3.2.1 Technology Dimension

Technological advances in the commercial domain have led to top-of-the-line radio technologies able to achieve performance levels close to Shannon’s bound. The state of the art of commercial wireless technology evolution is Long-Term Evolution (LTE) mobile broadband technology, which has emerged as the leading standard in 4G technology. LTE networks first became publicly accessible in 2009 in Oslo (Norway) and Stockholm (Sweden). Nowadays, LTE networks are extensively deployed by most of the largest communications service providers worldwide for consumer-based data and information services. For the first time in the cellular communications history, LTE has brought the entire mobile industry to a single technology footprint resulting in unprecedented economies of scale.

LTE technology provides a high bit rate, low-latency IP connectivity service that could be readily used to deliver many of the new demanded PPDR video and data-rich services.¹ With such a powerful technology already in place, the development of a completely new mobile broadband communications standard specifically conceived for PPDR data-centric communications could hardly be justified and would require far too much resources and time due to the complexity of modern communications technologies. A specialized public safety and critical communications technology cannot attract the level of investment and global R&D that goes into commercial cellular networks.

In this context, the adoption of LTE technology as the global standard for next-generation emergency communications broadband networks is gaining strong momentum among the PPDR community worldwide. Becoming part of the global LTE ecosystem is seen by the PPDR community as crucial to gain several advantages such as more choice of terminals, lower prices, possibility to roam to commercial networks and benefit in the long term with the adoption of further developments. Many organizations within the PPDR and critical communications community, such as the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) Global Alliance [3], the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) [4] and the TETRA and Critical Communications Association (TCCA) [5], have explicitly endorsed the LTE standard as the baseline technology for the delivery of future critical communications broadband services. Remarkably, these efforts are not isolated from each other but seek to benefit from wide consensus building and coordination. In June 2012, the TCCA and the NPSTC announced that they had signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to underscore their joint commitment to the need to develop mission-critical public safety communications standards for LTE-based technology. Alignment of the critical communications and PPDR community to a common global standard is expected to create a rich ecosystem of devices and applications spurred by the standard-based designs, open intellectual property environments, commitments from chipset manufacturers, large communities of developers and interest from consumer electronics manufacturers.

A key milestone in this process was the involvement of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP),² which embraced the initiatives coming from the PPDR community and committed to deliver the necessary standard enhancements to make the LTE system more suitable for this purpose. Specific standardization work related to PPDR communications started under the Release 12 of the LTE specifications with wide support from the mobile industry and involvement of the PPDR stakeholders. Standards for the first batch of PPDR requested features are expected to be completed under Release 13, which is planned to be frozen by March 2016. Among the key new features incorporated into the standard are the support for device-to-device (D2D) communications and group communications enablers. It is worth highlighting that these extensions of the LTE specifications are not only relevant for the PPDR sector but also important to raise new business opportunities in the commercial and other professional sectors (e.g. transportation, utilities, government). As expressed by 3GPP officials [6], there is a need to strike a balance between more and less customization, to make use of commercial products while meeting the specific requirements for PPDR and critical communications. Therefore, the approach being followed by 3GPP is to preserve the strengths of LTE in the commercial domain while adding the features needed to support critical communications and so seeking to maximize the technical commonality between commercial and critical communications aspects. A detailed description of the LTE features that are being working out within 3GPP to address the specific PPDR communications needs is covered in Chapter 4.

The alignment to commercial technologies offers huge opportunities for creating and exploiting synergies between these two worlds, which have remained virtually separated to date. Remarkably, the use of common technical standards for commercial cellular and PPDR offers advantages to both communities:

• PPDR community gets access to the economic and technical advantages generated by the scale of commercial cellular networks. Using equipment developed for the mass market instead of niche products, the PPDR community will profit from the economies of scale, faster innovation and high competition between vendors. The same applies for the market of end-user devices and dedicated software, where even stronger competition should be expected.
• The commercial cellular community gets the opportunity to address parts of the PPDR market as well as gaining enhancements to their systems that have interesting applications to consumers and businesses.

LTE devices supporting critical emergency services will need to support many of the features and design considerations used today in PMR products, including high-performance batteries, radio, antenna and audio; rugged components and enclosures and ergonomics based on ‘high-velocity human factor’ industrial design. Despite this necessary level of customization with respect to consumer devices, economies of scales are expected to bring down the cost of those parts of the devices and network equipment that add the most to the bill of materials (BoM). Table 3.1 shows the degree of commonality that the components of a PPDR device are expected to have with respect to commercial devices [7]. As reflected in the table, the components that add the highest customization costs (operating system, baseband chipset and RF chipset) are anticipated to be fully leveraged. Nevertheless, these expected benefits are still to be proven in practice, and they have been put into question by some within the PPDR community [8]. Indeed, similar claims were made for the GSM-Railway (GSM-R) technology, which was built upon the successful commercial GSM standard and aimed at being a cost-efficient digital replacement for previously existing incompatible in-track cable and analogue railway radio networks in Europe. As a matter of fact, the requirements for GSM-R terminals were sufficiently different from standard terminals, and the volumes sold so small that they have eventually worked out much more expensive, even exceeding the price points of comparable terminals designed for the TETRA market. This is because the niche GSM-R market has far fewer terminals and many fewer competing suppliers than that of the TETRA market. Therefore, lessons learnt from the GSM-R case should not be disregarded and be used to achieve a truly cost advantage in future PPDR-grade LTE equipment. In this respect, some manufacturers have started unveiling LTE-capable, mission-critical handheld devices (mainly for the US market) with announced price points around $1000, which is above high-end commercial smartphones but lower than typical high-end PMR devices that are in the range of €2–4K.

3.2.2 Network Dimension

A wide consensus exists among PPDR users on the need of dedicated network infrastructures for mission-critical PPDR communications. This is the main approach followed so far with most of the current PMR networks that serve the PPDR community worldwide. Nevertheless, given that the support of data services dramatically increases the number of required cell sites in comparison to current narrowband network footprints, huge investments are required to roll out dedicated mobile broadband infrastructure, which may not be deemed convenient or even affordable to some public administrations.

Generally, the so-called total cost of ownership (TCO) of a mobile cellular radio network over the long term includes both the cost to build the network (capital expenditures (CAPEX)) plus the cost of keeping the network up and running (operational expenditures (OPEX)) over 10–20 years as well as the depreciation of assets. That may be taken over 3–10-year amortization, depending on the item. The major cost elements to be taken into account in any TCO analysis include [9]:

• CAPEX elements:
  • Network sites to host the base stations (BSs), transmission and switching equipment, network operation centres, etc., with backup sites as needed
  • Network elements: radio and transmission equipment, gateways, internal cabling, etc., with backup dual units
  • Civil works and cable laying for backhaul and core network
  • Civil works for site building, mast erection, etc.
  • Power supply infrastructure and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems
  • Mobile terminals (handsets) and vehicle terminals (specialized or generic)
  • Wayleaves for backhaul and core network ducts, with alternative routing
  • Data centre with infrastructure, equipment and software licence
  • Spectrum licences (if applicable; if payable with annual fees, then under OPEX, as well)
  • Operational support systems for network management and telecommunications management network
  • Business support systems
  • Back-office and front-office centres and equipment (legal, accounting)
• OPEX elements:
  • Operational, maintenance, maintenance teams 24 × 7, design and development staff/high-resilience (HR) cost
  • Power supply infrastructure and HVAC with uninterruptible power supply (UPS) lasting for several days and operation with main supply charges
  • Data centre infrastructure and operations, equipment, software maintenance, energy costs and annual software licences
  • Operate administration, back office (payroll, legal, accounts) and front office (‘sales’, etc.) with all staff costs
  • Operational costs of hardening, including extra security, power and equipment maintenance and site protection
  • Cost of capital

Approximately, (up to) 70% of any mobile cellular network cost is the radio access network (RAN). Much of the RAN cost is not the radio and transmission equipment but the site real estate (either rented or purchased). In addition to that is the cost of wayleaves for passing backhaul ducts and cabling into the core network. Another reason for the high cost associated with a PPDR network is the large amount of required redundancy: extra switches maintained in ‘standby’ mode, extra transceivers at BSs in key locations, multiple backhaul paths to bypass link failures and batteries and generators to provide electricity when main power is lost. Another form of redundancy (used in TETRA) is that BSs have overlapping coverage to ensure continuity of service if a BS fails. All these redundancies are intended to make the networks highly resilient, to achieve high availability and sustain PPDR services when other communications systems fail. For LTE to provide PPDR users with a similar level of network resilience, similar measures will be needed.

The quantification of the costs of a nationwide mobile broadband PPDR network has been the subject of several studies, most from the United States. A possible model to estimate the cost for such a network is developed in Ref. [10]. The model is based on the computation of the required number of cells in the network, since the overall network cost is considered to be roughly proportional to the number of cell sites. The number of cells in a network depends on the maximum cell size that is, in turn, dependent on many factors such as the terrain characteristics, subscriber density in the served area, capacity requirements per subscriber for routine PPDR operations, aggregate capacity required in an emergency response, minimum data rate requirements at cell edge and other important link budget parameters (e.g. terminal’s maximum transmit power, coverage reliability margins). The authors in Ref. [10] apply the model to estimate the cost of a network that would cover 99.998% of the US population (equivalent to roughly 83% of the US geographic area) under three scenarios whose distinguishing factors are the frequency band and the amount of available spectrum. The three considered network scenarios are (i) 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700-MHz band, (ii) 7.5 MHz of spectrum in the 168-MHz band and (iii) 7.5 MHz of spectrum in the 414-MHz band. Each scenario is analysed under three different traffic configurations: (i) voice only, (ii) data only and (iii) data and voice. The data-only scenario would be appropriate if PPDR agencies continue to rely on their existing wireless systems for voice communications, while the voice and data scenario would eventually allow PPDR to phase out existing systems and rely on a single network to support all the communications. Table 3.2 provides a summary of the total number of cell sites required, the upfront deployment costs, the recurring annual costs and the total costs calculated over a 10-year period for each of the three network scenarios and traffic targets.

The costs in Table 3.2 are calculated considering an estimate of $500K per site in upfront deployment cost (i.e. CAPEX) and $75K per site in annual operating costs (i.e. OPEX). Cost estimates only consider the costs associated with the installation and operation of cell sites and not the costs of the backbone network components or the costs of network planning and administration. Also, handset costs are not part of the infrastructure and therefore are not included. Cost estimates in Table 3.2 are mainly indicative values and can change dramatically by adjusting a few critical input parameters such as the coverage area’s signal reliability, building penetration margin, aggregate capacity required in emergencies, highest user data rate required and population/area buildout requirements. In fact, there is no widely accepted model to assess the capacity requirements for a PPDR network, which is essential for developing these cost estimates. Therefore, more work is required in this area to fix these critical input parameters. In fact, the estimated total network costs in Table 3.2 are roughly 30–50% less than other estimations [10, 11], but the differences cannot be explained because many assumptions done are not publicly available. In any case, a conclusion that can be reached from Table 3.2 is the significant effect that the selection of the frequency band has on the overall number of sites and so in the network cost. As drawn from results in Ref. [10], the network at 168 MHz requires roughly 30–50% fewer cell sites and costs roughly 30–50% less than a comparable network operating at 414 MHz, with all other factors held constant. Besides, the results from Table 3.2 also indicate that moving from a voice-only PPDR system to a data-only system dramatically increases the number of cell sites required. However, moving from data only to both data and voice has a much smaller impact. This can facilitate the convergence of legacy PMR services and emerging data-intensive (e.g. PPDR/multimedia) services into the same mobile broadband network infrastructure in a long term and so avoid duplicated infrastructures for voice on one side and data on the other.

According to the previous cost estimates, the TCO per user and per year would fluctuate for a network in the 700-MHz band in the range of $600–2000 considering a PPDR subscriber base between 1 and 3 million [11]. Just for illustrative purposes, it’s worth noting that these values are roughly higher than the current TCO per user per year figures for nowadays TETRA networks in Europe, as captured in Table 3.3. Costs estimations given in this section shall be considered only as indicative values of the order of magnitude of the investment required to deploy new dedicated broadband networks both in absolute and relative terms compared to current narrowband deployments. As reported in a recent study for the European Commission [9], accurate costs of current PPDR narrowband networks vary considerably, and sometimes, they cannot be properly estimated from the published accounts from governments or PPDR network operators. An indicative measure provided in this study is that EU member states plus Norway have spent over €14.6B deploying TETRA and TETRAPOL networks for PPDR, plus almost €4B on mobile and portable terminals, and they spend an additional €1.35B each year operating these networks (possibly a low estimate). About 23 450 BSs serve over 1.5 million users nowadays in Europe, for an average of 64 users per BS. However, since there are almost 5 million police, fire, EMS and rescue workers, there must be a great deal of equipment sharing (three shifts in 24 h) or continuing use of other mobile networks.

While the market has witnessed these levels of investment in the past due to the imperative need to provide the PPDR community with mission-critical voice communications, budget constraints faced by many public administrations in the current (and foreseeable future) economic climate make unlikely to see a generalized adoption of a delivery model based on the deployment of new ‘stand-alone’ LTE-based dedicated networks to cope with the demand for data-intensive applications. In this context, four key cost-saving dimensions are expected to be properly seized when deploying dedicated capacity for PPDR: (i) infrastructure sharing through public–private partnerships, which can allow the deployment of the PPDR dedicated network based on marginal costs of adding or contributing new equipment into an existing infrastructure as opposed to the deployment of a stand-alone network; (ii) capacity sharing of private PPDR networks, so that users other than PPDR agencies (e.g. utilities, transportation) can be served and charged for the use of the network; (iii) use of commercial networks’ capacity as an integral part of the PPDR communications solution, which can contribute to alleviate coverage and capacity requirements in the deployment of dedicated capacity; and (iv) use of transportable/fast deployable equipment, which can be central to lowering the amount of permanently deployed network infrastructure and provide a cost-efficient solution to face localized capacity surges, improved coverage in underserved areas and increased redundancy. A further insight into each of these four cost-saving dimensions is addressed in the following.

3.2.3 Spectrum Dimension

Clearly, the deployment of LTE-based dedicated systems raises the issue of identifying the spectrum band(s) and spectrum management model(s) on which these systems can be deployed and operated. Even though the inherent spectrum flexibility associated with LTE technology (i.e. support of different frequency bands, transmission bandwidths from 1.4 to 20 MHz, carrier aggregation and both frequency and time division duplexing arrangements) will be a facilitator, political, regulatory and economic facets will have greater influence on the final solutions to be adopted.

The allocation of dedicated, exclusive-use spectrum has been so far the traditional approach to support PPDR communications. From a purely technical and operational perspective, an exclusive allocation of spectrum for PPDR is the preferred option of the PPDR community because it provides them with full control over the resource. Nevertheless, the allocation of enough dedicated spectrum for PPDR radiocommunications is a challenging issue for public administrations: suitable spectrum bands needed to support cost-effective PPDR communications with broadband capabilities are the same highly valued bands demanded by the market to provide commercial services. This creates the necessity of having a proper economic valuation of the spectrum.

As for any resource, including radio spectrum, the primary economic objective is to maximize the net benefits to the society that can be generated from that resource. Prices are used as an important mechanism to ensure users use the spectrum resources efficiently. The broad goals and objectives associated with spectrum pricing are [30]:

• Covering the costs of spectrum management activity borne by the spectrum management authority or regulators
• Ensuring the efficient use of the spectrum management resource by ensuring that sufficient incentives are in place
• Maximizing the economic benefits to the country obtained from the use of the spectrum resource
• Ensuring that users benefiting from the use of the spectrum resource pay for the cost of using spectrum
• Providing revenue to the government or to the spectrum regulator

The allocation of spectrum for PPDR services is expected to improve the overall effectiveness of PPDR organizations and is a key stimulus for economic growth, innovation and productivity within the PPDR communications industry. It is recognized that the estimation of the socio-economic benefits associated with the improvement of the overall effectiveness of PPDR response due to the allocation of additional dedicated or shared spectrum is hard to undertake: the economic value placed on PPDR spectrum is not readily quantifiable in pure market terms, mainly because it has to do with citizens’ lives [31]. Some estimates of the socio-economic benefits in the United Kingdom, and further extended to other EU countries, have been reported in Refs [32, 33]. According to this work, an annual consolidated socio-economic value of around €34B is estimated for a set of 10 European countries assessed which represent a total population of approximately 300 million people. This figure is derived taking into account improvements in safety (e.g. reduction of the number of incidents and their impact in lives and properties) and efficiency of the PPDR forces (e.g. improvement in productivity).

A more tangible economic valuation of the spectrum is the so-called opportunity cost. One way to assess the opportunity cost is to estimate how much a buyer would have been willing to pay to use that spectrum for its most promising alternative use [34]. Therefore, considering that the most promising spectrum to be used for broadband PPDR is the same spectrum that commercial mobile operators are willing to use, a good estimate of the opportunity cost can be derived from the monetary sums offered by mobile operators in the auctions to assign spectrum for mobile communications. Table 3.6 shows the prices paid by mobile operators in the German and Spanish auctions, held in May 2011 and July 2011, respectively. Prices are provided per MHz of spectrum as well as per MHz and per head of population (MHz/pop), and they correspond to the winning bid for the most valued spectrum block in each auctioned band. As shown in the table, the highest prices were paid for the 800-MHz band, reaching €0.5/MHz of spectrum per head of population (€/MHz/pop) and €0.73/MHz/pop for 800-MHz spectrum in Spain and Germany, respectively. Remarkably, the value of spectrum below 1 GHz is between 33 and 10 times higher than spectrum in 2.6 GHz due to the better propagation characteristics that facilitate wider geographic coverage outside urban areas and better in-building penetration in dense urban areas.

Figure 3.2 provides additional data intended to compare the prices paid by MNOs for mobile spectrum in different countries and considering previous spectrum allocations for 2G and 3G [35]. The values are given in dollars per MHz and head of population ($/MHz/pop). As noted from the figure, the top position is for the US auction of 700-MHz spectrum held in 2008 where prices of $4.17/MHz/pop were paid in the top 20 areas, namely, the largest cities. Nevertheless, the US average at the time was $1.18/MHz/pop. The next highest paid prices were achieved at some auctions for 3G spectrum held in early 2000s. In the case of Germany, 3G spectrum in 2 GHz was worth at that time as more than fourfold of the value of the recently paid for 800-MHz spectrum.

In turn, the work in Refs [32, 33] compares side by side the opportunity cost of the alternative sale of 2 × 10 MHz in 700-MHz spectrum with the derived estimates for the socio-economic benefits. In particular, the one-off economic gain from spectrum auctions for the governments of the 10 countries assessed is estimated as €3.7B (equivalent to €0.61/MHz/pop for a total population of around 300 million people), significantly lower than the socio-economic benefits, estimated around €34B.

Overall, the proper economic valuation of the spectrum can be central to justify in economic terms the granting at no direct cost of some amount of spectrum to the PPDR community. Also, this valuation could be necessary in case that PPDR users are expected to pay some fees for the spectrum designation (e.g. this approach is used in some European countries for the use of GSM-R spectrum in the railway sector for its mission-critical communications [9]). It is worth noting that, while not being yet by far the prevailing option in most countries, the UK government’s policy with regard to the delivery of next-generation emergency communications services is to divest itself of dedicated spectrum and for all users (including government) to pay market rates for the spectrum [36].

In this context of growing competition for spectrum, together with the general requirement that further progress is needed towards more efficient spectrum utilization [37], the introduction of flexible spectrum use models based on spectrum sharing principles is gaining momentum among regulators and industry [38] and might become instrumental in finding practical solutions for PPDR spectrum allocation and management. Indeed, the need of spectrum for PPDR communications shows a high fluctuation between the amount of spectrum needed in major incidents/events and that used for daily routine tasks. The obvious risk with the allocation of dedicated PPDR spectrum is not using such spectrum efficiently all the time or in all the locations. Therefore, in addition to any incentives in place for an efficient spectrum use within the public sector (e.g. administered incentive pricing practices [30]), sharing some amount of spectrum between PPDR and other uses can contribute to (i) guarantee a peak spectrum availability to satisfy exceptional spectrum needs in major emergencies and (ii) avoid having a large assignation of PPDR spectrum (e.g. allocated to face spectrum demands in worst-case incident scenarios) lying unused when not required for routine PPDR tasks.

The potential introduction of spectrum sharing approaches between the PPDR and other domains such as commercial and military brings new elements that impact on the economic and business dimensions. As discussed in Chapter 6 from a technical perspective, there are two main approaches that deserve close consideration: allowing secondary access to TV white spaces (WS) in the UHF bands for PPDR use and deploying a sort of Licenced Shared Access (LSA) regime able to ensure certain quality of service (QoS) guarantees in terms of spectrum access and protection against harmful interference for both all sharers.

In the case of shared access to TV WS spectrum [39, 40], PPDR industry can catch up and leverage the technology underdevelopment in the commercial domain to exploit the unused spectrum within the TV UHF bands. Good propagation conditions and the likely high availability of TV WS in low populated areas (e.g. rural areas) make this spectrum a valuable (at no acquisition cost) asset for PPDR communications. Besides, further regulatory/technical extensions could be conceived to increase the degree of reliability of this spectrum for PPDR use (e.g. higher authorized maximum transmission power for PPDR equipment and/or introduction of a priority access scheme to TV WS with preferential treatment for PPDR applications in emergency situations).

In the case of sharing with QoS guarantees, military bands can represent also an important asset to leverage (e.g. part of the NATO band within 225–380 MHz). This spectrum is key for military operations, but a significant amount of it is not used in a permanent and/or geographical uniform manner. Therefore, net gains can be obtained for PPDR if (unused) military spectrum can be temporary exploited by PPDR applications in a limited geographical area and when not needed by military users. With regard to sharing with commercial providers, this is not a new concept. Indeed, this type of sharing is allowed for emergency services in a few European countries as described in Ref. [41] and within the policy goals pursued by the European Commission [42]. A shared spectrum only available for PPDR under a major emergency is likely to be available for commercial use all the time and in all locations. The key point to assess here is how much a commercial operator would be willing to pay for that spectrum. Initiatives such as the implementation of an LSA regime in the 2.3-GHz band in Europe [43, 44] are expected to shed light on the economic valuation that this type of spectrum could have for the mobile operators. As stated by GSMA officials [45], mobile operators in general are not fundamentally opposed to the notion of shared access spectrum, but governments should continue to consider exclusive licenced spectrum as the primary source of spectrum for mobile broadband.

3.3.1 LTE Dedicated Networks

Assuming that spectrum and funding are available, the deployment of dedicated PPDR LTE network infrastructure can offer the ultimate availability, control and security features that can best satisfy the PPDR community. For economic sustainability reasons, dedicated LTE networks will most likely be shared by a number of PPDR agencies (police, fire, EMS) and potentially open to other critical communications user organizations (utilities, transportation, etc.). Dedicated networks will be built to meet the required coverage and availability criteria, and the users will have absolute control of the network. Higher standards of availability and resilience can be applied (e.g. hardening the network with backup generators, duplication of key components, equipment and communications links and more robust installation) so that the dedicated network is able to withstand high levels of physical disruption caused by, for instance, strong winds and low-level earthquakes. Conventional wisdom is that dedicated infrastructure makes economic sense in metropolitan, urban and even some suburban areas, where capacity demands support the establishment of many cell sites located relatively close together. A detailed description of the LTE technological features that are being worked out by 3GPP to address PPDR communications needs is covered in Chapter 4. Moreover, the definition of ‘public safety-grade’ requirements as well as the description of challenges and solutions in building out and running dedicated LTE networks for PPDR is addressed in Chapter 5.

3.3.2 LTE Commercial Networks

Using commercial networks for the delivery of mobile broadband PPDR is believed to be a complementary rather than a mutually exclusive approach to the deployment of dedicated infrastructures, at least in the short and medium term. Indeed, public mobile networks are already being used nowadays by some professional users, including PPDR agencies, for non-mission-critical data applications. It is generally agreed that public networks can properly handle most routine traffic, whenever the public network is working under normal conditions. Moreover, even when dedicated LTE-based networks can be rolled out, the unpredictable nature of the time, place and scale of an incident renders it virtually impossible to ensure that the first responders will have proper support only from dedicated infrastructures during the emergency (e.g. due to lack of coverage, capacity or damaged infrastructure). In this context, the consideration of public mobile networks as an integral component for the delivery of PPDR services is anticipated to produce a number of benefits, including increased aggregate capacity, improved resiliency and enhanced radio coverage. However, it is a fact that, in emergencies, public cellular networks are likely to suffer from congestion and may eventually fail more easily than the PMR networks in use today for mission-critical voice [46, 47]. In any case, as commercial broadband networks are becoming an important part of a society’s infrastructure, there is also increasing consensus that these infrastructures undoubtedly have a role to play in many critical communications solutions and can enable users to experience the benefits of enriched multimedia tools in PPDR operations in a relatively short time [15, 48, 49]. Consequently, the use of the public mobile broadband networks is anticipated to be a cornerstone for the provisioning of emerging data-intensive/multimedia PPDR services, yet the level of dependability on dedicated and/or commercial networks and their use can be quite varied across countries and regions. From a network operator’s perspective, this approach enables different business opportunities to provide different grades of services for the public safety segment. Challenges and solutions in using public mobile broadband networks for PPDR are covered in depth in Chapter 5, including hybrid solutions that enable mobile broadband PPDR service delivery through both dedicated and commercial networks in a consistent manner.

3.3.3 Legacy PMR/LMR Networks

The introduction of LTE for PPDR is expected to complement, not to replace, the existing legacy PMR networks (e.g. TETRA/TETRAPOL/P25/analogue PMR), which will likely continue to be the best choice for mission-critical voice service in the near future. One obvious reason is that the key capabilities for mission-critical voice such as group communications and direct mode are still being introduced in the LTE standard and it could take several years before these features are fully developed and tested to meet the stringent requirements of PPDR. Moreover, until a new mobile broadband network is built and able to provide coverage equal to or better than the coverage currently provided by PMR systems, PPDR users cannot abandon their legacy systems. Therefore, before a mobile broadband solution can effectively replace current PMR systems, the LTE network and associated applications must be able to meet all of the requirements currently satisfied by the existing systems (both functionalities and coverage). In this context, the delivery of mission-critical voice over broadband can be set out as a long-term objective, without hindering or holding up the short-term benefits associated with the deployment of a mobile broadband solution initially mainly intended for the delivery of data-centric applications. Hence, the public safety community should create parallel paths to accomplish both long-term and short-term objectives. This view is sustained by relevant organizations such as NPSTC, APCO and TCCA [4, 5, 50]. In this context, interworking services with legacy systems and the adoption of PMR/LTE multimode user equipment are expected to be fundamental to PPDR users. In this respect, some interworking solutions between LTE and PMR systems such as TETRA and P25 are described in Chapter 5.

3.3.4 Transportable Systems and Satellite Communications

Transportable systems allow PPDR responders to bring the network with them for those events that occur in areas where it does not make sense to have a site around the clock (e.g. rural and wilderness environments). So instead of a permanent, fixed installation infrastructure, a bubble of coverage is deployed where and when needed. The use of transportable systems is anticipated to be central for network restoration, network extension and remote incident response. The use of transportable systems is not limited to PPDR network operators. Public MNOs can also contribute to disaster relief operations via transportable BSs.

There are different types of transportable systems, which are usually classified under the categories of cell on wheels (COWs) and system on wheels (SOWs). On one hand, COWs typically include a BS (e.g. LTE eNodeB) along with one or more backhaul transports (such as microwave or satellite). COWs require connectivity to a core network (e.g. LTE evolved packet core) to support application functionality. On the other hand, SOWs are fully functional systems that can act without backhaul connectivity, though these are likely to be more expensive systems than COWs. As a general approach, the use of COWs could make sense in dense, urban environments where connectivity to the core network can be guaranteed, while SOWs are more appropriate in rural environments and in disaster areas, where broadband backhaul connectivity is an issue. Deployable systems can also leverage the capability of both Wi-Fi and LTE technology to support hybrid approaches (e.g. transportable system that uses Wi-Fi interface to create a hot spot for local access by PPDR responder equipment and then relies on the use of LTE to provide the remote connectivity).

Together with deployables, satellite communications provide a unique and important method for PPDR to plan around the hazards of earth-based infrastructures that can be susceptible to all manners of natural and man-made catastrophes. This turns satellite communications platforms into important components within the complete tool kit of PPDR communications means. Satellite service can be offered in areas where there is no terrestrial infrastructure and the costs of deploying a fibre or microwave network are prohibitive. It can also support services in areas where existing infrastructure is outdated, insufficient or damaged.

In particular, very small aperture terminal (VSAT) solutions can be used to provide the backhaul connectivity to the deployable solutions (e.g. backhaul connectivity for COWs). A typical VSAT may have full two-way connectivity up to several Mbps for any desired combination of voice, data, video and Internet service capability. Communications on-the-move (COTM) solutions are also important for PPDR, enabling applications such as mobile command and control where a vehicle can serve as a mobile command post while in-route and as a fixed command access point for personnel upon arrival at the designated location when local terrestrial and wireless infrastructures are not available. Moreover, mobile satellite service (MSS) solutions can also be in place for PPDR users, allowing the use of portable satellite phones and terminals. MSS terminals may be mounted on a ship, an airplane, a truck or an automobile. MSS terminals may even be carried by an individual. The most promising applications are portable satellite telephones and broadband terminals that enable global service. In addition, solutions that integrate satellite and cellular technologies are also appealing for PPDR use (e.g. satellite chips inserted in handheld devices or adaptors to turn the cellular device into a satellite device). Chapter 5 outlines some further details on the use of satellite communications for the interconnection of deployables as well as some considerations on satellite direct access.

3.3.5 IP-Based Interconnection Backbones

The interconnection of the multiple and diverse components (e.g. radio sites, data centres hosting the mobile core networks and service delivery platforms, PPDR deployables, emergency control centres and PSAPs, interconnection of regional/national PPDR networks, etc.) advocates for the use of IP-based interconnection solutions. IP backbones consisting of fibre, copper, microwave, satellite and other links deployed in a redundant topology are central components. The interconnect infrastructure can be fully or partly owned by government agencies as well as rely on the use of interconnection services provisioned by private carriers. Interconnection frameworks such as the IP Packet Exchange (IPX) promoted by GSMA are gaining strong consensus among the commercial industry and are certainly a potential solution to be considered for the interconnection of a number of regional/national PPDR networks in order to allow roaming/migration and interoperable communications services and associated applications within a secure framework. A further description of IP-based interconnection technologies and frameworks is addressed under Chapter 5.

3.3.6 Applications and User Equipment

At the end of the day, the multimedia- and data-enriched applications enabled by mobile broadband connectivity (see Chapter 2) are the ‘visible’ tools to PPDR responders. The introduction of smartphones and other sort of devices with high computational capabilities and the adoption of common standards are expected to pave the way towards a rich ecosystem of interoperable PPDR applications. As of today, the customization of applications and services within the PMR industry business model is mostly based on vendors’ proprietary interfaces. Therefore, many of the applications are limited, use expensive hardware and might lock-in the user to a single manufacturer. In contrast, in the commercial domain, the proliferation of software-enabled devices together with interchangeable peripherals has given consumers and enterprise customers the ability to personalize how they receive media information, communicate with others and configure their homes, workplaces and automobiles. The majority of devices and applications is interoperable because of open standard technologies such as Bluetooth, USB, Wi-Fi and published software development kits (SDKs). These standards have expanded the market to thousands of developers and greatly facilitated the proliferation of specialized products and information.

A central effort towards the standardization of a comprehensive application architecture for the delivery of critical communications services on top of IP-based connectivity is being carried out by ETSI [51], in close cooperation with the 3GPP. ETSI is specifying a reference model of a critical communications system (CCS), defining the functional elements along with the interfaces and reference points among them. A central element of the CCS architecture is the critical communications application (CCA), which can be understood as the service delivery platform providing the communications services (e.g. mission-critical push-to-talk services) to critical communications users. The CCA includes capabilities on the terminal side and on the infrastructure side. Further details on the ETSI CCS reference model are provided in Chapter 5.

Enabling the development of applications by as many stakeholders as possible, in a secure and reliable manner, promises to empower the public safety communications marketplace in the same way the mobile broadband application ecosystem has empowered consumers today. In this regard, initiatives such as the Application Community (AppComm) [52] promoted by APCO International can be instrumental to favour the development of an application ecosystem for the PPDR community. AppComm provides a collection of applications related to public safety and emergency response for use by the general public and first responders. AppComm is also a forum where public safety professionals, the general public and app developers can discuss and rate apps, identify unmet needs and submit ideas for apps they would like to see built. With this initiative, APCO is determined to play a major leadership role in supporting the development of a diverse, practitioner-driven public safety app ecosystem fostered through the collaborative efforts of public safety professionals and app developers. To further foster this sort of PPDR application ecosystems, open standard-based solutions for terminals’ client applications downloading and installation are also a must (e.g. the likes of the popular applications’ stores in the commercial domain), together with other post-manufacturing configuration of terminals through mobile device management (MDM) software solutions (e.g. Open Mobile Alliance Device Management (OMA DM) standards, widely adopted in commercial networks). Another central element of the PPDR application ecosystem is the operating system used in the users’ devices. One compelling candidate is the Android platform, which is being enhanced rapidly (e.g. support of SELinux kernel security module, Samsung’s Knox security software) and adopted by ‘stringent’ users in terms of security such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States [53].

Another area that deserves further consideration is the standardization of functional frameworks and interfaces for dispatch centre control systems in the context of emerging broadband wireless technologies. In this context, the requirements for the functionality and interfaces for command and control consoles connected to an LTE network have been developed by the NPSTC [54]. These ‘console’ systems are primarily located in emergency control centres (ECC) and public safety answering points (PSAPs), though they may also be located in other facilities (e.g. hospital emergency departments) as well as be used at the scene of a major incident as either a wired or wireless console device. The best practices and requirements provided in the document are intended to describe the features and functionality for console-based dispatch operations that involve broadband services. They are intended to capture the operational requirements of dispatch and console operator functionality with the objective of fully leveraging the features and functionality of the LTE network.

Last but not least, the commercial availability of devices for public safety use is of great importance. User-friendly rugged devices must be available and able to handle rough environments. It is also important to have the proper types of devices for a particular mission. Different levels of ruggedization and security, exceeding those of current consumer UEs, are anticipated as well as PPDR-specific complements (e.g. wearables such as smart glasses and smart helmets) and functionalities (e.g. hands-free with voice recognition, emergency button functionality that provides services similar to the emergency buttons in PMR radios). In this respect, a key challenge is the integration of many diverse components into the appropriate gear in a way that it can best serve the needs of PPDR practitioners [55]. Additionally, the devices must have support for the required frequencies, which can vary. Device applications must be easy to use and support the typical requirements of a public safety mission, such as dynamically changing priority depending on the situation and possessing the ability to gracefully adapt to lower bandwidth in order to make sure that services are available during hard radio conditions. Besides interoperability and certification, one major challenge for terminal manufacturers is to provide dual-mode terminals that support broadband LTE and narrowband PPDR networks.

3.3.7 Spectrum

The need for spectrum suitable for the support of emerging broadband applications for PPDR has been recognized for many years. The public safety community is well aware of these needs. Numerous studies have already substantiated these requirements in different countries and regions across the world [56–59]. Exclusive or primary allocations⁵ of spectrum for broadband PPDR have also been enforced in some countries (the United States, Australia, Canada, etc.). The typical amount of spectrum being allocated is 10 + 10 MHz or 5 + 5 MHz in the 700-MHz or 800-MHz bands. In Europe, PPDR agencies and industry have also identified a need in the range of 10 + 10 MHz [60], and spectrum regulatory authorities have started the process of finding a proper spectrum allocation [61], though changes in the current spectrum regulatory framework for PPDR are not expected before 2016. This amount of dedicated spectrum is estimated to be enough to satisfy PPDR needs for mission-critical communications in most operational scenarios. However, it is also recognized that no amount of spectrum used by a conventional cellular network is likely to satisfy a localized, short-notice spike in demand that might result from a major incident such as a terrorist attack in a central business district or major urban centre. Furthermore, it would be highly economically inefficient to try, and dimension spectrum provisions around what might be a once-in-a-generation event. For these reason, other ways to increase capacity in a more effective manner are also essential. In this regard, making additional spectrum available in higher frequency bands (e.g. 4.9 or 5 GHz) as well as adopting dynamic spectrum sharing solutions (e.g. opportunistic access to TV spectrum, licenced secondary access models with pre-emption capabilities, etc.) can bring additional capacity to better cope with a surge of PPDR traffic demand and enable extremely high data rates (including multiple video streams) in localized hot spots (e.g. around an incident site). In addition to spectrum for dedicated LTE networks and transportable systems, there could also be additional spectrum requirements to cater for broadband transmissions in D2D operation mode, air–ground–air (AGA) links and microwave links needed for backhauling of PPDR systems. Further details on regulatory and technical aspects related to the use of dedicated and dynamically shared spectrum for PPDR use are addressed in Chapter 6.

3.4.1 Deployment of a Nationwide Dedicated LTE Broadband Network in the United States

In February 2012, the US Congress enacted the Public Law 112-96 ‘The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012’ to create a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. The act includes the following:

• The public safety broadband network will be based on a single national architecture based upon the LTE technology.
• The governing framework for the deployment and operation of this high-speed network dedicated to public safety is the new FirstNet, an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) under the US Department of Commerce.
• FirstNet will hold the spectrum licence for the network and is charged with taking ‘all actions necessary’ to build, deploy and operate the network, in consultation with federal, state, tribal and local public safety entities and other key stakeholders.
• The act allocates the 700-MHz D-Block Band 14 (758–763 and 788–793 MHz) to FirstNet for the construction of a single wireless nationwide public safety broadband network.
• Non-public safety entities will be allowed to lease the spectrum on a secondary basis.

FirstNet [62] is tasked with cost-effectively creating a nationwide network and providing wireless services to public safety agencies across the country. FirstNet has the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC) to assist it. The PSAC has access to NPSTC, APCO and a host of other organizations and local resources. FirstNet is also working with the Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) programme [63] and standards organizations on network requirements and on defining how standards can support building future networks as public safety grade.

The US Congress allocated $7B in funding to FirstNet for the deployment of this network as well as $135M for a new State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP) administered by NTIA to support state, regional, tribal and local jurisdictions’ efforts to plan and work with FirstNet to ensure the network meets their wireless public safety communications needs. To contain costs, FirstNet is committed to leverage on existing telecommunications infrastructure and assets. This includes exploring public–private partnerships that can help to support and accelerate the creation of this new advanced wireless network. In addition, FirstNet has stated that it will explore ways to make the PPDR spectrum available to other users in times when there is excess capacity while preserving priority access to first responders. The legislation that established FirstNet stipulated that FirstNet would be self-sustaining and that any fees collected by FirstNet shall not exceed the amount necessary to recoup expenses. FirstNet is working to establish a pricing model that should attract users and ensure the network is self-sustaining. Remarkably, there is no requirement for the public safety community to subscribe to the FirstNet network. Through the assessment of fees, FirstNet must generate sufficient funds to enable the organization to operate, maintain and improve the network each year. Besides the public safety community, other federal agencies (e.g. US Department of Homeland Security (DHS)) consider the forthcoming national broadband network as a way to expand its own mission capabilities.

In a first stage, FirstNet is committed to provide mission-critical, high-speed data services though the LTE network to supplement the voice capabilities of today’s LMR networks. In time, FirstNet plans to offer Voice over LTE (VoLTE) for daily public safety telephone communication, as long as this technology matures.

FirstNet has already signed four Spectrum Manager Lease Agreements (SMLAs) with Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) awardees. The BTOP administered by NTIA provided funding for seven public safety projects in 2010 to deploy mobile broadband. These funds were partially suspended 2 years later, after the Congress enacted the law creating FirstNet. The suspension was needed to ensure that any further activities would be consistent with the mandates of the new law. FirstNet reviewed the proposed BTOP projects and determined that there was value in continuing to support them. As a result, FirstNet reached SMLAs with the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Authority; Adams County, Colorado (ADCOM 911); the state of New Jersey; and the state of New Mexico. In this context, several public safety LTE systems can go operational along 2015 such as the over 200-site network being built by the LA-RICS. In addition, FirstNet has also approved a similar SMLA with the state of Texas for the Harris County LTE public safety network, which is funded through a federal port security grant, not a BTOP award. Harris County was the first county to go live with a private LTE system for public safety in 2012. Before the SMLA, a special temporary authority (STA) from the FCC was in place to operate the Harris County network.

In September 2014, FirstNet has issued a request for information (RFI) with a draft statement of objectives (SOO) to seek input from interested parties regarding specific topics, which are intended to help FirstNet develop a comprehensive network acquisition strategy. The RFI includes technical questions related to the building, deployment, operation and maintenance of the nationwide network; ways to accelerate speed to the market; priority and pre-emption implementation; opt-out RAN integration and reliability and restoration as well as life cycle. Some of the key goals of the RFI are to minimize public safety user fees; deliver advanced, resilient wireless services; and maximize the value of excess network capacity to keep costs low for public safety. The key outcomes of this market research phase should help to develop the final state of the request for proposals (RFP), which is expected to be released during 2015. In addition, once the RFI process is concluded, FirstNet plans to begin the opt-in, opt-out process for the states, which will have to decide whether to opt in and pay to access the FirstNet network or opt out and either build their own public safety LTE network by using FirstNet’s 700 MHz, Band 14 spectrum and linking to the FirstNet core or simply go ahead without a dedicated public safety broadband network at 700 MHz.

FirstNet is a major step within the US DHS’s vision [64] of the evolution of public safety communications as it transitions from today’s technology to the desired long-term state of convergence of mission-critical voice and data. Figure 3.4 depicts the conceptual framework for building wireless broadband communications while maintaining LMR networks to support mission-critical voice. According to the picture, LMR networks, commercial broadband networks and a nationwide public safety wireless broadband network are at present evolving in parallel. As communications further evolve, public safety will continue to use the reliable mission-critical voice communications offered by traditional LMR systems. At the same time, agencies will begin to implement emerging wireless broadband services and applications. During the transition period, public safety will begin building out a dedicated public safety wireless broadband network, and public safety organizations will begin to transition from commercial broadband services to the public safety dedicated network. If and when the technical and non-technical requirements (listed in the vertical box) can be met and are proven to achieve mission-critical voice capability, it is desired that over time, agencies will migrate entirely to this ‘converged network’. However, convergence will be a long-term and gradual transition as agencies integrate new technologies, rather than replace existing systems. The pace of convergence will vary from agency to agency and will be influenced by operational requirements, existing systems and funding levels. During this migration period, solutions for connecting traditional LMR with broadband systems will be necessary. Even when the nationwide public safety network is capable of meeting public safety requirements, some agencies may need to operate separate LMR systems until the public safety wireless broadband network is fully deployed in their regions. Therefore, additional investments will continue to be necessary for both LMR and a dedicated public safety wireless broadband network simultaneously.

3.4.2 CEPT ECC Activities for a European-Wide Harmonization of Broadband PPDR

The Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) is one of three business committees of the CEPT, an organization where expert policy makers and regulators from 48 countries across the whole of Europe collaborate to create a stronger and more dynamic market in the electronic communications and postal sectors. The primary objective of the ECC is to harmonize the efficient use of the radio spectrum, satellite orbits and numbering resources across Europe. It takes an active role at the international level, preparing common European proposals to represent European interests in the ITU and other international organizations.

Within ECC, the Frequency Management Project Team 49 (FM PT 49) [61] is working on radio spectrum issues concerning PPDR applications and scenarios, in particular concerning high-speed broadband communications capabilities requested by PPDR organizations. The primary challenge is to identify and evaluate suitable bands (both below and above 1 GHz) for European-wide harmonization of spectrum by taking into account cross-border communications issues and PPDR application requirements and with a focus on medium- and long-term (before year 2025) spectrum realization. FM PT 49 work is being addressed in cooperation (through liaisons) with ETSI and other organizations (e.g. Law Enforcement Working Party (LEWP) of the European Council, Public Safety Communications (PSC) Europe).

FM PT 49 delivered CEPT Report 199 [57] in May 2013, which focuses on the definition of the applications and network-related requirements of broadband PPDR networks, the specification of typical PPDR operational scenarios, the usage of BB PPDR applications and the assessment of the spectrum needs for a WAN.

CEPT Report 199 also elaborates on the concept of future European broadband PPDR systems. According to the proposed concept, future European BB PPDR systems to cope with mission-critical as well as in non-mission-critical situations will consist of the following two central elements:

1. BB PPDR WAN. BB PPDR WAN should provide a coverage level meeting the national requirements and support high mobility PPDR users. Initially, it is expected that BB PPDR WAN systems will operate together with narrowband TETRA and TETRAPOL networks, and those networks will continue to provide voice and narrowband services for at least the coming decade. In the future, the broadband technology will be capable of supporting the PPDR voice services as well as the data applications.
2. BB PPDR temporary additional capacity. BB PPDR temporary additional capacity (also known as ‘hot spot’ or LAN) should provide additional local coverage at the scene of the incident through the deployment of the necessary communications facilities in addition to those available through the WAN. This additional capacity should be provided through, for example, ad hoc networks or additional temporary BSs of the WAN and to support low mobility PPDR users.

CEPT Report 199 provides spectrum requirements of BB PPDR WAN. Instead, due to the fact that there are no commonly agreed requirements on temporary additional capacity, it does not address the assessment of spectrum requirements for BB PPDR temporary additional capacity by ad hoc networks using different frequencies from the ones used in the WAN.

CEPT Report 199 explicitly recognizes that countries may have widely varying BB PPDR WAN needs. To accommodate these different needs, the report claims that the operating bands of future equipment should be wide enough to cover both the minimum spectrum requirement calculated for BB PPDR WAN which would facilitate cross-border operations and additional individual national needs (e.g. for DR). In order to find a solution to the problem of achieving harmonization while maintaining countries’ sovereign right to choose the most suitable solution for broadband PPDR according to national needs, the concept of ‘flexible harmonization’ has been introduced. This concept includes three major elements:

1. Common technical standard (i.e. LTE).
2. National flexibility to decide how much spectrum should be designated for PPDR within a harmonized tuning range
3. The harmonization should enable national choice of the most suitable service provision model (either dedicated, commercial or hybrid).

Based on the above concept, in order to establish a pan-European family of cross-border functioning BB PPDR networks, it is not required to designate identical bands for this purpose but rather to choose the suitable bands within the harmonized frequency range(s) and to adopt a common technology. This will allow a border-crossing broadband PPDR terminal to find its corresponding BB PPDR network in the visited country.

Assuming the ‘flexible harmonization’ concept as a basis for the evolution of today’s PPDR communications towards a broadband future, a transition roadmap reflecting the current vision of the future evolution’s milestones mapped onto the timeline up to and beyond year 2025 has been developed within FM PT 49 [65]. The roadmap, shown in Table 3.7, may assist CEPT administrations in their national planning for the provision of broadband PPDR services.

3.4.3 Hybrid Approaches Taking Off in Belgium and Some Other European Countries

In Belgium, ASTRID [66] is the operator of the national radiocommunications, paging and dispatching network designed for emergency and security services. ASTRID is a government-owned corporation founded in 1998. The ASTRID radio network is based on TETRA technology. The network is used by the Belgian emergency and security services, alongside with public service organizations and companies that provide assistance (e.g. hospitals, ambulances) or may have to deal with public safety-related problems as part of their operations (e.g. public transport firms, water and energy distribution companies, money transportation companies, security firms).

In April 2014, ASTRID launched a broadband data service called Blue Light Mobile [67] that allows its subscribers to use the commercial 3G networks for data-centric applications. To that end, ASTRID takes on the role of MVNO and manages its own SIM cards. These SIM cards give ASTRID’s subscribers the status of international roamers on Belgium’s three commercial cellular networks (Proximus, Mobistar and Base) and eleven networks in four neighbouring countries (the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg and France). While ASTRID’s SIM cards have a ‘preferred’ network, they will automatically switch to another network whenever the coverage is lost. A VPN client programme is provided to the users to create a secure connection (a kind of ‘tunnel’) that guarantees the confidentiality and integrity of the data transfer between the mobile terminal and ASTRID’s data centres. In the case of using the service as TETRA backup function, the terminals needs to be compatible with 3G/4G and TETRA.

Blue Light Mobile is seen as a temporary solution to the problem of supplying PPDR users with mobile broadband. However, ‘temporary’ could mean 5–10 years [9]. While no other similar services are in operation in other countries, the MVNO model is also considered in other European countries such as Finland and France.

In Finland, VIRVE, the Finnish TETRA operator, has already established a roadmap towards the implementation of a government-controlled hybrid of dedicated and commercial LTE networks to eventually offer critical voice and broadband data by 2030 [68]. VIRVE’s current TETRA network provides critical voice and messaging services to all PPDR agencies ranging from social services to defence forces. With regard to the spectrum needed in the new network, some amount of dedicated spectrum in the 700-MHz band will be designated for public safety needs. This assignment is expected to be harmonized with the other European Union countries. With regard to the involvement of commercial networks, the view is that the use of dedicated network(s) in incident-rich areas where the population is located (e.g. urban areas as well as alongside the main highways) and relying on the commercial networks in scarcely populated areas is regarded as the most economical approach. In this regard, ensuring that commercial networks will meet fundamental authority requirements such as capability to guarantee authorities’ priority access at all times in addition to the increased network availability and reliability is likely to be pursued by adding specific requirements into the commercial frequency licencing terms. On this basis, a reasonable time window for the transition from TETRA to broadband in Finland could begin with the availability of critical voice services over LTE early next decade and could end when the current TETRA network reaches its end of life, somewhere in the first half of the 2030s. Building out the nationwide TETRA coverage took several years, and it was even longer until all the separate analogue systems were shut down. Thus, a long period of parallel networks with narrowband TETRA services and LTE broadband should be seen as an asset rather than a burden. In this context, five steps are envisioned [68]:

• Step 1. To set up a data MVNO to address the increased everyday data requirements. This will be accomplished by extending the subscriber and service provisioning system to support provisioning users on a broadband network.
• Step 2. To control subscribers in an owned LTE core. In this second step, the critical voice and messages will run in the narrowband network, and high-speed non-critical (but secure) data will run in the commercial broadband network.
• Step 3. To expand the owned LTE core to an owned dedicated broadband radio access in chosen locations, providing critical-grade data services.
• Step 4. To connect the TETRA and the LTE network once the critical voice over LTE standardization is ready and the TETRA supplier supports group call over LTE functionality in the TETRA side. In this way, the large development investments in TETRA group communications functionalities, such as prioritization, could be used. Then, the same voice services would be available both in narrowband and broadband networks. Nevertheless, while in the dedicated networks this would be on a critical service level, in the commercial operators’ networks, it would just be up to the levels that they could provide.
• Step 5. To dismantle the TETRA radio access once broadband service availability and reliability meet public safety’s requirements. In some (most of all rural) areas, this might take place first when the narrowband network spare parts stock runs out.

During these five steps, the narrowband TETRA network will transform to a TETRA critical voice service server, the operator will gain knowledge and understanding about how to operate a broadband network, and the users will have access to high-speed data service that enables them to benefit from data applications and to develop information-centric ways of working.

In France, the Ministry of Interior has also revealed a hybrid strategy towards the deployment of mobile broadband PPDR based on [69]:

• A dedicated network for PPDR critical communications
• Commercial network for non-critical and broadband transmissions managed by a MVNO

Starting from the current situation with two national TETRAPOL networks that serve different PPDR agencies together with several TETRA networks used by other critical infrastructure operators (e.g. airports, railways), France is seizing the opportunity to move towards a unique dedicated broadband PPDR network for voice and data communications. The reasons argued to justify the option of a dedicated solution instead of a commercial contract with a MNO are the following [69]:

• A commercial network is unable to maintain the availability of a dedicated network.
• The service can be guaranteed even in case of crisis with a dedicated network.
• Higher security levels can be ensured on a dedicated network.
• The legal obligation is limited for MNOs.
• The coverage of commercial networks is not global.
• A commercial SLA cannot replace state responsibility.

On this basis, France is also planning to designate dedicated frequencies for PPDR. In particular, France is considering some amount of spectrum in the 700-MHz range to take advantage of the economies of scale of the LTE commercial ecosystem expected to boost in this band, along with an additional amount of spectrum in the 400-MHz range to reuse part of the existing infrastructure. Together with the envisioned dedicated network for PPDR critical communications, commercial networks would also be used for non-critical and broadband PPDR communications services based on an MVNO model.

3.4.4 LTE Emergency Services Network in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the HO has already initiated the process to replace the TETRA system that provides mission-critical communications for public safety agencies and other government organizations in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) since 2005. This TETRA system is a private network with dedicated spectrum owned and operated by Airwave. This system covers 99% of the land mass and 98% of the population in United Kingdom. It serves all three emergency services (3ES, i.e. police, firefighters and ambulances) and other national users that pay subscriptions fees. According to officials from the UK HO [70], the performance of the TETRA system is ‘very good’ but ‘extremely expensive’ for users, particularly when compared to the plummeting per-minute costs of commercial wireless airtime. The cost of the Airwave service, together with the fact that contracts associated with the Airwave system are scheduled to expire from 2016 to 2020, has motivated the UK HO to seek for a replacement for critical voice, as well broadband data services in a cost-effective manner.

The emergency services mobile communications programme (ESMCP) [71] is the cross-government, multi-agency programme that will deliver the communications system of the future to the emergency services and other public safety users (known as sharers). This system will be named the Emergency Services Network (ESN) and will be expected to provide integrated critical voice and broadband data services to all 3ES. These services require a mobile communications network capable of providing the full coverage, resilience, security and public safety functionality required by the 3ES.

The ESN will replace these services delivered under the current service contract(s). A number of these service contracts operate across the 3ES and other users. The new service contracts are expected to be awarded during 2015 to facilitate the commencement of service delivery from late 2016 as existing service contracts with Airwave begin to expire.

The ESMCP aims to maximize the sharing of commercial infrastructure with the emergency services. The contractual structure defined by the UK HO consists of a set of four contracts between the central government and the commercial suppliers:

• Lot 1, ESN delivery partner (DP) – transition support, cross-lot integration and user support: a delivery partner (DP) to provide programme management services for cross-lot ESN integration, programme management services for transition, training support services, test assurance for cross-lot integration and vehicle installation design and assurance
• Lot 2, ESN user services (US) – a technical service integrator to provide end-to-end systems integration for the ESN: provide public safety communications services (including the development and operation of public safety applications) and provide the necessary telecommunications infrastructure, user device management, customer support and service management
• Lot 3, ESN mobile services (MS) – a resilient mobile network: a network operator to provide an enhanced mobile communications service with highly available full coverage in the defined lot 3 area (in GB), highly available extended coverage over the lot 4 telecommunications network and technical interfaces to lots 2 and 4
• Lot 4, ESN extension services (ES) – coverage beyond the lot 3 network: a neutral host to provide a highly available telecommunications network in the defined lot 4 areas to enable the lot 3 supplier to extend their coverage

Such contracts include clauses on every aspect from government step-in upon failure, SLAs on minimum availability, contract transfer limits, limits on force majeure claims and so on. Remarkably, among the suppliers competing for the network (lot 3) are Airwave Solutions Ltd, EE Ltd, Telefonica UK Ltd, UK Broadband Networks Ltd and Vodafone Ltd. This reflects that MNOs in the United Kingdom seem to see a business model within the mission-critical market, especially if the government pays to harden the networks to meet PPDR standards [9]. Under this contract, it is assumed that the government could buy capacity at wholesale rates for its PPDR services at much lower prices than individual subscribers. Also, the bidding framework requires tenders from multiple MNOs, introducing competition into the price offers. According to UK HO officials [72], the transition to the ESN should begin in 2016 to enable completion by 2020. The contract for the service is estimated to be worth up to £1.2 billion [73].

With regard to spectrum, UK government’s policy is to divest itself of spectrum and for users (including government) to pay market rates [74]. Accordingly, the preferred direction is to minimize the requirement for dedicated spectrum and to ensure that any spectrum used is in harmonized bands to allow use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment. Dedicated spectrum is only envisioned if justified either as the only mean of providing the required operational capability or as a mean of achieving a better overall commercial outcome. In particular, dedicated spectrum may be needed for direct mode-type applications, air-to-ground support or a private network should the preferred option fail. In this way, the ECS in the United Kingdom is likely to use 800-MHz band frequencies assigned through auctioning to the commercial MNOs.

3.4.5 TCCA

The TETRA MoU Association Ltd, now known as the TCCA, was established in December 1994 to create a forum that could act on behalf of all interested parties, representing users, manufacturers, application providers, integrators, operators, test houses and telecom agencies. Nowadays, the TCCA represents more than 160 organizations from all continents of the world. All the governments in Europe are members of TCCA. Half of the Board of TCCA are national governments’ representatives. Many PPDR operators and other critical users in Europe take TCCA’s views into consideration to define their future roadmaps.

A Critical Communications Broadband Group (CCBG) [75] was established within TCCA to provide support information and guidelines for critical communications users, operators and other interested parties who are considering the implementation of mission-critical mobile broadband services. Remarkably, the TCCA’s CCBG is working with public safety, transportation, utilities and other key stakeholder groups worldwide to [76]:

• Drive the standardization of common, global mobile broadband technology solutions for critical communications users
• Lobby for appropriate (and as far as possible harmonized) spectrum for deployment of critical communications broadband networks

In this context, the CCBG is working towards the definition of a robust LTE migration roadmap for PPDR and other critical communications network solutions, initially for data services. Sustained on the fact that standardization, together with consequent conformance and interoperability testing, has been a fundamental aspect in the worldwide success of TETRA, TCCA strongly supports the development of common, global standards, based on LTE, for the future of critical communications worldwide. According to TCCA, the potential market is much larger than just for PPDR alone. TCCA supports the idea that nations will ultimately have one or more private critical LTE networks, operating in dedicated spectrum and complemented with public MNO services. A number of white papers and reports (see [77–79]) have been issued by TCCA’s CCBG on issues related to delivery options for mission-critical broadband and discussion on practical standardization and roadmap considerations.

The roadmap reproduced in Figure 3.5 has been established by TCCA to show the phasing from the existing mission-critical voice networks to mission-critical broadband [80]. The roadmap points out that existing TETRA/TETRAPOL/P25/GSM-R networks are needed until 2025–2030 for mission-critical voice. These technologies are also able to deliver limited mission-critical data functionality. Enhancements such as TETRA Enhanced Data Services (TEDS) are nowadays available and offer greater (wideband) data capacity, so that some countries may introduce TEDS to some extent. Therefore, it is envisioned that most countries will continue operating their PMR networks for at least another 10–15 years and, in parallel, will start (or have already started) to deliver broadband data applications mostly via commercial networks, which can already provide data broadband functionalities today. In this way, the period until 2020 would be used primarily for preparing a mission-critical broadband solution (e.g. harmonized frequency band, technology readiness). When this work is ready around 2020, dedicated networks can be realized. Afterwards, the roadmap gives an indication around 2025–2030 for the broadband networks also to deliver mission-critical voice. In any case, this period is seen as uncertain since the migration of voice services from legacy PMR networks to the broadband network is not only dependent on technology maturity (full TETRA functionality is expected to take longer to replicate) but also on the fact that broadband coverage has achieved similar or better coverage than existing narrowband networks. By then, commercial networks will still be used (e.g. for non-mission critical) in a hybrid model.