wisconsin public afety broadband roject · in 2012, the governor designated the interoperability...

WISCONSIN PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND PROJECT

Regional Outreach Meetings January/February 2018

What is WiPSB?

2

The Wisconsin Public Safety Broadband (WiPSB) program was established to help determine Wisconsin’s requirements for the NPSBN and prepare the State to consult with FirstNet. The program is under the direction of the State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) within the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

In 2012, the Governor designated the Interoperability Council (IC) as Wisconsin’s coordinator for the NPSBN and to serve as the point of contact for consultation with FirstNet. The IC has subsequently identified the SPOC to act as the program lead on behalf of the council. In his position at DOJ, Dennis Fortunato serves as the FirstNet SPOC and member of the IC. The DOJ Interoperability Unit is tasked with managing the WiPSB program and also provides staff support to the IC and Subcommittees for all interoperability issues, including the NPSBN Subcommittee.

WiPSB’s priority is to ensure that FirstNet produces a network that meets the needs and expectations of Wisconsin’s public safety community. We are a state government project under DMA established in 2016 to determine public safety needs and to consult with FirstNet.

What is FirstNet?

3

• FirstNet is a federal government entity established in 2012 by Congress • FirstNet was established to create the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband

Network (NPSBN)—a nationwide cellular network with priority and preemption for first responders

• Congress allocated $7 billion and 20 MHz of spectrum to FirstNet • FirstNet was required under law to develop and submit a plan for buildout

for state review; these plans were submitted to every state in Sep. 2017 • All 50 states approved of FirstNet’s plan as of December 28, 2017

What is the IC?

4

• The Wisconsin Interoperability council was established under WI Statute to develop strategies and recommend standards and guidelines for achieving statewide communications interoperability

• The 15-seat membership consists of a proportion of public safety entities and state government representatives

• The IC was the key representative body included in the state plan process with FirstNet advocating on public safety’s behalf

• The IC is supported by a number of specific subcommittees encompassing various communications initiatives

Key Activities

5

• 2016: WiPSB Project Kicks off • 2016-2017: WiPSB develops detailed requirements and outreach

• Surveys • Workshops • Coverage Interviews • Governance Assessment

• 2016-2017: Feedback on FirstNet’s draft RFP and public notices • 2017: Engagement with FirstNet • 2017: Detailed review and comment process for FirstNet State Plan • December 2017: Wisconsin Opts in

Key Dates

6

OPT IN

Q1 2018 – Q4 2022 Service Deployment

December 2017

State Plan Decision

Sept 2017

FirstNet Delivers State Plan

July 2017

FirstNet Delivers Draft State Plan, seeks input

from states

Key Activities

7

• 2016: WiPSB Project Kicks off • 2016-2017: WiPSB develops detailed requirements and outreach

• Surveys • Workshops • Coverage Interviews • Governance Assessment

• 2016-2017: Feedback on FirstNet’s draft RFP and public notices • 2017: Engagement with FirstNet • 2017: Detailed review and comment process for FirstNet State Plan • December 2017: Wisconsin Opts in

Why we Opted in

8

• The WiPSB program and the Interoperability Council performed an extensive review of the risks and benefits to opting in and opting out

• The IC had several meetings with senior FirstNet staff seeking clarification and improvements to FirstNet’s offer

• The IC ultimately recommended to opt in. On December 15, Scott Walker positively affirmed Wisconsin’s opting-in

• Ultimately, all 50 states and 5 territories have positively affirmed opting-in

Opt-in

9

• The state assumes NO risk and FirstNet builds the NPSBN in WI and other states

• FirstNet builds entire core and radio access network • FirstNet markets service to public safety • AT&T is responsible for securing tens of thousands of public safety

customers in the state • At FirstNet’s discretion, the state has some say in how FirstNet builds

the network, but the state has no direct control over the buildout • Public safety broadband service is available on the day of opt-in • The state does not need to spend any of its money or make any

commitments

Opt-Out

10

• The state assumes substantial risk • State gets control of the wireless spectrum • The state must build a radio access network and connect it to the core • State must ensure the network is compatible • State required to sign up same number of public safety customers as AT&T • WI can apply for grant funding from NTIA • The state must secure approval from FirstNet, FCC, and NTIA • Public safety broadband service delivered nearly one year later • Make spectrum payments to FirstNet over 25 years • Control over exact network buildout

Decision timeline

11



FirstNet’s Coverage

• We evaluated FirstNet’s proposed coverage based on feedback from our coverage interviews and our phased coverage requirements

• Generally, on a phase-by-phase basis, FirstNet’s proposed coverage met or exceeded your minimum requirements

• FirstNet’s exact coverage maps are proprietary, but FirstNet will likely provide you with access upon request

12

Surveys

13

• Our program solicited survey data from hundreds of agencies representing tens of thousands of first responders

• Survey data was analyzed for key info and submitted to FirstNet

• Additionally, survey data provided us with key market insights for statewide planning

1

8 9

4 3

2

0123456789

10

$56 $36

$125

$55 $71

$41

$0$20$40$60$80

$100$120$140

We Provided Your Input to FirstNet

14

• Over the course of two years, FirstNet sought input on its interpretation of the law, its procurement strategy, and its state plan

• Wisconsin provided its detailed requirements to FirstNet in September 2016 • FirstNet published multiple public notices in 2015-2016 • FirstNet published a draft RFP, seeking public input, prior to issuing its final

RFP • FirstNet ultimately selected AT&T as part of an open competitive process

• FirstNet published a draft state plan and sought input • Wisconsin performed a detailed analysis of the draft and final state plan and conducted

several high-level meetings with FirstNet officials to improve the offering to the state of Wisconsin prior to final plan delivery

Practical Considerations

15



Now that all 50 states have opted into FirstNet, individual agencies face a decision—does the proposed service meet your needs?

What is the difference?

16

• Public Safety Broadband service offerings (presently) are on the same cellular networks you are using now

• However, you will receive special features for public safety: • Priority/Pre-emption • Control over deployable assets • Access to network health information • Exclusive interoperability tools (e.g.: FirstNet ICAM) • (Potentially some) exclusive applications and services

Practical Considerations

17

• What users/groups will be using broadband?

• What agencies? • How many users per agency? • What types of users and device

requirements? • What uses/applications?

• Application priority • Types of devices

• Vehicular • Hand-held (smartphones) • Tablet and personal computers • Hotspots • Other (IoT, sensors, monitors, etc.)

• Types of coverage • On-street • In-vehicle • Rural • In-building

• Service priority level requirements • Primary (law enforcement, fire, EMS,

EMA, 9-1-1) • Extended primary (all other “public

safety” and “public service” agencies) • Site hardening requirements

• Critical location sites • Hub sites

What value does it bring?

18

There is no question that, eventually, most or all agencies will adopt mission critical cellular service. But you must consider timing and the actual value offered to you: • Do you need priority or pre-emption? When? • Do you need greater insight into network health? When? • Do you need control over deployable assets? When? • Will you save money by switching over to a new plan? • Does the mission critical option meet your coverage needs? • What are your overall communications needs and plans? • Which applications and services can improve your comms? How? • Is your organization ready for a major switch-over?

LMR-LTE Integration

19

Today Tomorrow Future

• Two-way radios • Limited accessibility to gateways • Limited PTT over LTE • “Over-the-top”, best-effort

• Widespread PTT over LTE • Some use of mission-critical PTT • Most mission-critical

communications via radios • Widespread availability of

gateways, likely interoperable

• Widespread use of PTT over cellular

• Some legacy use of two-way radios

• Gateways available for legacy interoperability

Reviewing your Options

20

• On AT&T? Decision is simpler if AT&T remains your best choice

• Simple migration: Use existing equipment, configuration, network

• Priority/Preemption now, and other benefits down the road = better service at the same or better price

• Little cost to migrate = likely high benefit to move users to FirstNet

• Recommend: Contact AT&T to begin the process

• Issue: few public safety agencies in WI presently use AT&T

• Switching carriers to adopt public safety broadband, decision is more complex

• Different coverage, capacity, performance, cost – detailed analysis required

• New equipment—new phones, new routers, new antennas; migration costs

• New contracting effort, and possibly new procurement

Current AT&T Customer Switching to FirstNet Switching Carriers

Eligible Users

21

• FirstNet can provide mission-critical service via AT&T only to “public safety”, under the law authorizing FirstNet

• The standing legal interpretation of the law from the government defines “public safety” very broadly

• Pricing and features are distinct for Primary and Extended Primary Users—important consideration in your planning

Primary users to include all first responders, emergency

managers and others

Extended Primary users to include support staff, non-responder governmental

organizations and private sector entities

Device Options

22

• Determine types of devices in use/planned • Smartphones • Ruggedized Smartphones • Tablets and Personal Computers • Vehicular Routers

• Determine best options per usage case Motorola VML750 LTE

VEHICLE MODEM

Sierra Wireless oMGMobile Gateway

TeleCommunication Systems Inc. Lynx Rugged Vehicle Router

Harris MBC-200 Router

CradlePoint

Device Options

23

• So many devices options, so many opinions, and three operating systems – what to do?

• Restrict options and select limited smartphone, tablet, PC, and mobile router options

• Engage the IT department into the process • There may be premium devices that are not fully subsidized • Additional costs of vehicular routers – not currently on the

FirstNet/AT&T device options • Additional costs of Jet Pack devices (vs. Smartphone tethering

for example) • Benefits of routers (WiFi, multiple connections, better coverage)

Evaluating Coverage

24

• We recommend documenting where coverage is needed for:

• Vehicular use • Handheld outdoor • In-building

• Develop a list of all buildings, campus environments, event venues and others that require reliable coverage

• Identify where your current provider has deployed in-building systems

Evaluating Coverage

25

MO

RE effort

MO

RE reliable

Options for evaluating coverage: •Carrier Maps •Crowdsourced Data •User Experience •Structured Network Testing

Carrier Maps

26

• Compare marketing maps of carriers • Inexpensive analysis method • Issues

• Maps generally optimistic (show few uncovered areas)

• Maps represent outdoor coverage (not indoor/in-vehicle)

• Provides a good “first pass” of coverage differences

• Invite carriers to present and discuss detailed system coverage within your community

Crowdsourced Data

27

• Apps/services available that collect signal and performance data

• Examples: RootMetrics, OpenSignal, Netmotion Diagnostics

• Provide real-world coverage • Issues

• Collection method • No data in many rural areas • For public data, areas without no service

hard to spot, and terms of use/licensing for data sets may be prohibitive

• For in-house collection, can be expensive

User Experience

28

• Simple and inexpensive to collect • Surveys highlighting areas served/unserved by each carrier • Make sure comparing “apples-to-apples” (indoor, in-

vehicle, outdoor) • Issues:

• Difficult to identify specific areas • Recollection • Little experience with multiple carriers (each person or agency

usually has experience with only their preferred carrier)

Structured Network Testing

29

• Use specialized tools or software to test the network

• The way your users will use the network

• In the locations they will use it • Test exactly how/where you want

• Issues • Expensive • Time-consuming

Evaluating Pricing

30

Pooled Plan • “Pools” usage among multiple

devices in your account • Different usage tiers (in

Gigabytes) • Exceeding total limit results in

additional charges • Using less than pooled amount

results in paying for unused data

• Can be more cost effective with more limited use

Unlimited Plan • No usage based charges • May still be a “threshold”

where additional action occurs

• Generally more effective with heavy data users

• Devices in some unlimited plans are included/subsidized

Real-World Pricing Case

31

Other Considerations

32

•Planning for transition •Transition cost •Application Interoperability •Need for policy development •BYOD considerations •Individual plans

33

State & Local Implementation Grant

Program (SLIGP) 2.0

What is SLIGP 2.0?

• State grant program under the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) to assist states and territories in preparing for the NPSBN

• March 2018-February 2020 • Tier 2: $250k (1st increment), up to

$450k (2nd increment)

34

Relevant Allowable Grant Activities

• Data collection in specific areas identified to be helpful as requested by FirstNet

• Development of policies and agreements to increase sharing of data between existing public safety systems across various agencies within Wisconsin using the NPSBN

• Planning efforts to help FirstNet gain inclusion on applicable statewide contact vehicles

• Planning activities to prepare for emergency communications technology transitions

• Identifying and documenting on-going coverage needs/gaps within the State

• Activities to convene stakeholder outreach events to continue planning for NPSBN implementation as requested by FirstNet

35

SLIGP 2.0 Consultants

• Technical & Coverage Consultant – assist and advise DMA on public safety broadband technology and perform drive testing when/if coverage gaps or needs have been identified by crowd sourced data or FirstNet-users (stakeholders)

• Other Consultant Services

• To perform FirstNet-requested data collection • Focus/user group development and coordination • Development of data sharing policies and agreements • Emergency communications technology transition planning

36

SLIGP 2.0 Focus Groups

• DMA is interested in forming focus groups to develop policies related to:

• Information Sharing – Particularly multi-disciplinary data, amongst multiple agencies including PSAPs (CAD to CAD) using the NPSBN. This may include sensitive or protected data types that may be essential to multi-agency response at an incident.

• Push-to-Talk (PTT) – Guide for using PTT to share data and communicate should an agency choose to supplement traditional LMR communications with FirstNet PTT services. Most helpful among primary (Fire, EMS, LE, EM, 9-1-1) and extended primary users.

• Deployables – Utilized to share FirstNet deployable assets during a planned event or long-term incident and increase data sharing among entities participating in the response effort.

37

SLIGP 2.0 Focus Groups, cont.

• DMA is interested in forming focus groups to develop policies related to:

• User Management – Assist determining User Group Classifications among primary and extended primary users allowing for standardized user groups in Wisconsin.

• Quality of Service, Priority, and Preemption (QPP) Planning – In conjunction with FirstNet, identify key types of applications that may require priority during times of congestion and develop a statewide plan for assigning distinctive priority levels among primary FirstNet-users.

• LMR to LTE Transition Planning – Develop a transition plan for integrating Mission Critical Push-to-Talk (MCPTT) services with LMR systems statewide and a guide for FirstNet-users to transition from LMR to MCPTT when the service is a viable option for individual agencies.

38

What’s Next?

If you are interested in participating in a focus group, please provide your business card after the session OR email Jessica Jimenez at: [email protected]

39

mailto:[email protected]

Thank you!

40

WiPSB Project Team

41

Tom Czaja SPOC/SWIC

[email protected]

Jessica Jimenez Broadband/NG9-1-1 Program

Manager [email protected]

Brandon Abley Project Manager

[email protected]

Elizabeth Herring Project Coordinator

[email protected]

Ian Ross Project Coordinator [email protected]






Legislative Report

Statewide Commentary

42

Topics • Current Interoperability Council Organization • Review of Legislative Directive • Governance Options • Contrast with other states • Financial Review – WISCOM as a study • Take Home Assignment

Current Organization

Act 59 • Submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor that

includes the following information: – Recommendations on changes to the statutory authority of the

Interoperability Council. – Progress that has been made towards creating a statewide public

safety interoperable communications system, obstacles that have been identified that hinder progress towards interoperability and recommendations for legislative or executive action to promote interoperability.

Governance •How can the IC be best positioned to act as the body that is

the go-between state government and the local agencies on scope and priority setting?

•What is the best way to enable the Interoperability Council to accomplish these roles?

Two Paths Possible Advisory • IC advises DMA on key components

of program scope • IC advises DMA on financial model

selection • IC represents local concerns in these

matters • Ultimate decisions are made by DMA,

IC recommendations are not binding

Authoritative • IC directs DMA on key components of

program scope • IC directs DMA on financial course of

action (within Legislative Budget authority)

• IC represents local concerns in these matters

• Ultimate decisions are made by IC

Future Role of the IC? – Acts as the conduit between localities and DMA in the decision

making process – Provides advice to DMA on project priorities between competing

projects – Assists DMA in determining the scope of projects prior to

acquisition – Assists DMA in validating funding model impacts on local

communities •What would you do different?

IC <> Local Agencies •How do you see the IC being most valuable; advisory or

authoritative, and why? •How do feel that the IC’s engagement in your interests can

best be accomplished? •How would you suggest the priorities and deliverables of the

IC be set? •How do you suggest the IC best communicate with you?

IC <> Local Agencies •How would you envision the scope of projects being set? •What new approaches to future funding do you see as

workable? •How do you see the IC being consulted as part of the

legislative process in any new initiatives affecting public safety communications? If so, how to implement?

IC <> Local Agencies •What is your thinking on how to achieve radio interoperability

in support of multiagency events? •How should the state replace WISCOM?

The Real Problem Confronting Governance is Money

•WISCOM will need to be replaced in the next few years. •WISCOM was largely funded with grants, and they are gone.

A source for Capital funding is at this time unidentified. •WISCOM day to day operations is underfunded. •WISCOM is used here to illustrate the scale – but this also

applies to NG 9-1-1 and any other initiative!!!!

Comparison With Others • Almost half of the nation is in the same situation. •Our neighbors are doing better than most.

– Michigan – Well funded via state appropriations – Minnesota – Well funded via state and local appropriations – Illinois – User fee based – Ohio – Well funded primarily through user fees and also some

state appropriations – Iowa – Struggling with funding as state money is very tight

Problem Magnitude •WISCOM replacement – at least $80M • Infrastructure investment needed in the next 10 years -

$20M+ • Currently, the best estimate is the state is spending $2.3M

per year on system maintenance, and is not keeping up. For discussion, a funding level of $5M per year is a healthy target budget.

There Is More • This only covers WISCOM. It does not cover other methods

behind interoperability – such as how adjacent jurisdictions will make improvements so they can communicate.

• The $80M figure only includes tower site equipment, there are no consoles, mobile radios or portable radios included in that figure. That is at least another $100M.

•WISCOM is all that is studied here, but the problems are the same for any other initiative.

Capital Budget Detail FY 19-21

Biennium Project Scope Estimated Cost2019-21 Replace WISCOM Technical

Infrastructure $82,000,000Add 3 WISCOM Sites $1,500,000Replace ten generators $850,000Tower Retrofits at ten sites $1,000,000Replace HVAC at 20 sites $200,000Roofing at 10 sites $100,000

$85,650,000


Biennium Project Scope Estimated Cost2021-23 Add 2 WISCOM sites $1,000,000

Replace ten generators $892,500Tower Retrofits at ten sites $1,050,000Replace HVAC at 20 sites $210,000Roofing at 10 sites $105,000

$3,257,500


2023-25 Replace 10 hops of Microwave $1,000,000Add 2 WISCOM sites $1,050,000Replace CISCO Switches $400,000Replace ten generators $937,125Tower Retrofits at ten sites $1,102,500Replace HVAC at 20 sites $220,500Roofing at 10 sites $110,250Replace Site UPS $500,000Replace Core Servers $100,000

$5,420,375

Capital Budget Detail FY 25-27 2025-27 Replace 10 hops of

Microwave $1,050,000Add 2 WISCOM Sites $1,102,500Replace ten generators $983,981Tower Retrofits at ten sites $1,157,625Replace HVAC at 20 sites $231,525Roofing at 10 sites $115,763

$4,641,394


2027-29 Replace 10 hops of Microwave $1,102,500Add 2 WISCOM Sites $1,157,625Replace ten generators $1,033,180Tower Retrofits at ten sites $1,215,506Replace HVAC at 20 sites $243,101Roofing at 10 sites $121,551

$4,873,463

Capital Summary 2018 - 2029

Replace WISCOM $82MReplace User Radios $100MInfrastructure Upgrades $22M

Total $204M

Possible Funding Approaches • Very carefully consider scope of projects against financial

limitations. This will require close coordination between DMA, DOA, Legislative Fiscal Bureau and the Interoperability Council

•What methods do you see as possible to provide funding the programs related to Interoperability?

How to Go Forward? •Number one job of the Interoperability Council needs to be in

setting the scope of WISCOM and other programs in accordance with available funding and in consideration of the needs of the local user communities.

•How can consensus on a fair and equitable approach to funding be obtained?

Take Home Assignment • Please get your questionnaires back to us at: [email protected] •Or via Mail at: Department of Military Affairs Office of Emergency Communications Attn: Laurie VanderJagt 2400 Wright Street PO Box 14587 Madison, WI 53708-0587


Wisconsin DMA/OEC

Tom Czaja, Director/SWIC, [email protected], 608-888-5500 Laurie VanderJagt, Administrative Assistant, [email protected], 608-888-5501 Gene Oldenburg, LMR Program Manager, [email protected], 608-286-8581

Josh Ripp, WISCOM Program Manager, [email protected], 608-888-5531 Jessica Jimenez, NG9-1-1/Broadband Program Manager, [email protected], 608-888-5520 Wisconsin Interoperability Initiative Website, http://interop.wi.gov/






http://interop.wi.gov/

Thank You!

66

wisconsin public afety broadband roject · in 2012, the governor designated the interoperability...

Documents