Shortly after beginning my career with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the late 1980s, a tragic event occurred that left a lasting impact on countless lives, including mine. The emotional and distressed voices transmitted over the land mobile radio (LMR) during that critical moment remain etched in my memory to this day. For those in the public safety community who have experienced such transmissions, it is an indelible experience and one you hope never to encounter again. This incident profoundly deepened my respect for the professionals within the 911 ecosystem, and drove home the absolute need for reliable communications within public safety.
That night was just one example, among countless others, of the public safety community’s enduring reliance on decades-old communication technology. In some New York boroughs, such as Staten Island during the incident identified above, reaching a repeater to connect with our base command in Manhattan was too often a challenge. These types of ongoing, significant obstacles highlight the continued need for modernization, and there are now innovative solutions that can empower those we depend on every day, making their work not only more efficient but significantly safer.
From the outset, the following information reflects my personal opinion and has not been solicited by any government entity, broadband provider, or other organization. I have not received any compensation for sharing these views. While I worked for AT&T from 2018 to 2024, I believe that experience provided me with unique insights that outweigh any potential vendor bias. My perspective is informed by over four decades of experience in and around public safety, during which I have observed persistent communication challenges that continue to leave the public safety community and, by extension, the broader public, vulnerable. The goal is to highlight critical issues and cultivate awareness, drawing solely from my professional insights and expertise.
From a public safety perspective, I firmly believe that fostering competition within the communications sector is essential. For far too long, the dominance of a single entity in the LMR space has hindered innovation and left communication advancements lagging behind. However, I have recently grown increasingly concerned about certain offerings and marketing practices within the broadband community.
In recent months, I have observed marketing efforts that I would characterize as borderline irresponsible, misleading, and potentially detrimental to end users who may not fully understand the inherent limitations of these services. When vendors include significant caveats regarding where and when their services will be available, it raises critical questions. How will end users, particularly those in the public safety sector, be made aware of these technical and geographical constraints? The responsibility should not fall on the public safety community to decipher hard-to-find fine print or navigate unclear boundaries.
This issue is significant because any failure within the broader broadband ecosystem risks reinforcing the perception that broadband technology is not yet a viable or reliable alternative to traditional LMR systems. Such setbacks could stall progress and undermine confidence in broadband as a critical tool for public safety communications.
As mentioned, I started my post-government employment with AT&T, and I would become increasingly familiar with their new program being built under the FirstNet Authority, a government agency under the Department of Commerce. As with any government proposal and subsequent contract, not every topic is well-defined. What I did see was an overall effort across the public- and private-sector groups, even when guidance was thin, to always attempt to get it right for the public safety community regardless of cost or contract. And at the center of this, the key foundation, was the dedicated FirstNet physical core designed for public safety.
The Components Necessary for Success:
Dedicated Capacity
One has to remember why the FirstNet contract was established and how FirstNet is different from commercial offerings, which includes AT&T commercial services. Because of the FirstNet government contract, there is oversight, thus the foundation or, in this case, “the core” is controlled public safety space with what I refer to as a parent in the room. With virtual or network slicing efforts in any provider’s commercial core, who determines what portion is dedicated to public safety: Is it a function across the entire network or only certain elements like the 5G layer, and tomorrow can that level of effort or terms of service change with an internal decision solely made by the provider? Similar to the days of Nextel, what happens when a business determines the outcome versus what is required under a contract with oversight and potential penalties.
Another discussion point which is getting blurred is the topic of prioritization and pre-emption, which is directly attached to the question of capacity. With FirstNet, this is all a built-in function of the core, and addresses both voice calls and data automatically with no end-user intervention. When you get into the commercial offerings, yes, they can legitimately claim prioritization, which is generally built on the back of Wireless Priority Service (WPS) offered through Homeland Security. But the difference is significant.
First, the device has to be enrolled with WPS, and what I think is more critical, in a time of need, it has to be manually activated by the end user who is being impacted. While WPS is an important service in the absence of an alternative, it is far from the same. WPS serves to prioritize calls. In a data-driven world, does that leave the end users coming up short when you may need Push-to-Talk (PTT) services, location, video, or other services in an emergency situation? And on pre-emption, I know what that means to AT&T: All assets are automatically coming to assist from a network perspective, to include elements of the commercial network if pushed to that limit. To this day, it is unclear what pre-emption means to other commercial services other than the use of the word itself.
It is critical to hold commercial broadband vendors accountable and prioritize public safety by demanding answers to critical questions about their services. Insist on transparency, reliability, and compliance with public safety standards.
There also is another key element in having a dedicated separate core versus a portion of the commercial network. AT&T had an instance in February 2024 where both FirstNet and Commercial services were impacted. By having a dedicated core, all focus and energy went into restoration of FirstNet services, and, within short order, it was fully restored, hours before the traditional commercial services. Had that been a single network, would that level of effort have even been possible? One can look at recent outages of other commercial services in the U.S., and realize it appears as the answer to this question is likely no.
Coverage
Every commercial carrier markets the same information: They cover 99% of the population with their macro networks. This seemingly should offer a great level of comfort for all, until you realize only 1.78 million square miles in the U.S. are considered inhabitable, which amounts to roughly 47% of the land. They fail to mention the coverage footprint on the remaining 53%. When you factor in public safety generally doesn’t get to control the areas of any given response, it potentially leaves significant coverage gaps. 5G and its expansion is important to facilitate the needs of customers, especially public safety, but it doesn’t mean much when a few miles down the road that coverage ends. FirstNet now covers 250,000 square miles more than commercial services with the primary driver of the coverage enhancements to date, and for the future, coming directly from the public safety community for whom this was all created.
Not only does the everyday footprint provide a strong advantage, but they have thought of creative ways to support operational issues in more remote areas and can do so on short notice. This is where I have seen the service provide some of the greatest benefit to the Federal user space, bringing coverage to them where no other coverage exists. This also extends to issues when the existing macro network comes under challenges.
And what happens when that existing macro coverage falls short or is damaged? Let me be absolutely clear: When it comes to the critical need for public safety communications, I have never, nor will I ever, root for an outage of any vendor network, both within broadband or LMR space. I have witnessed this activity by a vendor, and, in my view, it is reprehensible. The uncontrollability of natural disasters and potential related network failures for any company is, first, detrimental to the greater public, but, secondly, critically impactful to public safety in a profound way. In bolstering broadband as a service, I would applaud the adoption by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative in June 2022, which was then further clarified in September 2023, when it was expanded to incorporate lessons learned and better support public safety. As of May 2024, all applicable wireless providers had to comply with the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative rules in how they assist each other in times of needs.
Storms and wildfires continue to accelerate and with these events, infrastructure can get damaged. A host of other non-natural events also can cause outages, fiber cuts and software issues, to name just a few. Companies should get to tout their ability, appropriately, to respond to these incidents by demonstrating their efforts in network restoration. To date, however, it is clear not all companies are operating at the same level. You should hold vendors to account for claiming public safety dedicated assets and staffing, when they are often just shared or augmented assets to their commercial services. The dedicated equipment shouldn’t just be a shiny vehicle at a trade show, but designed to be in the field to independently support the public safety community.
Lastly, does the provider have after-action reviews to learn from challenges or failures – to improve on processes – the same way the public safety community seeks to improve on their efforts after critical incidents. Again, ask the question, without government oversight, how do you hold vendors to account when that effort falls short other than moving your business (which, at a minimum, can be costly and time consuming)?
Advancement
I specifically have not called out individual products. From my perspective, each public safety organization can be very different in terms of their needs, and the ability to not be completely beholden to any particular product line is important. One of the keys to utilizing broadband solutions is the ability to be flexible, unlike the traditional LMR structure. Some organizations may be most concerned with employee location, or viewing video over a device, or often some type of PTT service. The key is the end users can now determine the width of the aperture, and often the possibilities are just waiting to be identified. This is the beauty of the design; you pick what you need and how you want to connect to others. The key being the art of what’s possible isn’t limited to a voice over a device, but a rich ecosystem of tools and applications to make your organization more efficient, and most critically, safer. What becomes key is the testing of these products, and the understanding of the service level required to meet your critical needs.
As technology continues to evolve, it is crucial there is a periodic review and update to the standards governing potential product lines. The FirstNet contract, for instance, established specific criteria at its inception. One would hope there is an ongoing effort within the government structure to include assessing whether these criteria require modifications to remain effective. Technological advancements often outpace regulations, which, while initially well-intentioned, can become obstacles rather than enablers over time.
As an example, the adoption of 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mission Critical Push-to-Talk (MCPTT) standards reflected capabilities influenced by Project 25 (P25) standards, though they were not direct extensions of them. (3GPP develops standards for mobile telecommunications globally, while P25 focuses on interoperable land mobile radio (LMR) systems for public safety professionals.) As FirstNet continues to evolve, it is essential to evaluate whether standards like 3GPP are inadvertently creating technical barriers, governance challenges, or fragmentation risks. This underscores the critical role of governmental oversight in ensuring that such frameworks remain aligned with the needs of public safety and technological progress.
One other thought as it relates to the broadband advantage. I would never advocate for a product based solely on cost because the ability to communicate should always be the priority, but you also will come to understand you no longer are having to buildout a radio network from a capital expenditure perspective, and, in fact, you are now running an operating expenses service model, which is highly customizable with little effort. This presents the ability for potentially significant savings in today’s always-tightening budget streams. It also allows for significant flexibility in an ever-changing, technology refresh cycle. It will require some thought on where any organization finds itself within a technical refresh window. If you just made a large investment, the timing may not be right. But there also are those at the other end of the spectrum who need to make decisions that will impact their agency and most importantly, their people, in the near term. The reality boils down to determining your needs, and then understanding the possibilities.
Finally, for those who get caught in the fear of trying to get it perfect, I would suggest there is still no solution that hits every mark, they all have strengths and challenges. But ask yourself: Is perfection, and the possible paralysis that comes along with it, standing in the way of making significant progress in your communications space? The answer often then becomes clearer. Those who serve and protect our communities need the tools to ensure the most productive outcome, and one that provides them the greatest ability to communicate. I have been, and will always be, an advocate for the advancement of communications when it comes to the public safety community because it is truly one of the key elements to safety for both your personnel and the greater public. If you ask the questions, and get truthful answers, I believe you will understand that FirstNet offers you something others services can’t.