks. See Figure C-2.

186 SAIC (2012, May 2). Numbering Scheme Document for Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) National Network Identifiers. Prepared for Public Safety Spectrum Trust Operator Advisory Committee.



Figure C-2 International Mobile Subscriber Identity

In the original numbering document, contiguous allocations of the MSIN are given to groups of recipients for more efficient handling by the network by the network numbering authority. In the present network numbering scheme MSINs are issued in blocks of 50,000. Hence, the numbering authority could give initial allocations to 50,000 to each agency with reserved buffers on both sides. More blocks can be allocated as these are used up. This would be performed separately with each agency or small group of agencies and not given as a large block to the state, in order to maximize the limited resources of IDs. FirstNet may adopt or modify this approach to suit the overall buildout.

A unique IMSI is assigned to each UE within a network through a SIM card. When the card is inserted into the device, the device is identifiable on its home and visited networks. Note that even if firefighters travel from Oregon to another state to provide assistance, they will most likely still be in the same network, perhaps operating in a different sub network of the larger NPSBN, unless they roam onto a commercial network in the visited area. The SIM card also carries additional information to permit communication on the network. Hence an operational part of provisioning user equipment is to scan the device-specific information such as its MEID and MAC address into the subscriber information database and then scan the information regarding the SIM Card that will be inserted into that device. Several elements of the subscriber and device information reside in the Home Subscriber Server (HSS).

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) funded the initial definition as described in the PSBN numbering document,187 with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) selected as the PLMN ID Numbering Administrator. 188 However, with the formation of FirstNet, the OEC has turned over this activity to FirstNet and FirstNet now owns the numbering allocation. SAIC is supporting the FirstNet project management office (PMO) as the administrator and holds the responsibilities for allocation, assignment and maintenance of the Numbering Assignment tool and data base.

187 SAIC (2012, May 2). Numbering Scheme Document for Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) National Network Identifiers. Prepared for Public Safety Spectrum Trust Operator Advisory Committee. 188 FCC (2012, March 16). Order DA 12-423.



The final FirstNet numbering scheme is pending final network design, operations, provisioning, and contracts to be worked out with the NPSBN contractor to be selected. However, “early builder” public safety LTE deployments, including Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) grantees, such as LA-RICs and Adams County, CO had immediate needs for IMSI numbers for USIMs and identifiers for RAN and EPC equipment. As a result, FirstNet plans to have BTOPs operate within the existing numbering scheme. Initial numbering assignments had already been provided to Harris County, TX and Charlotte, NC in April 2012. In May 2014, numbering assignments were provided to LA RICS and Adams County, CO.

• Access Point Names (APN)

PSBN devices are essentially IP terminals. Hence their value to public safety users is based on the applications that are run on them. In the commercial LTE network, these apps are small segments of code (or thin clients) that are linked to software applications hosted in servers in the jurisdiction’s IT Packet Data Network (PDN), and are connected via secure application gateways within those networks. The application gateways are identified by their Access Point Name (APN), enabling application servers to be found by the network when a connection is requested by an app on a user’s device.

However, public safety agency IT networks and the applications that are run on these networks may be different or incompatible, even within the same agency types. Hence the database query on a license plate or a driver’s license performed by the county sheriff and the police department in a city in that county could be linked to different networks, databases, and back-end applications.189 This can cause difficulties, since the number of such APNs that can be supported by the UE at any given time is limited in present LTE implementations. The standard operating procedures in these agencies could also be very different, and this may be reflected in their applications. Hence, unless care is taken, each agency’s UE would need to be loaded with applications that are specific to its agency with different APNs.

It is assumed that FirstNet will define national APNs that will be standardized across the nationwide network. These may include APNs for the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), future mission critical voice services (MCS), and others. Today, a handful of APNs are similarly defined in commercial networks, for example, for IMS.

As mentioned previously, the FCC chartered SAIC as the Public Safety Broadband Numbering Administrator. The Administrator worked with the early builders, as represented in the Operators Advisory Committee (OAC), to define a network ID numbering scheme including a naming convention for local APNs. However, local APNs, in themselves, have not been standardized. Also, as indicated before, APNs point to specific PDNs to which they are bound. This could be a potential problem for first responders who have come from a different part of the country to help

189 Hence a person ticketed by one agency may be stopped again by another, without the officer knowing about the previous ticket.



in a major disaster, for example, since their local APNs may not be relevant in the visited area or connect to the visited sub-network. A non-standardized push-to-talk (PTT) capability from one state may be incompatible with the PTT application in the visited state, and may also be bound to their home network. These are matters which are being researched by FirstNet. Once resolved, they will affect the operational details of the FirstNet Network.


See disclaimer on title page D-1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX D - Alternative Network Architectures Advances in telecommunications technology have created opportunities for implementing alternative architectures for the FirstNet LTE network with the potential to increase coverage and reliability while reducing cost. This appendix highlights a number of emerging technology choices becoming available from the industry.

• Network Design Considerations

For simplicity, a notional FirstNet LTE architecture was depicted in Section 6.2. Systems Description, consisting of a central core and peripheral elements. In practice, even commercial service provider networks are partitioned with three or four regional cores for reliability yet perform as one system. This is a critical design requirement for FirstNet, since there is always a possibility that connection to a central core network could be disrupted in a major emergency.

Service/Packet Gateways (S/PGW) are used to keep local traffic within a local region, while only sending control and non-local traffic to the central core for switching. Strategic deployment of these network elements reduces backhaul traffic to the core considerably; while noting that there may still remain significant traffic backhaul to the S/PGW that could affect the overall size of the backhaul network. FirstNet will also need to consider the size of Tracking Areas (TAs) and placement of Mobility Management Entities (MMEs). Although a large TA (e.g., 1,000 eNodeBs) requires a lot of paging, if TAs are made too small (e.g., 10s of eNodeBs) then public safety users may be re-registering too often with the network. MME quantities can change pending backhaul topology and costs, use of MME pooling, collocation with SGW and PGW, environmental costs, and specific use cases to determine signaling load due to paging volume. FirstNet may use distributed “pools” of at least two MMEs per pool throughout the United States. This will allow MME pooling and for each eNodeB to be connected to at least two (2) MMEs for redundancy in case one MME were to fail. In addition, MME placement must also ensure reasonable latency (~ 50 ms) between each eNodeB and MME. However, ultimately the majority of the EPC topology will be determined pending awards resulting from the Comprehensive Network RFP process.

• Small Cells

Small cell eNodeBs are typically used to increase capacity in a traffic “hotspot”, in an urban or dense urban area, or improve indoor coverage (as part of a Distributed Antenna System) when macrocell coverage is weak. Small cells types can be of various sizes (e.g., microcell, picocell, or femtocell/Home eNodeB) for specific coverage areas. These cells can also be indoor or outdoor and fixed or deployable (for temporary coverage and capacity). Note that deployable eNodeBs are discussed in a later section of this appendix. Heterogeneous Networks (Het-Nets) are being deployed by LTE commercial carriers comprised of macrocells and small cells with UEs being served by the cell type with the lowest path loss to the UE and providing the most optimal Signal to Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR). Small cells are typically used as an “underlay” or “in-fill” to provide coverage and capacity where the macrocell “overlay”/umbrella LTE sites cannot.



Typically small cells will operate in a higher frequency band (e.g., 2.5 GHz) as they cover a smaller area and must deliver higher capacity than macrocells (e.g., operating in 700 MHz) which cover a much wider area. In fact, some LTE commercial carriers are investigating placing all their signaling traffic onto macrocells and placing user traffic/data exclusively on small cells in urban areas.

In most deployment scenarios, small coverage areas are limited to less than one mile, operate at a lower power transmit power (e.g., 5 Watts), serve less users (e.g., ~100 users) and may also incorporate a Wi-Fi module for added capacity when unlicensed spectrum is not as congested. Most LTE commercial carriers are planning and deploying for widespread implementation of small cells to keep up with consumer demand for wireless data in urban areas. LTE equipment vendor Nokia has been very aggressive in supplying small cells solutions to commercial carriers and has stated that 5% of dense urban site penetration for public safety will be covered by small cells.190

Figure D-1 below illustrates the potential public safety use cases for small cells.

Deployables

Macrocell Outdoor Coverage

Macrocell Outdoor Coverage

Urban Outdoor Capacity Fill-in

Indoor Coverage Extension (w/DAS)

Figure D-1 Potential Use Cases for Small Cells

Although small cells can increase capacity in a given coverage area when macrocells have exhausted their capacity, small cells have some implementation issues which industry is working to solve. Handover between macrocells and small cells is not as accurate or flexible between macrocells. In addition, as cells become smaller and closer to the ground, interference from in-band macrocell sites and macrocell sites in adjacent bands (e.g., Bands 13 and 14 and the P25 band) become more problematic and reduce SINR at the UE. Further, due to the smaller and less sturdy mounting structures (such as light poles), closer inter-cell spacing, and sheer number of small cells, backhaul and power availability becomes more challenging. Fiber may not be available or too expensive to run to small cells mounting structures. Further, small cell structures may not have the space or handle the wind loading (to maintain 3 dB beamwidth for alignment) to mount microwave antennas. In addition, line-of-sight (LoS) may not be possible in dense urban areas between small cells or to aggregate traffic up to a macrocell, therefore non-LOS

190 Nokia (2014, June 5). Small Cell for Public Safety Presentation. p. 9. Presented at June 2014 PSCR Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Conference.



(NLOS) technologies may have to be investigated. Higher frequency bands (e.g., millimeter wave 70-90 GHz) can be used as a potential microwave backhaul band for small cells, however, links at higher frequencies are much more susceptible to obstructions in the environment and need to maintain “pencil width” alignment which is difficult on less than sturdy structures in urban areas. Timing is also an issue when there is no direct backhaul source to the small cell and dedicated timing sources are expensive if satellite GPS signals are unavailable. Further, as small cells are mounted on smaller, less robust structures they are subject to tampering, theft, vandalism and other physical and network security issues.

Interoperability and network management across a Het-Net among multiple cell types and supplementary access technologies (e.g., Wi-Fi) is also challenging in order to maintain a seamless QoS and Quality of Experience (QoE) for the user. However, for public safety, maintaining this seamless QoS/QoE is mandatory in life threatening situations. Further, small cell discovery (for the UE to find the small cell and offload traffic) is more difficult across different frequency bands and can significantly reduce battery life.

However, due to the growing demand for small cells deployments to meet consumer capacity demands, 3GPP exploring solutions for several small cell issues. These include increasing modulation up to 256QAM and reducing overhead for small cells to increase user throughput. They are investigating an on/off feature to conserve power and mitigate interference when co-channel with macrocells (e.g., under coverage of macro) and the effect on the UE’s ability to discover small cells. 3GPP is also looking into having the UE split connectivity of control and user planes between macro (signaling) and small cell (user data offload) or just splitting the user plane (data) between macro and small cells.

Small cell deployments will be a major part of both commercial and public safety LTE networks in the years to come. Carriers will need to in-fill their initial outdoor LTE capacity and coverage rollouts, provide better in-building coverage and capacity, and provide tactical, temporary coverage and capacity within their existing RAN and in remote areas outside of their fixed, terrestrial LTE RAN.

• FirstNet Research Activities

Important design aspects of the FirstNet network are to serve rural areas with deployable equipment and provide hotspots at incident scenes where there could be traffic congestion and hence overload of a local cell, or as replacement cells should some be damaged. Information on coverage into buildings with Self-Organizing Networks (SONs) was requested. Vehicular cells in patrol cars and fire-engines have also been discussed. FirstNet has begun using the term Vehicular Network System (VNS) for this approach. Airborne deployables for disaster relief is another topic of interest.191 FirstNet incorporated all these scenarios in the Deployables RFI, one

191 Devasirvatham, D., Neel, J., Tompsett, C., Link, K. (2013). 3 Layers of Communications Recovery. Mission Critical Communications. pp. 62-65.



of the 17 information requests.192 An RFI regarding the EPC was also issued193 as well one for backhaul.194 For a complete list of FirstNet RFIs see footnote.195

• Alternative EPC Implementations

A key concern of first responders is that communications should continue to function even if the connection to the central core is damaged. It is unclear at this time as to how FirstNet would assure of some ongoing service if the link to the core is severed. Meanwhile, manufacturers have come up with an innovative alternative. This is a composite eNodeB that contains not only the radio equipment, but also a mini EPC integrated into it. Loading the user database in its HSS enables it to function as a standalone LTE Evolved Packet System (EPS) node.

Further, EPCs that could serve smaller networks have come on the market. These smaller EPCs could be linked together to form a system-of-systems if needed. Completely portable examples of these have been shown by several vendors since the August 2013 APCO conference exhibition. For example, the entire core unit and one associated eNodeB were built into the back of a sports utility vehicle for use at an incident scene, making it a self-contained LTE system. Combined EPC/eNodeB implementations in trailers, or in single 19-inch rack configurations have been shown by companies such as Thales, Harris, General Dynamics, and others.

Smaller companies such as Lemko and Oceus Networks have unveiled implementations of compact solutions which could be easily air-lifted and dropped into incident scenes. Oceus (www.oceusnetworks.com) has conducted a trial with the PSCR of a balloon-flown LTE/eNodeB, in collaboration with Space Data, (www.spacedata.net).196 Lemko (www.lemko.com) has shown a man-pack version that could be carried into buildings and even connect to other man-packs in a Self-Organizing Network (SON) to form a movable “swarm” network to which regular UE would connect as if connecting to any other fixed LTE network. A connected swarm could extend coverage deep inside buildings where external eNodeBs could not penetrate or maintain local service if the external network is damaged. Similar low-cost integrated solutions could be applicable to rural networks. Versions of these have already been deployed for military communications; e.g., for platoons on the move,197 in forward positions, or

192 FirstNet (2013, July 10). Deployables RFI https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=60cfdeb95699be5a43d48132431cb7fb&tab=core&_cview=0 193 FirstNet (2013, July 10). EPC RFI https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=87b3e1e1758e8c5c9e9485b0c68f4300&tab=core&_cview=0 194 FirstNet (2013, July 10). Microwave Backhaul Equipment RFI https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7ed9d4feefe9fd0c6d47f3b6d4ef80c8&tab=core&_cview=0 195 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-issues-rfis-technology-nationwide-wireless-broadband-network 196 http://www.oceusnetworks.com/oceus-networks-flies-deployable-lte-solution-clouds-support-public-safety/ 197 www.oceusnetworks.com


http://www.spacedata.net/














in disaster recovery communications; e.g., with China’s equivalent of FEMA.198 Presently, efforts are also under way to standardize at least a single hop of mobile ad hoc networking (MANET) in 3GPP under the name ProSe, or “Proximity Services”.

Figure D-2 illustrates these alternative architecture approaches.

Figure D-2 Emerging Alternative LTE Architecture Approaches

FirstNet has stated that it is prohibited by congressional mandate from building separate statewide networks and then connecting them together to form a nationwide network.199 This limitation probably stems from earlier congressional perceptions of failed attempts to improve LMR interoperability after 9/11 by connecting different LMR systems together. While its origin may be political, the restriction’s technological impact is significant, even with a well-standardized system such as LTE. Therefore, a FirstNet decision to include self-contained multi-core and mini-core systems, while still maintaining a theme of a “national core network”, could prove key to providing robust network service to first responders, especially in remote and challenging terrains.

198 www.lemko.com 199 (2013, August) Comments of FirstNet General Manager Bill D’Agostino at APCO 2013.



See disclaimer on title page E-1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX E - Oregon BTOP Grant Application Summary This appendix contains a high level summary of the information proposed in Oregon’s BTOP public safety broadband network grant application. This information can be used as a rough baseline to compare incoming FirstNet data collection information for consistency and reasonableness. It can also be used to pre-populate financial models in advance of receiving FirstNet offer details.

From the BTOP grant application:

The OPSBN will be distributed throughout the State of Oregon, with some overlapping coverage in the neighboring states of California, Idaho, Nevada, and Washington. Last-mile services will cover approximately 40% of the State’s land area and more than 85% of the population. 531 public safety community anchor agencies are included in the project area and the OPSBN will be constructed using four types of locations:

• 225 existing OWIN radio sites will be upgraded with LTE equipment. These sites will use the existing OWIN microwave and/or fiber optic cable backhaul.

• 27 green-field sites will be constructed and will use fiber and, where necessary, short haul microwave for backhaul.

• 86 sites will be collocated on existing commercial cellular sites, and will lease additional commercial backhaul to ensure adequate capacity to manage disaster situations.

• 50 micro-cell sites will be constructed in highway rights of way. These will be linked with fiber and/or microwave as is most appropriate and cost effective.

State public safety users are estimated at 15,000 within 3 years of project start, with an additional 10,000 federal, tribal, and local users expected within the first 5 years. Oregon does intend to partner with one or more commercial entities to develop, operate and maintain the OPSBN system, but these partners will not be identified until the completion of an RFP process.

In addition to the network size assumptions made by the State of Oregon there are additional Capital expense (Capex) assumptions that are provided by the FCC:

• Cell sites in rural America are treated as a blended build of new sites on existing structures and new sites.

• $95,000 blended average per site Capex for adding public safety broadband to commercial LTE cell site.

• $35,000 hardening per site for commercial LTE sites.

• $216,000 average per site Capex for adding public safety broadband to existing sites in most rural areas, including $75,000 per site for hardening.


See disclaimer on title page E-2 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

• $363,000 average per site Capex for public safety broadband new sites in the most rural areas, including $75,000 per site for hardening.

• Priority wireless service on commercial networks, deployable and in-building supplementation provides for capacity surges, more extensive coverage and more resiliency, thus lowering site requirements on the core network.

Using the estimated network size and required Capex the project costs are estimated to be $214,285,714 with the State of Oregon is providing a 30% cash match of $64,285,714 to the BTOP application request of $150,000,000.


See disclaimer on title page F-1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX F - Stakeholder Education and Outreach Events Oregon began a preliminary campaign to build stakeholder awareness for FirstNet in the fall of 2013, coordinating and conducting outreach presentations at state, local and tribal conferences and events. In 2014, under the NTIA SLIGP education and outreach program, Oregon’s outreach efforts focused on “whistle stop” drop-in visits at stakeholder locations across Oregon for face-to-face interactions and conversations about FirstNet. Outreach continued in 2015, including a series of summer workshops focused on data collection to solicit stakeholder feedback on network coverage objectives, user and operational areas, and device and application usage as input to FirstNet regarding the NPSBN needs of Oregon’s public safety community.

In addition to recurring State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC) and Oregon Broadband Advisory Committee (OBAC) meetings, the following is a listing of locations, conferences, events, and stakeholders that have been visited as part of Oregon’s FirstNet education and awareness outreach activities.

• Oregon Chiefs and Sheriffs Conference 2013 • Oregon CJIS Users Workshop 2013 • Klickitat-Skamania Local Technology Planning Team Meeting • Tri-County Communications • Umatilla County Sheriff's Office • Baker County Library • Clackamas Leadership Meeting • Portland Leadership Meeting • Warm Springs Tribal Administration Building • APCO Conference • Bend Broadband Vault • Oregon Connections Meeting 2013 • Siuslaw Valley Fire and Rescue • Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon • Douglas Forest Protective Association • Warm Springs Tribal Cluster • Yamhill Communications (YCOM) Advisory Council Meeting • Hillsboro City Center Civic Auditorium • Warrior Hall, Camp Rilea • Eugene Fire Training Building • Salem Main Library Loucks Auditorium • Salem Public Safety Cluster • Portland Dispatch Center Consortium (PDCC) • Umatilla Morrow Radio and Data District (UMRDD) Director's Meeting • Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)



• Jackson County Sheriff’s Office • Klamath Emergency Communications District General Meeting • Hines Police Department • Burns Paiute Gathering Center • Harney County Sheriff’s Office • USFS District Ranger Office • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • Burns District Ranger Office • Burns Law Enforcement Office • Burns Interagency Communications Center • Malheur County Sheriff’s Office • Ontario Police, Fire, and 9-1-1 PSAP • Lakeview Police, Fire, and 9-1-1 Center • Lake County Sheriff’s Office • OSP Field Sergeant • Oregon APCO Conference, SPOC Presentation • Oregon SCIP and Broadband Annex Update • Oregon FirstNet Coverage Workshop, Major Projects Branch • FEMA Communications Plan Discussion/SIEC • Oregon Economic Tribal Cluster • Oregon Broadband Advisory Council • Oregon Governor's Office • Medford Regional Public Safety Law Discussion, Jackson County Sheriff's Office • Oregon Emergency Preparedness Workshop • Portland Merchants Exchange • Columbia River Bar Pilots • Clatsop County Commission Chair, County Manager, Emergency Manager • Brookings Police Interim Chief and 9-1-1 Manager • Brookings Fire District Chief • Port Orford Police • Curry County Sheriff’s Office • USFS Rogue River District Head Ranger • Gold Beach Police • Oregon National Guard, Camp Rilea • USCG Columbia Sector Commander • Port of Astoria • Astoria Fire Chief and Communications Lieutenant • Bandon Police



• Bandon Rural Fire and Rescue District Fire Chief • Coquille Police Chief • Coquille Fire and Rescue Chief • Coos County Sheriff, 9-1-1 Manager and Deputy Manager • Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI) • Coos Bay Police Chief • Coos Bay Fire Chief and Battalion Chief • Tillamook County Commission, County Administrator, and Emergency Manager • Tillamook County Sheriff • Tillamook City Police • Tillamook City Fire • Near Space Corporation (NSC) • Tillamook Lightwave • Reedsport Police • Reedsport Fire and Rescue Chief, Captain and Permit Officer • Florence Police Interim Chief, 9-1-1 Manager and Administrator • Siuslaw Valley Fire and Rescue Chief • Depoe Bay Fire Department • Lincoln County Commission, Sheriff's Communications Lieutenant, Emergency Manager • Coast Communications • Newport City Fire Department • Port of Newport • Oregon State University (OSU) Marine Superintendent • Sweet Home Police • Sweet Home Fire and Ambulance District Chief and Battalion Chief • Scio Fire and Rescue • Lebanon Police • Lebanon Fire • Stayton Police • Stayton Fire • Philomath Fire and Rescue Chief and EMS Officer • Philomath Police • Coburg Fire District • Silverton Fire Department • Silverton Police Department • Keizer Fire • Marion County Emergency Management Meeting • Marion County Fire District



• Marion County Health • Marion County Sheriff's Office • Marion County Public Works • Turner Police • Joint Meeting of the Oregon Telecommunications Association (OTA) and Washington

Independent Telecommunications Association (WITA) 2014 • Cottage Grove Fire • Cottage Grove Police and 9-1-1 • Creswell Fire Protection • Springfield Police • Springfield Fire • South Lane County Fire and Rescue • Walterville Law Enforcement • Veneta Law Enforcement • Dexter Law Enforcement • Dorena Law Enforcement • Eugene Police • Eugene Fire • Corvallis Police • Corvallis Fire • Corvallis Public Works • Hood River School District • Eastern Oregon Telecom • Hermiston Fire Station • Hermiston Police Station • Eastern Oregon Net, Inc. • Enterprise Sheriff's Office • Wallowa County Emergency Manager • La Grande Emergency Manager • La Grande Sheriff’s Office • Columbia County Emergency Operations Center • Columbia County Sheriff's Office • Columbia River Fire and Rescue • Medford Police • Medford Fire • Ashland Police • Ashland Fire • Talent Police



• White City Police • Grants Pass Police • Grants Pass Fire • Josephine County Sheriff • Josephine County PSAP • Josephine County Search and Rescue • Josephine County Emergency Manager • Winston Law Enforcement • Cave Junction Law Enforcement • Selma Law Enforcement • Selma Fire • Merlin Law Enforcement • Murphy Law Enforcement • Murphy Fire • Jackson County Fire District 3 • Jackson County Fire District 5 • White City Fire • Eagle Point Fire • Gold Hill Fire • Sams Valley Chief • Dodge Bridge Chief • Agate Lake Chief • Central Point Fire • Douglas County Fire District 2 • Sutherlin Police • Oakland Police • Myrtle Creek Fire • Myrtle Creek Police • Port of St. Helens • Chair of St. Helens Port Commission • Port Westward • Oregon Association of Government Information Technology Management (OAGITM)

Meeting 2014 • CJIS Statewide Training Event 2014 • Oregon Public Ports Association (OPPA) Conference 2014 • Oregon CJIS Users Workshop and Security Summit 2014 • Washington Initial FirstNet Consultation Meeting • Oregon Connections Meeting 2014



• Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) Winter Convention 2015 • Columbia Gorge Broadband Meeting • Bi-State Mid-Columbia Gorge Regional Outreach Session • OregonPrepared 2015 Emergency Management Workshop • Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) Mid-Year Convention 2015 • Deschutes County 911 Service District • Baker County Library • Umatilla County Sheriff’s Office • Washington OneNet Draft RFP Review Working Session • Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) Command Center • Salem Public Library • Eugene Fire Department • Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon • Coos Bay City Council Chambers, Coos Bay City Hall • Oregon Coast Community College • Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) Tribal Energy, Technology, & Economic

Development Summit • Northwest Tribal Emergency Management Council (NWTEMC) National Tribal

Emergency Management Conference • 2015 Radio Activities, Discussions, Interoperability in Oregon (RADIO) Conference • Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) Fall Convention 2015 • Oregon Emergency Management Association – Washington State Emergency

Management Association (OEMA-WSEMA) Joint Conference • Oregon Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Users Workshop 2015 • Oregon Connections Meeting 2015 • Gorge Regional Broadband Meeting • International Technical Rescue Symposium (ITRS) 2015 • ATNI Technology Committee Worksession


See disclaimer on title page G-1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX G - Quality of Service, Preemption, and Priority for Public Safety There are many mechanisms available in LTE to provide Quality of Service (QoS), preemption and priority (QPP) capabilities to public safety users on public and private LTE networks during times of heavy network congestion. These mechanisms will become critical to public safety assuming FirstNet negotiates spectrum and infrastructure sharing deals with LTE commercial carriers and leases capacity to other entities such as content providers and utilities. Some of the mechanisms for QPP that FirstNet is investigating are as follows:

• QoS Class Identifier (QCI)

For public safety, QoS will be required at each network element or there is a risk of packet loss. A QCI is used at network elements (e.g., eNB, SGW, PGW) to define bearer-level packet forwarding based on the following:

• Resource Type – Whether a data traffic bearer will use dedicated resources (for real time services) or be treated as “best effort”

• Priority – Scheduling priority of bearer vs. other bearers

• Packet Delay Budget – Maximum packet delay between UE and PGW

• Packet Error Loss Rate – Maximum packet error loss rate in network when network not congested

QCI information is contained in QoS profile in the user (e.g., subscriber) information in the HSS. The PCRF instructs PGW to set-up a data bearer with QCI values. 3GPP specifies QCI values 1 through 9, however QCI values can be customized for specific public safety applications.

• Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP)

The ARP parameter determines the admission and preemption priority of a bearer which is very important during network congestion. As with the QCI, the ARP information is contained in the QoS profile in the user information in the HSS and the PCRF instructs the PGW to set-up a bearer with ARP (and QCI) values. The ARP parameter contains the priority level, the preemption capability, and the preemption vulnerability of the user. The priority level defines the relative importance of a resource request, with ARP priority levels ranging from 1 to 15 with 1 being the highest priority. Preemption capability and preemption vulnerability are set to either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. For each bearer establishment, re-establishment, and i (HO) request, the eNodeB will check resources and use ARP to deny or pre-empt if there are not enough resources at the eNode B (e.g., during times of congestion). QCI and ARP can help the network to control and prioritize the use of resources for public safety users. Note that when roaming to another LTE network (visiting), QCI and ARP will be passed from the home HSS to the visited MME; however, the visited MME can reject this request per roaming agreements. Further, the FCC



cannot, under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, mandate ruthless preemption, although the act does not preclude contractual negotiations that would allow it.200 However, some commercial LTE carriers will most likely express concern about Public safety users roaming from FirstNet onto their commercial networks and pre-empting default bearers and Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR) bearers (for real-time services such as VoLTE).

• Access Class Barring (ACB)

QCI and ARP help the network to control use of resources once a UE has accessed the network. ACB is used to (indirectly) prioritize a set of users, by barring access (which is contention based) of other users to the LTE air interface between the UE and eNodeB. ACB is only applicable to originations (not terminations) and is performed by making use of the Access Class (AC) stored in the Universal Subscriber Identity Module (USIM) and by the eNodeB broadcasting ACB parameters to all UEs in its coverage area. ACB is mostly used by cell technicians when adding a new cell site or during high congestion events when access signaling channels exceed some threshold (e.g., utilization > 75%) to avoid overloading the eNodeB site. The 3GPP defines the 16 ACs as follows:201

0 – 9: public users

10: emergency calls (911)

11, 15: network operations (cell technicians)

12: security services (police)

13: utilities (water, gas)

14: emergency services (fire, EMT)

During a congestion event the eNodeB will broadcast out to UEs the following parameters, telling UEs what to do based on their AC in their USIM:

ac-BarringFactor = 95%, 90%, ….0 % for AC 0-9

ac-BarringTime = value in seconds for AC 0-9

ac-BarringForEmergency = “not” (can be set to barring) for AC 10

ac-BarringForSpecialAC = “not” (can be set to barring) for AC 11-15

For AC 0-9 (e.g., public users), the UE must generate a random number less than the ac-BarringFactor being broadcast by the eNodeB during the current ac-BarringTime prior to being allowed access on the air interface. Users will be “pushed out in time” during attempts in which

200 Moore, L. K. (2014 March 12). The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress. p. 21. 201 3GPP (2014 June). 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 22.011 V13.0.0, Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Service accessibility (Release 13). p. 16.



the random number is greater than the ac-BarringFactor, which will become more difficult as the ac-BarringFactor decreases during times of high congestion until ACB is able to bring the access channel utilization down below its designed threshold (e.g., 75%). Further, the UE is only allowed one chance to generate a random number less than the ac-BarringFactor during each ac-BarringTime interval (e.g., 30 seconds).

However, for Public safety users with AC 12-14, they will be exempt from ACB and be able to immediately access the air interface to originate a data session request with the eNodeB. It is also anticipated that emergency calls, using AC 10, will also be exempt from ACB.

For timely and effective use of ACB during unplanned events, FirstNet will need to work with LTE vendors to ensure that ACB is automatic and dynamic (based on some threshold criteria such as access channel utilization) and does not need to be manually engaged on an eNodeB by Network Operations personnel. By the time ACB is manually triggered at an eNodeB, the eNodeB will already be in severe overload which automatic ACB is meant to prevent.

• Establishment Clause

A Public safety user, with AC 12-14, will be exempt from ACB (assuming congestion) and will be allowed to send one of 64 preambles on the access signaling channel to the eNodeB at increasing power until “heard” by eNodeB. The eNodeB “hears” the preamble and sends back to the UE a Random Access Response including a grant for the next uplink (UL) transmission from the UE. The Public safety user will then send a connection request (for control channel resources) which includes an Establishment Cause marked using the “highPriorityAccess” value (indicating the request is from an AC 12-14 UE). This allows the Public safety user to win any contention resolution with other UEs (e.g., public users) seeking control channel resources and allows for the MME to provide priority handling for this initial UE message/request from the Public safety user.

There are other QoS and priority mechanisms currently under investigation by FirstNet and the Public safety Research Communications (PSCR) program such as Multimedia Priority Service (MPS), paging priority, advance priority, and overload exemption messaging in the EPC. However, some of these parameters and mechanisms are still being specified in the 3GPP standards or are not yet available in LTE vendor equipment.

• Putting it All Together – FirstNet QPP Framework

FirstNet engineers have been working with PSAC representatives to establish a FirstNet QPP Framework. The Framework applies the parameters mentioned above during network operations and is designed to handle “most [public safety] use cases.” 202 In the QPP Framework, the FirstNet network is always in one of three states:

• Static 202 Kassa, B. (2015, June 1). Panel discussion during Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Meeting.



• Dynamic • Controlled

Static is the usual state of the network, i.e., 70-90% of the time. Whereas the network is managed “automatically” in the Static and Dynamic states, the Controlled state is rare and is when manual intervention takes place. Regarding users within the Framework, Covered Lease Agreement (CLA) users can be in three states:

• Free Range • Restricted • Pre-empted

Finally, there are three Emergency/Non-Emergency user states:

• Imminent (immediate) Peril • Responder Emergency (man down) • Relayed User (e.g., for proximity services, in-vehicle router)

Putting it all together, the Framework will enable Operational Profiles to be developed and stored, to be used to manage the network as it moves between states. For example, a fire service agency might have ten stored profiles, ranging from “In Station” to “Single Family Structure Fire” to “Wildland Fire.” These would be activated in a number of ways, say, as a default “In Station” during a Static (normal) network state to a manually set “Wildland Fire” during a major rural fire incident. Figure G-1 illustrates how the many elements of the QPP Framework work together to manage the network.



Figure G-1 PSAC and FirstNet have developed a QPP Framework for Managing the NPSBN203

203 Kassa, B. (2015, June 1). FirstNet Quality of Service, Priority and Preemption (QPP) Framework. p.12.


See disclaimer on title page H-1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX H - Public Safety LTE Standards Progress This appendix discusses the continued evolution of the LTE as an international standard, emerging features being developed for public safety, and progress towards defining 5G capabilities.

3GPP is the standards body responsible for the LTE standard. Work on LTE began at 3GPP in 2004, with an official LTE work item started in 2006 and a completed 3GPP Release 8 specification for “Initial LTE” in March 2009. Initial commercial deployments of LTE began in late 2009. Standards development for LTE continued with 3GPP Release 9 (Rel-9) for “LTE Enhancements” which was functionally frozen in March 2010. 3GPP Release 10 or “LTE-Advanced” was functionally frozen in standards in September 2011 and is the first release of LTE meeting the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) definition of 4G including a mandate for sustained data rates of 100Mbps for mobile connections and 1Gbps for fixed connections. LTE-Advanced meets these data rates by aggregating up to five (5) 20 MHz carriers for a total bandwidth of 100 MHz. It is expected that all the four major carriers – AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint – will deploy LTE-Advanced based on 3GPP Release 10 standards in 2014.204 However, there has been no specific functionality or features for public safety in the 3GPP releases deployed thus far. Fortunately, that begins to change with 3GPP releases 11, 12 and 13. However, product availability of features usually doesn’t appear until at least one year after the feature has undergone a “final freeze” in standards205 and deployment of the feature can take even longer, from 2-3 years.

In Release 11, a work item was created for 3GPP to study the radio requirements for a high power UE for use by public safety use in Region 2.206 Prior to this work item, commercial LTE UEs had only one power class, Power Class 3, limiting UEs to a maximum transmit power of 23 dBm. A power class, Power Class 1, was specified for a high power UE for use in Band 14 with a maximum transmit power of 31 dBm (with a tolerance of +2/-3 dBm) allowing for greater coverage and throughput for public safety – especially in rural areas for increasing per user uplink coverage and throughput. However, high power UEs may not be as beneficial in urban and suburban areas where traffic loading is higher due to increase interference between UEs. A power Class 1 UE for use in Band 14 is specified in 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 36.101 V12.4.0.

In Release 12, with standards functionally frozen in March 2015, 3GPP began work on two very important features for public safety – Proximity Services (ProSe) and Group Communication System Enablers for LTE (GCSE_LTE). ProSe allows for UE to UE direct communication in 204 4G Americas (2014, February). 4G Mobile Broadband Evolution: 3GPP Release 11 & Release 12 and Beyond. p. 29. 205 PSCR (2014, June 5). Standards Development & Requirements Gathering Presentation at Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Conference. p. 10. 206 3GPP (2012, December). 3GPP Technical Report (TR) 36.837 V11.0.0, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Public safety broadband high power User Equipment (UE) for band 14 (Release 11).



absence of network coverage (e.g., backhaul failure or eNodeB off-line) or to reduce load on the network. ProSe includes the following features which are illustrated in Figure H-1 below:

• Proximate Discovery to allow identification of UEs in proximity of each other. This feature will be “always on” but will not drain the UE battery and will be on a per UE basis or per application basis. Procedures, access authorization, identities allocation, and security issues are currently under study by 3GPP.

• Direct Communication (Direct Mode) to allow direction communication between UEs.

• Relaying allowing for UEs to serve as intermediate relay nodes between UEs or between UEs and the network.

Figure H-1 Proximity Service Features207

Release 12 for ProSe includes in and out of network communications (limited to direction communication of 1 to many) and in network discovery. Relaying for UE-to-UE and UE-to-network, one-to-one direct communication, service continuity, and ProSe Quality of Service (QoS), priority and pre-emption was not included and pushed into Release 13. Release 13 will continue with work on ProSe functionality not completed in Release 12 with some security features and other items pushed into Release 14.208 In addition, 3GPP is investigating priority on Direct Mode LTE. Related to ProSe, there is a concerted effort in Release 13 on Isolated LTE radio access network Operations (IOPS) to provide the ability to maintain mobile communications between users via the cell site due to loss of backhaul or to create a radio access network with constrained or no backhaul via set of deployable or nomadic LTE cell sites. This 207 3GPP (2013, July). Delivering Public Safety Communications with LTE. 208 PSCR (2015, June 3). International Standards Presentation at Public Safety Broadband Stakeholder Conference, slide 9.



would allow Oregon first responder teams to still communicate with one another and set-up temporary cell sites in areas where the radio access and backhaul have been destroyed (e.g., hurricane) and use alternate (albeit higher latency and lower capacity) backhaul such as satellite. GCSE LTE will support group voice, video and other data communications. As of Release 12, it was decided that Enhanced Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Services (eMBMS) will be used to support GCSE and did not include group management. eMBMS is a feature in LTE allowing for dynamic allocation of RF resources for mobile broadcast of the same multimedia content for a specific amount of time to a set group of users in a specific geographic area. As video application usage continues to increase, eMBMS (as opposed to unicast streaming) will be used as a way to offload traffic and reduce cost. Oregon first responders could utilize eMBMS for a user group to view common content being broadcast by eMBMS in a particular coverage area during an infrastructure restoration emergency event. Enhancements to eMBMs will be standardized in Release 13.

Existing LMR systems provide MC PTT voice, however it will most likely be many years (i.e., 5-10+ years) before LTE can support MC PTT voice. 3GPP Release 13 (which will be functionally frozen in March 2016), in addition to continuing work on ProSe and GCSE, began work in September 2014 on standardizing MC PTT on LTE which will be continued in Release 14. As recently as May 2015, 3GPP decided to leverage reference points in the IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) for MC PTT. As a result, there is a concern that IMS-based MC PTT could result in some proprietary vendor solutions. Note that Voice over LTE (VoLTE) which is being deployed but some of the nationwide LTE commercial carriers, heavily leverages an IMS platform.

3GPP Release 14, which will begin at the earliest in March 2016, will also begin to address use cases and requirements for mission critical video (MCVideo) for on and off network use, one-to-one and one-to-many, push and pull capabilities, and discussion around real-time use and incorporation of body worn cameras (BWCs). However, note that real-time streaming of push or uplink video can very easily subsume all resources of a single LTE cell site sector. For example, a single 720p video camera recording at 2.2 GB per hour and streaming real-time would require a continuous uplink of approximately 5 Mbps. However, Oregon personnel could temporarily alter user priority. In addition, Oregon stakeholders should work with FirstNet to configure QoS Class Identifier (QCI) values which are used at nodes within the radio access and core network to define bearer-level packet forwarding per application based on resource type, priority, maximum allowed packet delay (between UE and core), and maximum allowed packet error loss rate. Note that 3GPP has already defined certain QCI values for live and buffered streaming video and MC voice (see 3GPP TS 23.203 V13.2.0).



The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) has outlined key requirements for Public Service Grade group and private PTT which include the following: 209

• 1-to-many communication groups

• Dynamic group creation

• Monitoring of multiple PTT groups

• Authentication, authorization, and security controls for PTT groups

• 1-to-1 private calls

• Announcement group calls

• Support of ruthless preemption

• Support of Imminent Peril and Responder Emergency Calls including prioritization above normal PTT calls

• Identity and personality management

• Location information for PTT group members

It is anticipated that FirstNet will work with 3GPP and other standards bodies to place most of these requirements into standards and LTE equipment vendor releases. However, some feature requirements such as ruthless preemption may be hard to negotiate with potential spectrum sharing partners such as LTE commercial carriers.

• Transition to “5G”

Although 4G LTE-Advanced networks are still being deployed in the U.S., South Korea, the European Union, and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)210 are pushing for a global consensus and vision on 5G by the end of 2015, with South Korea looking to bring 5G technology to market by the end of 2020.211 There is no formal definition of 5G; however, the three major visions which have emerged in 2014 for 5G are as follows: 212

• Demand Attentive Network which can continuously optimize network resources (e.g., bandwidth) and latency based on the user application at a level of efficiency to deliver much higher performance and user experience at a low cost of investment.

• Advanced, Dynamic Spectrum Sharing allowing for multiple parties using the same band (e.g., 3.4-3.6 GHz) across a contiguous coverage of densely packed small cells delivering seamless data rates of up to 1 Gbps.

209 NPSTC (2013, July 18). Public Safety Broadband Push-to-Talk over Long Term Evolution Requirements. 210 ITU (2014). ITU towards “IMT for 2020 and beyond.” 211 Robinson, F., Lee, M. (2014, June 16). Speedy Web Access To Get a New Push. The Wall Street Journal. 212 History of GSM (2014). 5G. Retrieved from: http://www.gsmhistory.com/5g/

http://www.gsmhistory.com/5g/



• Converged wireless-fiber network using millimeter wave wireless links (e.g., 20-90 GHz) not for backhaul but for nomadic “spot” area (smaller coverage) access for speeds up to 10 Gbps. These wireless links not be very long (10-100s meters) and would therefore require lots of fiber nodes for high capacity backhaul. As a result of the short link distances (due to the high frequency) and need for near ubiquitous fiber, implementation of this converged network would most likely be for “nomadic” service, similar to Wi-Fi, and not for wide area coverage.

Considering FirstNet may still be deploying 4G LTE RANs when 5G technology comes to market, Oregon (in consultation with FirstNet) will need to ensure that FirstNet and their LTE commercial partners have a roadmap to quickly upgrade or transition public safety LTE equipment and applications to 5G.


See disclaimer on title page I-1 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

APPENDIX I - Major Events Planning – Cascadia Playbook Oregon is positioned along the Pacific Ring of Fire and is subject to crustal earthquakes. Oregon is also positioned along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), where tectonic plates meet. A potential major earthquake occurring along this area has been termed a “Cascadia Event.” Experts believe this may be the greatest natural threat to the citizens of Oregon and adjacent states. The risk is categorized as a catastrophic, magnitude 9.0 subduction zone earthquake (“mega-quake”) and a resulting tsunami.

• Impact to Oregon

In such an event, coastal communities are expected to experience a devastating tsunami on top of severe ground shaking (up to five minutes). A large number of casualties are projected in the event of the magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Transportation and communications links will be disrupted. Power and water outages are expected to be extended. The incident is expected to severely strain emergency responder capabilities. Shaking intensity will be less in the I-5 Corridor and Southern and Eastern Oregon, but older buildings and critical infrastructure may incur extensive damage.

Oregon’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) has issued the Cascadia Playbook to identify what needs to be done in the initial response.

A succinct view of Disaster Response Events from the Playbook is provided in Figure I-1.

Figure I-1 Cascadia Playbook Disaster Response Events

The Playbook includes the revised Emergency Functions (ESFs) and State Recovery Functions (SRFs) in Figure I-2.


See disclaimer on title page I-2 DCN: SPOC-FNIO-14-01

Figure I-2 Cascadia Playbook Emergency Management Functions

Oregon’s Cascadia Event Playbook is a long-term planning effort in cooperation with FEMA and adjacent states. FEMA is coordinating a major Pacific Northwest event “Exercise Cascadia Rising213” in 2016 to evaluate planning progress.

• FirstNet Design Considerations

FirstNet’s design and subsequent operation in Oregon must anticipate and support public safety response during of a Cascadia Event. For example, the PSAC is helping FirstNet define network hardening. Given there isn’t enough money to harden every antenna site that FirstNet will use, FirstNet will be asking states which sites are most important to harden, e.g., by adding long term back-up power using diesel generators and other measures. For Oregon and adjacent states, FirstNet must ensure a functioning network on both sides of a major fault area. System redundancies must consider site-specific failure modes, alternatives, and extended disruptions in critical infrastructure. The design of key high reliability sites, and mobile capabilities, must assure that first responders do not experience a break in FirstNet service at the very time that they need it the most. 213 Cascadia Rising 2016 Exercise. http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/2015annualmeeting/CascadiaRising.pdf

http://nws.weather.gov/nthmp/2015annualmeeting/CascadiaRising.pdf

revision history - oregon · 2019-11-16 · revision history ... table 16-3 firstnet in oregon 2015...

Documents