Important Information for Public Safety Communications

Andrew Seybold, in response to Commissioner McDowell’s stunning comment about the 700 MHz band and converting the narrowband voice spectrum to broadband data, sent a letter to Mr. McDowell attempting to explain the criticality of the band. It is worth your reading. I am aware of other states and localities planning to send letters to Commission McDowell explaining the importance of 700 MHz.

Letter to Commissioner McDowell: http://andrewseybold.com/1456-channellized-communications
Commentary on the FCC’s Handling of Public Safety in their Broadband plan: http://andrewseybold.com/1437-the-fcc-to-public-safety%e2%80%a6

Why is it important to communicate the needs of public safety to the FCC? There was one part of the PERF article recently shared with all of you that really stood out for me (among many very important comments). The quote below is from Admiral Barnett, FCC Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. In the quote, the Admiral states that the record on the need for the D Block was sparse and did not contain good arguments for the spectrum. The quote can elicit favorable and unfavorable reactions, depending upon one’s perspective; however, the reality is that the FCC has a process for submitting comments and when it is (in their view) appropriate, the record serves to guide their actions. In this case, the relevant docket is WT 96-86. The comments of public safety should be filed in the docket “for the record”. The link in which to file comments is http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=czl8u. If anyone needs help in filing comments in this critically important issue, please contact me and I will be glad to help.

From Admiral Barnett:

PUBLIC SAFETY WILL NEED MORE THAN 10 MHz
“I think we can also agree that public safety will someday need more spectrum than the 10 MHz designated to it by Congress.
But the record of information filed by public safety on the need for more spectrum now was sparse; really it was only New York City [that filed a brief ]. And that brief was insufficient from an engineering standpoint. It did not meet fact-based, data-driven requirements”.