Spectrum Policy for the

21^st Century – The

President’s Spectrum

Policy Initiative

A Public Safety Sharing

Demonstration

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, SECRETARY

JOHN M. R. KNEUER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION

June 2007

LEADERSHIP AND CONTRIBUTORS

National Telecommunications & Information Administration

The Honorable John M. R. Kneuer

Assistant Secretary for Communications

and Information

Meredith A. Baker

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications

and Information

Office of Spectrum Management

Karl B. Nebbia

Associate Administrator

Emergency Planning and Public Safety Division

William A. Belote

Division Chief

Richard J. Orsulak

Team Lead

Charles T. Hoffman

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) would like to thank the District of Columbia’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), under the direction and leadership of Robert LeGrande, for providing the necessary support and information during the demonstration of this pilot; and Televate, LLC for providing the necessary contract work for NTIA during the demonstration and development of this report.

This page intentionally blank

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................... xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... xiii

Section 1 - introduction.............................................................................................. 1-1

BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................... 1-1

OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................... 1-3

APPROACH............................................................................................................................ 1-3

Section 2 - Selection Criteria................................................................................... 2-1

Section 3 - the warn pilot............................................................................................ 3-1

BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................... 3-1

SPECTRUM CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................... 3-2

WARN overview................................................................................................................ 3-4

Purpose................................................................................................................................. 3-4

Applications........................................................................................................................... 3-4

Timeline................................................................................................................................. 3-7

Users..................................................................................................................................... 3-7

Funding................................................................................................................................. 3-8

Technology/Vendor Selection................................................................................................. 3-8

Network Construction......................................................................................................... 3-10

TECHNICAL ASPECTS........................................................................................................ 3-10

Overview............................................................................................................................. 3-10

Devices............................................................................................................................... 3-13

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.................................................................................................. 3-14

Overview............................................................................................................................. 3-14

Network Performance......................................................................................................... 3-15

Subscriber Device Performance........................................................................................... 3-17

Application Performance...................................................................................................... 3-18

NETWORK USAGE.............................................................................................................. 3-19

Customer Feedback............................................................................................................ 3-21

SIGNIFICANT WARN DEPLOYMENTS............................................................................ 3-23

Presidential Inauguration, January 2005................................................................................ 3-24

Independence Day, July 2005.............................................................................................. 3-25

Independence Day, July 2006.............................................................................................. 3-27

Section 4 feasIbility of commercial services............................................... 4-1

BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................... 4-1

COMMERICAL SERVICES IN THE DISTRICT.................................................................... 4-1

Section 5 - observations and recommendations......................................... 5-1

observations.................................................................................................................... 5-1

Benefits................................................................................................................................. 5-1

The Growing Demand for Public Safety Broadband................................................................ 5-2

Spectrum Issues..................................................................................................................... 5-2

Amount of Spectrum….………………………………………………………………...5-2

Federal Broadband Spectrum…………………………………………………….……..5-3

Coverage............................................................................................................................... 5-4

Devices................................................................................................................................. 5-4

FUTURE TRENDS AND QUESTIONS.................................................................................. 5-5

RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................... 5-5

Identify Broadband Requirements........................................................................................... 5-5

Begin Planning To Share Spectrum Resources........................................................................ 5-6

Leverage Standardized Economies of Scale............................................................................ 5-7

Improve Buying Power And Public Safety Capabilities............................................................ 5-7

Consider Commercial Services Where Appropriate................................................................ 5-8

SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................5-8

APPENDICES

A - GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................................... A-1

B - SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MoU)...................................... B-1

C - TECHNICAL INFORMATION......................................................................................... C-1

D - WARN PERFORMANCE TESTING................................................................................ D-1

E - USER FEEDBACK.............................................................................................................. E-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: WARN Spectrum............................................................................................................ 3-3

Figure 2: Flash-OFDM Network Architecture................................................................................ 3-9

Figure 3: WARN Architecture Overview...................................................................................... 3-11

Figure 4: Radio Router................................................................................................................. 3-12

Figure 5: Flash-OFDM PCMCIA Card....................................................................................... 3-13

Figure 6: Portable Access Device (PAD)...................................................................................... 3-14

Figure 7: Monthly Data Transmission............................................................................................ 3-20

Figure 8: User Survey Result........................................................................................................ 3-22

Figure 9: Daily Total Traffic Transferred....................................................................................... 3-23

Figure 10: Hourly Traffic of January 20, 2005............................................................................... 3-25

Figure 11: Section 6 RR Configurations......................................................................................... C-1

Figure 12: Access Router Cards.................................................................................................... C-2

Figure 13: RF Subsystem High Level Block Diagram..................................................................... C-3

Figure 14: Measured Downlink Received Level............................................................................. D-2

Figure 15: Downlink Signal to Noise Ratio (12 sites)...................................................................... D-3

Figure 16: Downlink Received Data Rate (10 sites)........................................................................ D-3

Figure 17: Uplink Transmitted Data Rate (10 sites)........................................................................ D-4

Figure 18: WARN Performance Parameters.................................................................................. D-4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAA Accounting, Authentication, & Authorization

A/C Air Conditioning

AIU Alarm Interface Unit

AVL Automatic Vehicle Location

BBU Baseband Unit

BHU Backhaul Unit

bps Bits per second

CAD Computer Aided Dispatch

CDMA Code-Division Multiple Access

CDPD Cellular Digital Packet Data

CMRS Commercial Mobile Radio Service

cPCI Compact Peripheral Component Interconnect

CSU/DSU Channel Service Unit/Data Service Unity

DC DOT District of Columbia Department of Transportation

DC EMA District of Columbia Emergency Management Agency

DC FEMS District of Columbia Fire Emergency Medical Services

DC MPD District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

DC PHS District of Columbia Public Health Service

DC WAN-VLAN District of Columbia Wide Area Network- Virtual Local Area Network

DHS Department of Homeland Security

EMS Emergency Medical Services

EVDO Evolution Data Optimized

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FMDM Flarion Mobile Diagnostic Monitor

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

IMF International Monetary Fund

IP Internet Protocol

IPSec Internet Protocol Security

IT Information Technology

JPEG joint Photographic Experts Group

LAN Local Area Network

LMR Land Mobile Radio

MACC Multi-Agency Communications Center

Mbps Megabits per second

MCU Master Control Unit

MDT Mobile Data Terminals

MHz Megahertz

MMCX Micro Miniature Coaxial

MoA Memorandum of Agreement

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MPEG4 Motion Picture Experts Group Version 4

NCR National Capital Region

NPS National Park Service

NPSTC National Public Safety Telecommunications Council

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration

OCTO Office of the Chief Technology Officer

PA Power Amplifier

PAD Portable Access Device

PCMCIA Personal Computer Memory Card International Association

PCMIA Personal Computer Manufacturer Interface Adapter

PCU Power Control Unit

PDA Personal Digital Assistant

PHY Physical Layer Processing

QoS Quality of Service

RF Radio Frequency

RFP Request for Proposal

RWBN Regional Wireless Broadband Network

RXU Receiver Unit

SNR Signal to Noise Ratio

STA Special Temporary Authorization

TXU Transceiver Unit

UDP User Datagram Protocol

UPS Uninterruptible Power Supplies

USB Universal Serial Bus

USPP United States Park Police

USSS United States Secret Service

VSAT Very Small Aperture Terminal

WARN Wireless Accelerated Responder Network

WLG Working Level Group

WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

WMO Wireless Management Office

WPO Wireless Programs Office

Section 3

THE WARN PILOT

BACKGROUND

The District of Columbia (District) is in a unique situation regarding its public safety interoperability needs. It has both state and local responsibilities, and it is adjacent to five local municipalities and two states. This region, encompassing the District and all of the surrounding cities and counties in Virginia and Maryland, is most often referred to as the National Capital Region (NCR). Additionally, due to the small size of many of these jurisdictions and the significant scope of events in the District, mutual aid is provided far beyond the NCR. Also, the large presence of the federal government in the NCR requires that the District must be able to interoperate with numerous federal agencies.

The District is responsible for a significant number of incidents and events that occur in the nation’s capital, which also includes fire suppression and emergency medical services for federal structures and property. This responsibility demands coordination and extensive communication with many jurisdictions. For instance, daily traffic related incidents on the Wilson Bridge as well as frequent large demonstrations require ample inter-agency communication and coordination among federal, state, and local emergency personnel. At major events, such as the Presidential Inauguration or the incident on September 11, 2001 at the Pentagon, the breadth of mutual aid was significant — the need for interoperability and solutions that link multiple jurisdictions and extend beyond regional boundaries is paramount.

The District's OCTO develops and enforces policies and standards for information technology used within the District government. The OCTO identifies where and how technology can systematically support the business processes of the District's 68 agencies. These agencies can draw on the OCTO's expertise to get the most out of their technological investments. The OCTO assesses new and emerging technologies to determine their potential application to District programs and services. The OCTO also promotes the compatibility of computer and communications systems throughout the District government. Information Technology (IT) is the most powerful tool for achieving the District's business goals.

Since its establishment in April 2001, the OCTO has been implementing an eight-year, citywide, IT Strategic Plan (IT Plan). The IT Plan is designed to deliver a robust technology infrastructure for the District government, provide systematic technology support for District government functions, create a state-of-the-art public safety/homeland security infrastructure for the nation’s capital, and provide a complete and coherent Website offering a variety of Web services for the public.

In order to address the District’s needs for wireless communications, the Wireless Programs Office (WPO) was established at the end of 2001. The WPO is responsible for using wireless technology to improve District operations. Because wireless solutions are used extensively by the public safety community, the WPO focuses primarily on pubic safety wireless needs. In the aftermath of 9/11, the WPO initially focused on implementing a fully interoperable public safety radio system with ample in-building coverage for District emergency personnel. While working on the public safety radio system, it became evident to OCTO and WPO personnel that existing data communications solutions were not meeting the needs of emergency responders within the District. For instance, public safety personnel needed to use real-time broadband data applications when working in the field (e.g., streaming video, detailed building blueprints, and high resolution images). These applications required a large transmission pipe, and the existing LMR systems and public safety spectrum were insufficient to support these needs over wide areas. This finding led to the development of WARN, the pilot network designed to provide wireless broadband at high speeds to emergency response personnel deployed in the field.

SPECTRUM CONSIDERATIONS

The District recognized the necessity of a public safety broadband wireless data network, but it also recognized that the technologies using existing public safety spectrum did not fulfill its broadband data needs. The private-owned network options offered at the time included narrowband channels in the 150 MHz, 450 MHz, and 800 MHz public safety bands, wideband data channels in the 700 MHz band, or broadband data channels in the 4.9 GHz band.[17]

The District’s analysis of these options showed that:

· Although 150 MHz, 450 MHz, and 800 MHz band propagation allows a small number of sites to provide ubiquitous coverage to a wide area,[18] the narrowband (25 kilohertz) data channels in these bands did not allow for broadband data application use. The throughput provided was less than half that of a typical dial-up connection. Peak achievable throughput was about 20 kilobits per second (kbps), limiting operations to little more than text messaging. Also, the lack of contiguous blocks of spectrum prevents use of the necessary bandwidth to accommodate broadband applications. Furthermore, these bands are heavily used by thousands of licensees, and they would have to be cleared to allow for broadband channels.

· The current 24 MHz of public safety spectrum within the 700 MHz band possesses radio propagation characteristics that are similar to the 800 MHz band. However, the 150 kHz channel size limit in this public safety band does not allow for broadband applications. For example, Scalable Adaptive Modulation (SAM), the technology proposed as the wideband technology standard, was not expected to be cost-effective or to meet the demands of transferring data. Peak throughput is 460 kbps, allowing for only a few streaming video feeds; whereas some applications transmit multi-video feeds and require 1.2 megabits per second (Mbps). Therefore, the high bandwidth demand could not be supported by this technology. Furthermore, the District expected to secure only a few 150 kHz channels in the 700 MHz regional planning process. The result would be 50 times less throughput than what the applications required. Additionally, because the SAM technology is not easily scalable, the only way to increase capacity would have required costly upgrades.

· Even though sufficient bandwidth exists in it, the 4.9 GHz (4940-4990 MHz) band allocated to public safety was not economically viable for deploying and operating a District-wide network. Ubiquitous coverage of the District (68 square miles) would have required more than 1,000 radio sites compared to roughly 10 sites in the 700/800 MHz band because of its short-range propagation characteristics. The District estimated that the deployment and operating costs for this quantity of sites would be prohibitive. The application of this band is more suitable to “hot-spot,” short-range incidents.

After analyzing the available options, the District decided to deploy a pilot network in the 700 MHz band under an experimental license, and to seek permanent broadband spectrum for public safety.[19] An experimental license was necessary because the current FCC Part 90 Rules do not provide channel widths to accommodate high-speed/high-data rate broadband applications and the District intended, in part, to use spectrum not allocated to public safety.[20] Under the authority of an FCC experimental license, the District deployed a 700 MHz pilot network using a commercial technology called Fast Low-latency Access with Seamless Handoff Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (Flash-OFDM).[21]

The light yellow areas in Figure 1 show the spectrum granted to OCTO through the experimental license. Figure 1 identifies the 24 MHz of spectrum from TV channels 63, 64 (764-776 MHz) and 68, 69 (794-806 MHz) that has been reallocated for public safety uses.

Figure 1: WARN Spectrum

WARN uses one 1.25 MHz channel in each of the two 4 MHz bands[22] allocated in the TV Channel 61 (downlink or base station to mobile terminal), and the TV Channel 69 (uplink or mobile terminal to base station) segments. The OCTO selected these bands since they afforded the only clear space in the 700 MHz band within the District at the time of the pilot launch.

After the experimental license was granted in February 2004, the District learned that the Flarion equipment to be used in the experimental network would be available more rapidly if the uplink and downlink frequencies were swapped (e.g., if the base stations operated in the lower range of frequencies from 752.65 MHz to 756 MHz range,[23] and the mobile units operated in the upper range of frequencies from 800.65 MHz to 804 MHz). Swapping the uplink and downlink frequencies had no impact on the operations of WARN; however, in order to receive approval for this license revision, the District had to demonstrate to the FCC that the operations of Maryland Public TV broadcasting in the adjacent channel were not disturbed by WARN.[24]

The FCC stipulated that the District had to coordinate with the Maryland Public TV station (Channel 62) prior to network deployment to ensure that no harmful interference would be caused to its television operations.[25] As the license filing describes, the only TV Broadcasting station on a co-channel or an adjacent channel was a Maryland Public TV located in Frederick, Maryland, which operates on channel 62. This channel, represented in light green in Figure 1, was adjacent to OCTO’s experimental downlink channel. However, the actual transmitted central frequencies used by WARN were 755 MHz and 803 MHz. The Maryland Public TV channel, therefore, was separated by 3 MHz from the transmitting Flash-OFDM station, which allowed for protection from interference. Moreover, an additional filter was added to further protect the TV station. Extensive testing was conducted to show that WARN did not interfere with Maryland Public TV. Maryland Public TV did not report any interference during the WARN operations. The Commission granted the experimental license revision. However, in order to minimize the potential for interference, the conditions of the experimental license allowed mobile use only within the geographic confines of the District to protect television broadcasters operating in the band.

WARN OVERVIEW

Purpose

The purpose of the WARN pilot was to determine how a broadband wireless network could address the needs of public safety and to further refine system and application requirements for future public safety data systems. The District designed the WARN program to use the upper 700 MHz band, thereby allowing it to evaluate the impact of interference received from or created by TV stations broadcasting in this band.

Applications

Responding to emergency events such as multiple-alarm building fires, chemical or biological attacks, or other large-scale attacks requires immediate and rapid wireless data communications among multiple first responders, including fire, police, and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. Broadband applications now are considered essential tools for protecting lives and property. The ability to use these critical public safety data applications, among others, requires ubiquitous wide-area coverage with broadband throughput. The network allowed District first responders to use full-motion, high-resolution video monitoring and other bandwidth-intensive monitoring tools to immediately share time-critical incident and emergency event information with such applications as:

· Real-time, full-motion video;

· Digital imaging (e.g., building diagrams, mug shots);

· Remote access to databases (e.g., criminal, hazardous materials) and report management systems;

· Mapping, Geographic Information Systems (GIS);

· Remote sensors (e.g., biological, radiological);

· Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), automatic collision notification systems; and

· Emergency Medical Services (EMS) applications.

Specifically, a number of diverse applications requiring varying degrees of data rates evolved over the duration of the pilot. The titles and descriptions of many of the applications are reflected in the following table. Not all of the applications listed have actually been used as of yet, but show the potential for future use on the WARN network.

*Title*	*Description/Benefit*
PROTECT (Chemical/biological terrorism detection and information sharing)	Existing applications of video and plume projection information to first responders in the field provides enhanced response time and real-time detailed information. Providing this information to the field to qualified personnel avoids missing key information that an untrained eye might miss.
Demonstration video surveillance	Dissemination of video from existing overhead traffic cameras provides field officers important information regarding the demonstration. It also allows law enforcement to locally identify needed resources before any officer is put in harm’s way. LiveWave, Greenhouse, and KaptureNet are examples of this type of application that were used with WARN.
Bomb squad support	Local law enforcement bomb squad personnel can be supported remotely by federal bomb experts to analyze and incapacitate sophisticated bombs.
EMS support	EMS personnel providing critical care can receive diagnostic analysis and treatment support from hospital or other medical experts and drastically speed up the delivery of timely medical care.
Building images, etc.	Overhead building images from multiple angles provide firefighters with critical entry, exit, building vent points, and building vulnerability points. Computer-aided designs of buildings also provide firefighters with detailed floor plans and building materials. GIS systems provide fire hydrant locations and aid firefighters in identifying potential water sources while en-route, saving valuable time.
Helicopter video support	Video captured above a major building fire provides incident commanders with an important perspective on how to extinguish the flames and minimize risks to firefighters battling the fire.
Interoperable video	Police officers or other government personnel who arrive at an incident early can convey critical information back to EMS personnel to deliver resources to the incident at the appropriate priority.
Image or video distribution	The distribution of a picture of a missing child, convenience store robbery video, or criminal-sketch to all equipped vehicles in the field. High-resolution images can be quickly disseminated to an entire department with broadband networks. These images provide clearer representations of their subjects and allow first responders to more accurately identify important information. Video content might show a suspect with a telling limp.
Fingerprint distribution	A suspect’s fingerprint can be transmitted from the field for detailed analysis in the lab or a fingerprint can be disseminated to the field for remote analysis.
Field reporting	Public safety personnel can prepare and submit reports in the field that include voice, images, and video. This can avoid unnecessary trips back to headquarters or the home office.
Field training	Training or instructional videos can be viewed in the field to minimize the impact on command, management, and training resources.
Management consultation	Officers or EMS personnel can consult with superiors and convey images or video of crime scenes or patients.
Remote Roll Call	Management can conduct roll calls remotely keeping public safety personnel in the field and minimizing out-of-service time.
CapWIN	An interoperable public safety application for the NCR. Provides NCR jurisdictions with the ability to communicate and access multiple law enforcement databases.
JUSTIS	The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council’s information sharing application. Allows sharing of law-enforcement data among city and federal agencies.
WALES	The Washington Area Law Enforcement System is a real-time, computer-based, police information system serving the tri-state area of the District.

Timeline

The following timeline represents key milestones in the deployment of WARN:

*Date*	*Event*
August 03	Request for Proposal (RFP) for Pilot Network Released
December 03	Contract Awarded to Motorola
January 04	OCTO Files for Experimental License with the FCC
February 04	FCC Grants License
July 04	OCTO Files for a Revision to Experimental License; Original Network Sites Deployed
August 04	FCC Grants Revised License
August 04 - December 04	System Optimization and Testing of Network
December 31, 04	System Acceptance
January 05	Additional Site Added to Network (near White House); First Official Use of Network - Presidential Inauguration
April 05	Additional Site Added to Network (RFK Stadium)
January 05 - December 06	More than 200 Subscriber Devices Operating on the Network

Users

WARN network users included a vast group of federal and non-federal government agencies and public safety personnel from in and around the District. Their cooperation on the WARN network demonstrated the abilities of agencies to effectively work together. The following is a list of agencies that were users of WARN:

• City of Alexandria Police Department

• DC Metropolitan Police Department

• DC Child and Family Services Agency

• DC Office of the Chief Technology Officer

• DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department

• DC Department of the Environment

• DC Department of Transportation

• DC Department of Corrections

• DC Department of Health

• DC Emergency Management Agency

• DC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner

• DC Office of Unified Communications

• Fairfax County Fire Department

• Montgomery County Fire Department

• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

• US Department of Homeland Security

• US Federal Protective Service

• US Park Police

• US Secret Service

All user agencies were required to execute a MoU with the District’s OCTO (see a sample MoU in Appendix B). This MoU required agencies to abide by the District’s computer use policy, to utilize the network extensively, and to report back to OCTO with information that could lead to future requirements and enhancements.

Funding

The construction of WARN and its initial operations were funded through the District’s capital funds. A total of $2.8 million enabled the District to build the initial ten-site network covering its 68 square miles, and provided one year of network operations, as well as 200 subscriber devices. For Fiscal Year 2006, the WPO received additional funding through the DHS State Homeland Security Grants, which covered network and customer operations for the WARN network.

WARN was cost effective in comparison to the upgrades made to the District’s LMR system. The District spent $6 million on its original four-site 800 MHz LMR system, and an additional $17 million to upgrade it to a ten-site 800 MHz and 450 MHz network. However, the LMR network provides comprehensive in-building coverage to the 95^th percentile versus outdoor coverage for the broadband network at the 95^th percentile.

Technology/Vendor Selection

The OCTO sought technologies that would meet the needs and demands of the District’s public safety personnel and be cost effective. The key qualities in technology that were sought for WARN included:

• High uplink speeds capable of supporting multiple video streams from mobile units to the network;

• Support of Quality of Service (QoS) which efficiently managed network capacity through flexible traffic prioritization administration;

• Same frequency reuse at all sites to facilitate scalability and minimize needed spectrum (i.e., spectrum efficient); and

• Use of existing LMR infrastructure for cost effectiveness.

The District selected Motorola to deliver WARN which had partnered with Flarion Technologies, the maker of Flash-OFDM equipment. The District selected the Motorola/Flarion solution over Lucent’s 1xEVDO (Evolution Data Optimized) Rev 0 due to the higher uplink speeds enabling streaming video from the field as well as the support of QoS controls which enabled improved management of scarce wireless bandwidth. At the time of vendor selection, Verizon Wirelss had recently deployed a 1xEVDO Rev 0 system in the Washington, DC metro area.

Flarion’s technology, Flash-OFDM, is a wireless data solution that provides high data rates at very low latency.[26] This feature gave WARN users a wireless connection that was always on, provided upload and download speeds (peak speeds of 900 kbps and 3 Mbps respectively) comparable to residential broadband connections, incurred minimal delays in reception of streaming media, and performed all of these functions in any location covered by the network. Since Flash-OFDM was capable of supporting high data rates, it gave WARN users the ability to send and receive real-time video applications.[27]

Figure 2 illustrates the Flash-OFDM network architecture. At launch, WARN consisted of ten radio routers, an Internet Protocol (IP) network interface, and a network operations center. The architecture is based on the Mobile IP standard and provides seamless connectivity and a single IP address throughout the coverage area.[28]

Figure 2: Flash-OFDM Network Architecture

The technology uses a 1.25 MHz channel bandwidth and supports re-using the same frequency at each site and sector via random frequency hopping. Interference occurred only if the power from two sites or sectors was relatively equal and then only part of the time because error correction made up for most of the difference. Though throughput was constrained in this scenario, connections were maintained with this advanced, interference-resistant technology.

Though not part of the solicitation, Motorola offered its Greenhouse video, audio, and dispatch software for WARN operations. This unexpected additional offering proved highly beneficial to the District. The Greenhouse software enabled WARN users to share real-time video and audio information at high video resolutions, with full motion, while using little network capacity. Greenhouse can also make use of inexpensive webcams or high-end professional cameras to share video information.

Network Construction

Three additional antennas, six transmission lines, and three transceivers[29] were added to the ten LMR sites to provide citywide service. The resulting configuration provided for three sectors per site that delivered up to three times the capacity of a single sector. Additionally, all the sites were interconnected through the District’s fiber optic network, DC-NET, to redundant central nodes. These hub sites included Accounting Authentication and Authorization (AAA) servers as well as elements that provided mobility management. The hub sites also gave network users access to the District Wide Area Network (DC-WAN) and the Internet.

Antennas and cables connecting the radio equipment were installed at each site and then activated. The basic function of each site (radio communication with mobile subscribers and routing of data packets) and the connectivity to the other components of the network were then tested. After testing the functionality of all individual sites, the performance of the entire network was verified during the optimization phase.

WARN’s optimization phase was an iterative process that consisted of evaluating the performance of the network by driving around the city and testing network operations, modifying the configuration of the network, and then re-evaluating the network performance until optimal performance was achieved. During this phase, the antenna direction was altered to steer signals to where they were needed most and away from areas where interference caused poor performance. On December 31, 2004, the District formally accepted the network from the vendors. Preliminary users were added to the network in January 2005 for additional beta testing. The first major use of WARN occurred on January 20, 2005, for the Presidential Inauguration of President George W. Bush.

TECHNICAL ASPECTS

Overview

WARN is an “all-IP” network using the ubiquitous IP for all network elements, allowing low-cost network elements with simple interconnections to the Internet. WARN’s base stations are IP routers that support the Flash-OFDM radio interface (radio-routers). Each terminal equipment unit, radio site, and sector was assigned an IP address. As an “all-IP” network, it was very easy to integrate WARN into most existing commercial and private data networks because it operated with IP. In particular, the functions of the network could be realized using equipment already deployed on wired networks.[30]

The network includes 12 transceiver sites interconnected to two redundant data centers via an independent, District-operated fiber ring. This interconnection at the data centers provides WARN users access through the DC WAN to other District agencies and the Internet, making it possible for agencies and users to share data and video.

In order for WARN to achieve proficient wide-area communications, application servers were placed inside the WARN network, in the District’s data centers, and in the agencies’ WAN. All application servers had significant interconnection and power redundancy to ensure the QoS offered by WARN. The network was further equipped with security policies, firewalls, and dedicated links that limited the access of specific applications to relevant end-users.

As Figure 3 shows, the configuration of the backhaul connections, the central node switches, and the AAA, are all fully redundant.

Figure 3: WARN Architecture Overview

The central node switch manages the users’ network mobility. Both the switches and the AAAs are located in two different data centers allowing transition of operations from one data center to the other in the event of a failure. The critical network functions (switching that directs calls to the right recipients, AAA, and Mobility Management that ensures reaching users anywhere within the coverage area) are duplicated in each data center. Because of the ring nature of the fiber network, the backhaul offers no single point of failure.

Ten of the twelve WARN sites were already being used by the District’s public safety, LMR, voice, push-to-talk network. They all offer redundant power supplies (including Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS) and diesel generators) and redundant air conditioning (A/C) units. The radio routers also have redundant power units and redundant network interface units.

Two additional sites were deployed to address coverage and capacity (see the “Network Performance” Section). Because of the quick deployment requirements and a limited budget, it was not possible to offer the same level of reliability for these sites. Although power was secured with a UPS and battery backup at both sites, it was not possible to procure and install generators and A/C units.

Also, one of the additional sites did not have access to the fiber ring. For this site, backhaul was provided through a non-redundant microwave link that connected this site to the closest WARN site. These improvements are planned in 2007, when the District plans to implement a fully operational (non-pilot) broadband service as part of the National Capital Region Regional Wireless Broadband Network.

Ultimately, the architecture of WARN was designed to provide the best reliability, functionality, capacity, and spectral efficiency to its users. To achieve this goal, each of the network’s radio sites included a three-sector radio router that allowed for maximum throughput of data (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Radio Router

Additionally, each sector was connected to a cross-polarized panel antenna, which provided for optimal coverage for data throughput. For the sites located at buildings, the panel antennas were mounted on the side of the penthouse for improved shielding between sectors.[31] The selected configuration included receive-diversity, which was used to improve signal reception and was achieved on WARN by having one transmitter, one amplifier and two receivers for each sector.[32] The combination of these characteristics of WARN’s architecture ensured the consistency of coverage for network users. (Appendix C contains more technical details regarding network architecture.)

Devices

In order to transmit and receive data on the network, WARN users were assigned personal computer (PC) cards or Portable Access Devices (PADs). Some devices were assigned to agencies for distribution to users within their agencies as needed, and others were permanently assigned to individuals. The PADs were typically used in command bus applications and mobile video surveillance, but they also served as DC-WAN extensions for remote public safety offices. These remote extensions offered tremendous flexibility for public safety operations to be established almost anywhere in the District.

The PC cards and PADs served as communications modems for host computers – no different than a dial-up modem or Local Area Network (LAN) card inserted into a computer. Users could easily install PC cards in a slot in most notebook or laptop computers along with the installation of corresponding software drivers which provided the communications channel to the operating system and its applications. Although non-technical personnel could have performed these installations and used the WARN PC cards with minimal delay, OCTO installed all software drivers as an additional level of security and customer service. Likewise, a PAD could be installed very quickly by connecting the PAD to a host computer via a LAN Ethernet connection or Universal Serial Bus (USB) cable. Both the PC card and the PAD allowed the host computer to have access to the DC WAN and the Internet.

The District acquired 200 terminal equipment units for network users. The units consisted of 180 PCMCIA cards (Figure 5) that can be installed on most common notebook or laptop PCs, and 20 PADs (see Figure 6) with Ethernet ports that are compatible with all modern notebook, desktop, or network devices. The transmitted power of the terminal equipment is very low (250 milliwatts).

Figure 5: Flash-OFDM PCMCIA Card

The computer system requirements to support the PC card include:

• Card Slot: 1 Type II PCMCIA Card Slot

• Memory: 32 Mb

• Hard Disk Space: 5 Mb

• I/O Resources: 1 IRQ, 256 bytes I/O Space

• Processor Speed: 600 MHz

• Operating System: Windows 2000, XP, Me, Pocket PC

The cards come with a flexible antenna that bends and rotates to reduce breakage. The antenna is removable and connected by a standard Micro Miniature Coaxial (MMCX) connector. For some vehicular configurations, this antenna was removed and a coaxial cable and an external antenna was attached for superior coverage. With the appropriate drivers (provided by Motorola/Flarion), a new computer system can be configured in minutes to secure a connection to the DC WAN and the Internet.

Figure 6: Portable Access Device (PAD)

The PAD (Figure 6) is a small box (3 3/8" x 5 3/8" x 1.5 ") that includes a card and an antenna, and it has a USB port and an Ethernet port for connecting to computing devices. The first iteration of the devices required the user to depress the power button to turn the unit on. Later releases automatically powered up and proved valuable in the event of a power failure. This feature was very useful in the command bus setting where the unit was immediately available when needed. Upon power up, each device was authenticated by the network. The PAD requires no host computer or software and was directly connected to a router, desktop, or notebook computer that supported a USB or Ethernet connection.

Security was provided for both the PAD and the PCMCIA card. If a device or card was lost or stolen, the device or card could be removed from the AAA database and would not be able to gain access to the network. Users employed additional security measures by controlling access to Mobile Data Terminals (MDT) and by using encryption of transmitted data.

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Overview

The WARN demonstration was positive and valuable to the Washington D.C. Metro-area public safety community. WARN was able to satisfy almost all expectations, and it met the basic needs of emergency personnel. Specifically, WARN supported the broadband applications, provided coverage over a wide area, and was easy to use. Furthermore, the cost of implementing and operating the network was significantly lower than the existing LMR system. During the demonstration, the technology and system proved to be scalable, allowing additional sites to be integrated without difficulty in order to improve coverage and capacity.

A main reason for the network’s success, however, was the added value provided to public safety operations and the resulting positive reception from the user community, as reflected in Appendix E. In particular, WARN enhanced capabilities and interoperability of local and federal public safety agencies in major planned events such as the Presidential Inauguration, the State of the Union Addresses, the Fourth of July celebrations, the World Bank and IMF demonstrations, as well as unplanned emergency events, such as the Cardoza High School mercury spill incident, and others.

Additionally, using WARN stimulated creativity in its users who developed further uses of the network. For instance, two such examples include the U.S. Park Police (USPP) and the District’s Fire Department developed a protocol to share USPP helicopter video over WARN to enhance emergency operations (that will be useful in events such as major fires). Also, the District and neighboring jurisdictions recognized the need for regional interoperable data solutions using broadband. As a consequence, the NCR initiated an exhaustive Regional Data Interoperability Program that includes the deployment of a Regional Wireless Broadband Network (RWBN).

Network Performance

WARN provided average speeds of 1 Mbps downlink (base-to-mobile) and 300 kbps on the uplink (mobile-to-base). It achieved these speeds outdoors with a mobile antenna inside a vehicle. These speeds provided the flexibility needed for delivering essential video streams, high-resolution images, and GIS information. The speeds were fast enough that the multiple streams and data information could be shared at the same incident location. The throughput of data improved as the signal level increased relative to the noise level. Throughput was at its weakest where the signal level was low and the noise level was high. Low throughput areas also included those where the signal was strong from other sites.[33] This performance was similar to in-building coverage of the District’s radio network with only ten sites.[34] Detailed coverage maps and performance information can be found in Appendix D.

The implementation of QoS also efficiently managed the capacity of the network to share bandwidth among simultaneous users. Each user was assigned a profile and depending on the users’ role (e.g., commander vs. officer) and the application used (real time or not), the system was able to prioritize traffic. The data transmission rates were also capped based on user needs.

The coverage of the system was less than expected by the District – especially at the edge of the system and at locations equidistant between sites. With the initial ten sites, the system provided outdoor connectivity (greater than 0 kbps throughput) to 95 percent of the city.[35] The District had expected that the system would provide broadband (a minimum of 300 kbps) coverage over 95 percent of the city. In addition to capacity needs in strategic areas, this coverage deficiency led to adding two sites post network acceptance. Two factors contributed to this situation.

First, Flash-OFDM was not able to accept self-interference (cases in which the signal level of two adjacent sites is roughly equal) and maintain good data rates. In these areas, connectivity and throughput was highly variable. The cell edge is the geographic area located at the border between two sites’ coverage areas. At this location, two signals of comparable strength were received from each site at the same location. Because the system used the same frequency at each site, these sites interfered with each other. When this condition occurred, the throughput of the system was very low and connectivity could have been lost. When compared to LMR, however, the use of the same frequency provided far greater spectral efficiency and scalability. Improvements in the ability to resist interference were needed to take advantage of the efficiency while ensuring reliable service for public safety users.

Second, the Flash-OFDM technology operates at lower power levels and antenna heights than the LMR network. Transmitted power levels of the Flash-OFDM technology were much lower than the LMR system, and radio propagation range is directly linked to how much power is transmitted (the more that is transmitted, the longer the range). Similarly, lower antenna heights lead to more obstacles that reduce signal levels, resulting in reduced transmission site range.

On the terminal side, the PC cards were transmitting a power of only 250 milliwatts, or less than one-tenth of the power of the typical handheld LMR unit operating at three Watts, and less than one-hundredth of the power of a mobile unit operating at 35 Watts. However, this tradeoff enables important capabilities such as the use of PC cards.[36] On the base station side, the WARN transmitters operate at one-fifth of the transmitter power of the LMR system. Even in situations where the content is downloaded from a server, the mobile unit must be able to communicate that messages were received properly. Therefore, this reduction in power from the mobile unit results in a smaller footprint per site.

Transmitting antenna height is also a factor in radio propagation range. Lower antennas are more impacted by natural obstacles (e.g., buildings and trees) and thus have reduced coverage footprints. For example, the Washington Monument is visible over a far greater range than the much shorter Lincoln Memorial. This same principle reduces the signal levels of shorter transmission sites. The WARN antennas were ten to 400 feet lower than the LMR antennas. This was done to reduce interference to other parts of the system and maximize spectrum efficiency. This tradeoff increased available use of the spectrum by focusing the coverage only where it was needed for each site. There were, however, some potential solutions to these coverage deficiencies without sacrificing the positive aspects of the lower power levels and antenna heights.

Two additional transceiver sites were added to address coverage/capacity issues in critical areas of the District after the initial ten-site deployment. The first site, in the vicinity of the White House, provided additional capacity for the White House and its grounds, as well as for part of World Bank neighborhood. The load on this site increased significantly, particularly during major public safety related events. This site was added before the 2005 Presidential Inauguration in anticipation of significant traffic in the vicinity of the White House.

The second site was later added near Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium (RFK) to alleviate coverage issues around the stadium and along the Anacostia River. This site enabled the support of first responders’ critical communications during the Washington Nationals’ baseball games. During the games, the D.C. Emergency Management Agency (DC EMA), the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (DC MPD) and the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (DC FEMS) were deployed on site with their command buses, generating a high-traffic demand. Support of this demand was not possible before this additional site was operational.

The ease of integrating two new sites demonstrated the scalability of the system. The two new sites used the same frequency as the ten initial sites, and their footprints were contained in the coverage area of the initial system. As a consequence, their integration did not necessitate additional coordination with potential interferers, but it required some limited fine tuning of the parameters of WARN’s configuration.

Due to the existing operations on the network at the time, the District could not perform throughput testing, as it could have disturbed public safety emergency communications. However, measurements of the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) allowed the District to estimate that the throughput, at the 95^th percentile, was 200 kbps for the 12-site system.

Subscriber Device Performance

The failure rate of the subscriber devices has been very low since WARN operations began. Of the nearly 200 devices, fewer than five cards or PADs were replaced, and only three antennas required replacement as of August 2006. Thus, the failure rate was less than 2.5 percent in one and a half years (or a 1.6 percent overall annual failure rate).

More problematic, however, was that the PADs did not automatically power up when power was available during initial deployment. In the case of the command bus implementations, operators were already overloaded with duties; therefore, an automated solution was required. The District worked with Flarion Technologies to secure a modification to more than half of the PAD inventory to automatically power up the PAD when power was supplied to it. As a result, as soon as the command bus power supplies were on, the PAD provides the bus LAN with a connection to the DC WAN and Internet.

OCTO also identified a need to provide alternative subscriber device sizes and functions for WARN access. For example, many public safety personnel had notebook computers that were capable of embedded wide-area modems. These internal modems were more rugged and lacked the obtrusive WARN antenna. Additionally, the only PDA solutions that could accommodate a WARN PC card required a heavy and bulky expansion pack and a very limiting battery life. Finally, the District is a significant user of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). The systems that support AVL include an integrated Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with a wireless modem; however, no such product was available for WARN compatible devices.

Application Performance

While supporting local and federal agencies in implementing and operating their communication applications, the program continuously fine-tuned the configuration of the available applications and evaluated alternative and creative solutions with vendors to better meet the needs of public safety first responders.

In particular, streaming video was a crucial application for first responders. Those video applications were particularly challenging in terms of data throughput and network load, and therefore drove the dimensioning of the network and the associated public safety spectrum requirements. The demand to enhance the availability and effectiveness of video applications for WARN users required significant efforts to review and evaluate video applications that were available on the market. Evaluating such applications allowed WARN users and OCTO to work closely with vendors to improve their products to match public safety’s mobile communication needs.

Pilot research results showed that an increasing number of video products were maturing and becoming better positioned for the public safety wireless environment. Bandwidth requirements varied widely with the vendors’ solutions, as did the quality of the video itself. A key criterion for evaluating the application was its flexibility to match the quality of the image (and therefore the required bandwidth) to the specific need of the first responder.

For instance, with the addition of the D.C. Department of Corrections (DC DOC) as a user on the network, KaptureNet was added as a video surveillance application to be used over the network. KaptureNet helps provide incident control during the transportation of inmates. In order to provide incident control, video is recorded and downloaded at a designated site, and it is also accessed wirelessly and instantly when necessary. The unique aspect of this product is that it combines a GPS locator with video to provide accurate geographical surveillance to the DC DOC. As a consequence of adding KaptureNet to WARN, the DC DOC was able to locate their vehicles at all times and could essentially “check-in and look” whenever they wanted to do so. To ensure the effective functioning of the application, the DC DOC and OCTO worked closely with the vendor to optimize their algorithms and ensure that adequate service was provided to the end-user.

The pilot program team also extensively evaluated Motorola’s Greenhouse software, which contains streaming video components. It was used by several agencies including the USPP. The major upgrades made to the software are detailed as follows:

· The first upgrade was the addition of new codecs. Motion Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) and H-264 were added to the existing Motion Picture Experts Group version 4 (MPEG4) codec.[37] This variety of codecs enables users to rank the merits of each and select the most appropriate one for their use.

· Second, users were given the option to select not only the codec to be used, but also the transmitted bandwidth. This option brought some flexibility to the users to transmit at a lower quality level when the network is saturated or the radio conditions are not optimal.

· Third, a new version of the software was deployed that used one uplink stream independent of the quantity of users viewing the video. Previously, multiple viewers of a single video source would require as many uplink streams and thus significant amounts of scarce bandwidth. With the previous version, each user downloading the same streaming video transmission would take up additional bandwidth.

NETWORK USAGE

Overall, the pilot fulfilled the original purpose for which it was defined, which was to deploy and demonstrate a broadband public safety network used on the 700 MHz spectrum that emphasized sharing among public, private, and government agencies. There were multiple effective deployments of pubic safety applications over the network and no interference issues were documented from the use of the upper 700 MHz band.

Specifically, in regard to the interference issues, it is important to note that since the WARN network base stations began transmitting, Maryland Public TV station (Channel 62) did not report any interference issues. Likewise, WARN did not experience any interference issues from Channel 62.

The planning, deployment, and operations of WARN provided many useful insights about the effectiveness of the wireless broadband solution for public safety. They also highlighted several areas where improvements were needed. Many of these improvements were identified as a result of major events during the demonstration project.

Use of the network was relatively consistent over time. WARN was used on a daily basis with very high traffic volume during major events. Figure 7 illustrates comparatively equal uploads and downloads and notes the high traffic events. The total monthly traffic averaged almost 25 gigabytes of data from January 2005 through August 2006, amounting to an average of 130 megabytes per month per user (assuming 190 users).

Figure 7: Monthly Data Transmission

The WARN network was used to support federal and District first responders and their agency command buses (USPP, Metropolitan Police Department, DC FEMS, and the DC EMA) during several large events in the District. For example, these events included the Fourth of July celebrations, the Million and More March, the World Bank and IMF demonstrations, anti-war protest marches, the Jamaican Festival, at the D.C. Armory for Hurricane Katrina evacuees, and the President’s 2005/2006 State of the Union Addresses.

During these events, user agencies employed a variety of applications that enabled them to access remote Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) features to track vehicle fleets (I/Netview), transmit and receive across the city multi-streaming video links (LiveWave, Greenhouse, TrafficLand, KaptureNet), access and share critical data with other agencies and/or jurisdictions (CapWIN, JUSTIS, WALES), and remotely access vital information (Internet and GIS).

The USPP was a very active user of the system. For example, WARN was utilized by a patrol officer in Rock Creek Park during an arrest. The officer was able to access one of the three criminal information databases through CapWIN and determine that the individual was wanted. Additionally, USPP and OCTO jointly evaluated and determined best practices in the transmission and use of video from a helicopter. This capability was of keen interest to all first responder agencies, as they were interested in pooling resources and collaboratively sharing this type of information on a regular basis.

Another key user of the system was the DC FEMS, which actively used the WARN cards in a variety of functions, such as transmitting pictures from the Public Information Officer to media outlets, filing real-time reports in the arson department, and improving responses to chemical alarms in the hazardous materials department. Additionally, DC FEMS equipped their command bus with the capability to communicate on the WARN network. DC FEMS used the system on site at such incidents as the mercury spill at Cardoza High School on March 2, 2005. Following the success of these operations, DC FEMS requested additional cards to be deployed throughout the agency.

Customer Feedback

Since August 2005, the District asked WARN users to complete monthly customer surveys in order to assess the value of WARN and to capture needed improvements.[38] The surveys seek user opinions on coverage, reliability, support, benefits, and satisfaction with all aspects of the WARN network, including available technologies, network coverage, speed of communications, and usefulness. The response rate of these customer surveys is typically 30 percent of all users. The customer surveys allow the WARN team to measure how beneficial the network is to public safety operations as well as to obtain a thorough understanding of future technical requirements or items needing improvement.

Overall, customer satisfaction with all elements has been very high. Average monthly user ratings are shown in Figure 8: User Survey Results. The highest scores were support, benefit, and overall satisfaction, while the lowest-rated elements were mobile terminal antenna reliability and consistent coverage. This feedback was consistent with the findings of the coverage differentials between the District LMR system and WARN and with the lower throughput noted at cell-edge (see section on “Network Performance”). High scores on support were largely due to the attentive WARN customer support team. The small user community enabled this team to provide more personal customer support and quickly address any problems. In fact, the WARN customer support team spent considerable time working on issues that were unrelated to WARN network or subscriber device operations. The team typically helped customers bring new applications onto WARN and provided troubleshooting support for these applications. High benefit and overall satisfaction are testament to the usefulness of a broadband connection for public safety. For specific user feedback collected by the District regarding WARN use, see Appendix E.

Figure 8: User Survey Results

The District received the most suggested improvements in the coverage category. As noted in Appendix E, the system provided broadband service in most of the city; however, public safety personnel needed and expected connections anywhere they had the potential to respond. Therefore, broadband connections were needed everywhere. Even with two additional sites and 700 MHz operation/propagation, many points in the District had limited connections.[39]

The lessons learned from the users of the network were among the most significant results of the pilot program. The network was not truly valuable unless beneficial data was shared by the WARN users. As seen in the customer survey reports, the users in the pilot program found the network of significant value to their everyday activities, as well as for large-scale incidents or events.

One of the most significant lessons learned from the user community was that public safety was unaware that these types of solutions were possible. Additionally, it was recognized that technology alone was insufficient for delivering useful solutions to public safety. Technology must accompany training and development of solutions that fit the public safety operational model. Once applications and systems met the operational needs of public safety and the user community was able to fully understand the benefits of the solution, the full benefit derived from a broadband network was realized. Furthermore, the WPO customer operations group was instrumental in ensuring that the users were able to make complete use of a broadband solution and were able to support ancillary systems.

SIGNIFICANT WARN DEPLOYMENTS

Since January 2005, WARN was deployed at a number of events throughout the District. The use of WARN during major events demonstrates that WARN was both a critical and effective network for facilitating communications and data exchange among agencies to promote public safety. Furthermore, major events require special attention: they caused the most significant loads on the network and demonstrated the ultimate capabilities and benefits WARN provided. WARN became a resource that the public safety community relied on to facilitate command decisions from a remote location.

Figure 9: Daily Total Traffic Transferred

Figure 9 shows the five periods of highest WARN traffic. These periods saw public safety employ significant video applications to augment their operations causing spikes in network traffic. Both federal and District law enforcement use of video surveillance were the dominate drivers for these high-demand days. The five periods were:

· January 20, 2005: Inauguration Day

· February 2, 2005: State of the Union Address (including preparatory efforts on February 1, 2005)

· October 28-29, 2005: A.N.S.W.E.R.[40] demonstrations and IMF meetings

· April 21-23, 2006: IMF/World Bank meetings

· July 4, 2006: Independence Day-Fourth of July celebrations on the National Mall

Details of a few planned, major events in which WARN enabled the transmission of high-speed data from remote locations follow. These events highlight significant developments during the implementation of WARN and do not necessarily reflect the five busiest events as noted above. The first official deployment of WARN was the Presidential Inauguration in January 2005. The final event of this demonstration, July 4, 2006, illustrates the extensive progress that was achieved in deploying applications to meet public safety requirements during the demonstration.

Presidential Inauguration, January 2005

The geographic scope of the event included the parade route from around the White House up to the U.S. Capitol and back. The participants included the DC MPD, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), DC EMA, DC FEMS, USPP and WMATA. To coordinate the security of this event, agencies were contacted in advance, but most of the implementation occurred within one week or less.

During the Inauguration, most users planned to run standard Web-based applications (e.g., Web-based news) though one agency deployed an uplink video system that enabled command centers to have a view of streaming mobile video signals. Another agency worked with OCTO WPO to deploy Motorola’s Greenhouse software in order to provide bi-directional audio and video with the intention to stream video from a command bus and an additional cruiser to an Operational Control Center. Other fixed video streams were transmitted from this Operational Control Center to other locations in the metropolitan area using commercial satellite communications. These video streams were used to allow command centers to monitor crowds, the progress of the Presidential motorcade, and other public safety operations.

The USSS accounted for more than 60 percent of the total traffic carried by WARN on that day (five gigabytes of a total of eight gigabytes). The use of real-time streaming video accounted for this traffic. The application used by USSS, LiveWave, uses motion JPEG to transfer video information. Essentially, this system transmits compressed snapshots in succession. Unfortunately, the motion JPEG system uses significant bandwidth to send just several frames per second.[41] The system tries to send as many frames as possible; therefore, it quickly overloaded the network.

OCTO staff worked with participating agencies to ensure the applications would function as needed. Multiple modifications of security systems were required to allow these applications to function. Significant advanced planning was necessary to ensure the integrity of the District and federal facilities, to maintain security, and to provide the needed wireless functions.

The generated traffic on WARN during this event was in the downtown area of the District, between the surroundings of the Capitol and the neighborhood of the White House. Three sectors of the WARN network covered this area.

Figure 10: Hourly Traffic of January 20, 2005

Figure 10 shows the total loading of several highly-utilized sectors or cells during Inauguration Day. The measurement of this load was reported every fifteen minutes. This graph shows that for several hours, several sectors had a load of nearly 100 percent and therefore experienced overload conditions at some point during the 15 minute measurement period, especially on the uplink or upload path (mobile terminal to base station noted as uplink (UL), i.e., uplink in the figure). The two cells with the highest load, Cell 1 and Cell 3, served the White House and the U.S. Capitol, respectively. Note that traffic was highest at the Capitol during the Inauguration itself and that loading on the White House site continued through the night due to ongoing events. Only cells with a significant load are shown, and therefore, Cell 3, serving the Capitol, never had an appreciable load on the downlink (DL). Cell 4 covered part of Pennsylvania Avenue and part of the Mall between the White House and the Capitol.

The first significant use of WARN demonstrated its importance for public and national security, and it demonstrated that agencies can effectively operate on one network while performing different tasks. This initial large-scale use of WARN proved that advance planning is critical to achieving successful operations. Additionally, it was important to implement QoS so that no one agency acquired all of the available bandwidth. The use of applications that were bandwidth-efficient was a key to achieving successful operations. The implementation of an additional temporary site to support the needs of the USSS demonstrated the scalability and flexibility of the technologies. Finally, the system required much greater testing to ensure that upon failure, the system engaged the secondary components.

Independence Day, July 2005

WARN was used to support a number of agencies during the Independence Day celebrations on the Mall in 2005, which included activities on the Mall between the National Monument and the U.S. Capitol. Although this event was not considered one of the five busiest events, it highlighted a number of issues/applications of importance. There was significant coordination among OCTO and the users for this event. During this event, WARN mainly supported the USPP, the DC EMA, DC FEMS, and the DC MPD.

At this event, the applications deployed were:

I/Netviewer: This is an application that allows remote access to the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. It includes tracking and monitoring of vehicles using remote GPS, and was available in a command bus.
LiveWave: This streaming video application uses motion JPEG to code images. Typically, it was used to send streaming video feeds from mobile cruisers to a server. It was then possible for any authorized user (typically a mobile command bus or a fixed command center, or even another cruiser) to pull the video on demand. Each video feed required up to 350 kbps or more.
Greenhouse: This streaming video application uses MPEG4 as a codec. It also supports peer-to-peer video communications. Its capabilities are similar to LiveWave, except that its throughput requirements range from 100 kbps to 150 kbps per video feed with full frame rates (15-24 frames per second). The downside to this application is that it required consistent throughput (video quality degrades when the available speed drops below 100 to 150 kbps) and the video quality was not as crisp as the LiveWave solution.
TrafficLand: This application includes a set of DC DOT cameras located at strategic locations (crossroads, sensitive buildings, etc.) and was connected to the DC WAN. It was possible for authorized users (command bus) to access cameras and download images. This application has various service rates. The basic service provides roughly one frame per second (not full motion) and requires about 45 kbps. The advanced service uses nearly full motion and requires hundreds of kilobits per second.
CapWIN, JUSTIS and WALES: These are applications enabling regional public safety users to query several regional public safety databases and exchange messages.
Internet: This application provides general Internet access with a particular emphasis on live weather updates and access to other information databases.

During Independence Day 2005, OCTO personnel were stationed at the USPP command bus to assist in the set up and maintenance of the system. With a combination of four agencies heavily using the network, it was vital to ensure the sharing of resources functioned efficiently. According to verbal feedback from the users, the District realized a savings in time, money, and personnel through the sharing of valuable resources such as video.

Moreover, during this event, the network enabled the deployment and the usage of these applications in a wide geographical area. Support of the applications would have been impossible with the traditional wireless technologies available to public safety, as illustrated in the following testimony from Lt. David Mulholland, USPP:

“The United States Park Police increased its usage of the WARN network commencing with the National Fourth of July Celebration on the National Mall. The United States Park Police had currently used WARN to provide high-speed connectivity to its Mobile Command.

On the Fourth of July, the United States Park Police also expanded usage of the WARN network to its stationary operation center, functioning as a Multi-Agency Communications Center for this activity, allowing connectivity to CapWIN, the United States Park Police helicopter video downlink (real-time), DC DOT traffic cameras, and the District JUSTIS network.

Additionally, the United States Park Police deployed WARN as the primary connectivity medium for two mobile data computers in patrol vehicles. These patrol vehicles tested the reception of WARN throughout the western half of the District including the Rock Creek area. The tests were met with very positive results. These MDCs[42] were also used to receive real-time video imagery from the United States Park Police helicopter. They continue to be used as the primary means of connectivity for these two patrol vehicles.”[43]

Independence Day, July 2006

WARN was utilized to support a number of agencies during the events of Independence Day 2006 which included activities on the Mall between the National Monument and the U.S. Capitol. Representatives came from a cross-section of agencies, including state, local, federal and non-federal organizations. The agencies included the National Park Service (NPS), USPP, the Red Cross, Smithsonian Institute, WMATA Transit, WMATA Police, DC DOT, DC FEMS, DC EMA, OCTO, the National Weather Service (NWS), and the DC Public Health Service (DC PHS).

For this event, a significant alteration to the network occurred on Monday, July 3, 2006, when the USPP gave permission for DC FEMS to view their helicopter video over WARN (using Greenhouse). The OCTO WARN team modified the Greenhouse installation on the DC FEMS command bus to allow them to sign in as part of the USPP domain.

During the July 4, 2006 celebration, the USPP hosted a Multi-Agency Communication Center (MACC) at their Anacostia facility, during which WARN was used to facilitate the transmission of streaming video from multiple remote locations back to the MACC. The purpose of a MACC is to provide a remote location for all agencies to provide assessments and from which to make command decisions.

The MACC was set up with five large plasma displays. One was dedicated to the air traffic control radar, one for the NWS, two for TV stations (CNN/FOX), and one for WARN and Greenhouse. The NWS feed and traffic information (via TrafficLand) were delivered over WARN. The equipment used for this event included a Laptop PC with a WARN PCMCIA card and a WARN PAD connected to a router that provided Internet access to half of the computers in the MACC.

The DC-FEMS command bus at 15^th Street NW and Constitution Avenue NW transmitted video pictures from the mast camera to the MACC using Greenhouse. This particular view was used all day by the MACC users to observe crowd size, review the parade, and observe the effects of the severe thunderstorm that moved through at 5:30 pm. The staff on the DC FEMS Mobile Command Unit had the ability to pan, tilt, and zoom the mast camera at the request of staff from the MACC.

When a strong line of thunderstorms entered the NCR, WARN provided a tremendous benefit via its connection to the NWS. The joint team at the MACC used the NWS feed to determine that the storms were quite severe and decided to evacuate the National Mall and take cover. This proved to be beneficial, as the large tents blew over and could have caused injury. All of this was visible to the emergency personnel at the MACC via several DC DOT, USPP, and DC FEMS cameras situated on or near the Mall.

The careful planning and continued relationship-building demonstrated through the MACC resulted in a smooth execution of the systems and further demonstrated the benefits of the WARN network across agencies. Additionally, they provided insight to the benefits that can be derived among many agencies – even those without wireless broadband connections. For example, DC DOT was able to receive important weather information and traffic camera information at a joint command post. Ultimately, this last significant deployment showed how improvements to WARN increased user education, and how inter-agency communication created a network that was critical to public safety needs.

Section 5

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By all accounts, the WARN 700 MHz broadband pilot met the objectives of testing the operational and cost-effectiveness of sharing spectrum between federal, state, local, and other private users. Considerable interest by the public safety community at large, Congress and the FCC has shown that there is a real demand for broadband services. Based on this pilot, the following observations were identified and recommendations developed to demonstrate the feasibility of public safety spectrum sharing initiatives and broadband solutions.

observations

Benefits

Data applications are becoming more important to support response and recovery efforts. The WARN system provided ample benefits to both federal and non-federal users and demonstrated a successful, cost-effective, spectrum-sharing initiative. Importantly, it used only 2.5 MHz of spectrum, yet delivered tens of Mbps of data throughput, demonstrating efficient use of scarce spectrum resources. It delivered sufficient broadband speeds in most situations, but needed improved coverage to allow public safety to reliably use broadband speeds wherever required. The most beneficial aspect of this demonstration project, however, was in the collaboration between federal and District agencies. Such coordination was only possible because of the significant capacity offered by WARN. Without this capacity, the District would not have been able to accommodate the additional demand of the federal agencies. Ultimately, the project demonstrated not only successful spectrum sharing, but also successful spectrum use. WARN could be a model of the future of public safety communications as a result of its high bandwidth capabilities that supported voice, video, text, images, and a host of other critical public safety applications. Similar broadband technologies also harness the economies of scale of commercial markets, and provide far greater capabilities at ever decreasing costs. As such, projects like WARN demonstrate great promise for addressing the next generation of public safety interoperable communications systems.

The use of WARN provided significant benefits to federal agencies within their organizations, including interoperability that might not have been possible if the agencies had used different networks. The high degree of collaboration between the USPP and the District afforded tremendous additional opportunities for interoperability. For example, DC FEMS and USPP personnel became familiar with one another’s capabilities and needs via WARN user group meetings. As a result, they began to collaborate on sharing video content. Had this collaborative opportunity not existed, each may have had the technical capability to share video content, but would have been less likely to do so.

The WARN pilot demonstrated a diverse set of broadband applications including helicopter video, traffic management support, bomb squad support, and fingerprint distribution. Users on the WARN system found these applications to be useful, and as they became more accustomed to the network, the demand for new applications continued to grow. The applications provided seamless interoperability among all WARN users.

The Growing Demand for Public Safety Broadband

Just as consumers are looking for other mobile services and features, such as data and video imagery, there is a growing interest in public safety operated broadband networks across the country to augment their current capabilities. The District and the local governments in the Metropolitan Washington Area are working to implement such a solution for the NCR – extending the capabilities of WARN into the urban and suburban areas outside of the District. This region filed a waiver from current 700 MHz FCC Rules to allow for a regional, interoperable, and broadband wireless network.[46] This regional network, while not an expansion of WARN, will draw significantly on the lessons learned from the WARN pilot.

Spectrum Issues

The WARN pilot used spectrum in the 700 MHz band that is not currently authorized for broadband use in FCC Part 90 Rules.[47] Hence, the pilot needed an experimental license to transmit with broadband channels. This license is set to expire in mid 2007. Thus, a solution is still needed to enable permanent use of this band for broadband operations. Additionally, this band only allows federal government use as an end user in coordination with a state and/or local partner.[48]

Several spectrum issues become clear as a result of this WARN demonstration project. They include:

· Existing amounts of spectrum bandwidths may be insufficient for meeting the growing mobile, wide-area broadband demands of public safety; and

· The federal government does not have spectrum allocated specifically for dedicated mobile public safety-related broadband applications.

Amount of Spectrum. According to the District’s experiences, it appears the amount of spectrum used by WARN (2.5 MHz) — under the experimental license and within the 700 MHz band — is insufficient for broadband public safety use.

With only 20 users on Inauguration Day, WARN was overloaded in the downtown area, bringing into question the adequacy of a single broadband channel for a city the size of the District. Though these users were expected to be super-users (meaning they should generate much more traffic than the average user), the capacity of the system to support all public safety use in the District remains questionable. Over 3,800 District police officers, 1400 Fire and EMS personnel, and thousands of additional District and federal law enforcement personnel have data needs inside the District. Additionally, providing other emergency response services from fire suppression and emergency medical to emergency management could also place considerable demands on the network. Therefore, if the data needs of public safety expand far beyond the limited WARN deployment, and if these additional users have usage profiles similar to those using WARN, the required bandwidth could be substantially more than a single broadband channel can accommodate.

The use of video presented the most significant demand to WARN. OCTO made changes to user profiles after the 2005 Inauguration to prevent excessive bandwidth use by individual users. These changes could degrade the frame rate to the extent that motion representation becomes inadequate. However, despite these changes, subsequent major events resulted in as much or more use with fewer than 200 users.

Furthermore, emerging applications are likely to become available to public safety in the near future and place significant additional demands on data networks. Few would have predicted the wide-scale use of the Internet today as compared to ten years ago and few can predict the capabilities that may be available to public safety in the next five to ten years. Also, other broadband applications such as three-dimensional GIS and high resolution image sharing were used sparingly over WARN, but interest in these applications is increasing. Likewise, smarter technologies are being developed that deliver better applications in more spectrally efficient ways.

The DTV Act directs the FCC to take all steps necessary to require, by February 18, 2009, that full-power television stations stop analog broadcasting, and that Class A stations, whether broadcasting in analog or digital format, and full-power television stations broadcasting in digital format, conduct such broadcasting on channels 2 to 36 and 38 to 51.[49] This enables channels 52 to 62 and 65 to 67 to be auctioned, and channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 (i.e., the 24 MHz at the 700 MHz band) to be used for public-safety purposes.

Federal Broadband Spectrum. By agreement, some federal agencies were participating users of WARN, however, they cannot presently be licensed to operate in the 24 MHz public safety 700 MHz band that is expected to support broadband.[50]

The federal government does not have spectrum identified specifically for mobile public safety-related broadband applications, whereas non-federal public safety services do at 4.9 GHz and the potential exists for such capabilities in the public safety 700 MHz band. If federal agencies identify a need for broadband access, they have, for example, a number of options in the near future: utilizing commercial services; partnering with state or local governments in building and operating broadband private networks; or identifying spectrum for broadband use within the current federally-allocated bands based on specifically identified requirements.

For example, satellite services may be a solution only for command vehicles and other specialized units due to the cost and size of Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSAT) applications with large bandwidth. Satellite services are also frequently unavailable in urban or natural canyons or inside buildings. For reasons mentioned previously, federal agencies should appropriately consider the use of satellite and other commercial services based upon such issues as reliability, coverage, security, and network management.

If spectrum were to be identified for federal broadband use from the federally-allocated bands, it should be near or co-located with state, local, and tribal spectrum so as to easily tie the networks operationally together and build a greater, national, economy-of-scale network that would foster interoperability. Furthermore, the band should contain enough spectrum to accommodate broadband channel widths.

Coverage

Achieving adequate broadband coverage is perhaps the biggest challenge to implementing WARN, as indicated by the need to add two sites to the WARN system. The inherent lower power of broadband technologies delivered significant advantages, such as smaller base station equipment and handheld devices, but it also resulted in less in-building coverage when compared to LMR. Adding sites was an excellent solution to the coverage dilemma, but they were costly to implement and operate. The challenge is now to match broadband coverage to LMR coverage, allowing public safety to better leverage existing infrastructure, saving capital and operating dollars. The District expects that technologies are on the horizon that can help make up for broadband coverage deficiencies in the long-term, providing excellent coverage even in the dense granite structures of downtown Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, however, the District intends to enhance coverage by adding up to double the number of existing sites to the WARN network. Using NCR’s RWBN, sufficient outdoor coverage is expected in the first half of 2007, with citywide indoor coverage expected by the end of that year.

Devices

Additional types of subscriber devices would help meet public safety needs. Rugged computing devices are sufficient, and the PC cards have proven to be sufficiently rugged, with the exception of the antenna. The PC cards and PADs have a small paddle antenna that can pop off, break, or become an obstruction to the user. Additionally, the cards are custom-made at a cost of $600 each and they do not allow roaming on commercial networks. Although antenna reliability issues were not prevalent in user feedback, using integrated or fixed antenna technology in the next generation of laptops is a viable solution to this issue.

Technologies that can support all user needs would be ideal. For example, OCTO could not satisfy requests to provide WARN connections for PDA devices without significant sacrifices of battery power and usefulness of the device due to bulk. Therefore, users requiring a handheld device with WARN access could not be supported. Furthermore, integrated modems with AVL were also not available and could not be supported. With commercial technologies, however, WARN users would have had the opportunity to acquire the necessary solutions and more. For example, voice and data integrated devices in a phone format allow users to read email, use Web sites, and access other information. These features may be attractive for some users who desire limited capabilities in a small, handheld form. Additionally, some commercial handheld devices are built to withstand shock and moisture. This selection of devices would have enabled OCTO to better meet the needs of its user community. Ultimately, the commercial technologies would offer more choices for public safety and address a wider variety of needs.

FUTURE TRENDS AND QUESTIONS

The initial data collected from the WARN pilot program suggested that a strategy was needed to deal with the long-term trends in technology for wider channels, more data, and higher data throughput. Based on verbal feedback from the user community to the District, it is believed that more data will be required over time (video, biometrics, imagery), requiring an increase in bits per second (bps) throughput to handle the demand. This increase will demand reliable broadband solutions for the entire public safety user community. Leveraging innovation and competition in commercial markets, while providing sufficient economy of scale for customization for public safety, appears critical for maintaining the needed capacity to address these demands. Planning is critical to ensure that a blueprint for regional or national wireless broadband solutions is available when the user community needs them.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations that stem from this demonstration project include guidance for technological improvements as well as additional short and long-term planning and sharing required among and between government agencies for broadband services.

Identify Broadband Requirements

Agencies that have the need for broadband applications should identify their requirements in their strategic spectrum plans submitted to NTIA. State and local public safety entities should similarly plan and identify their broadband requirements.[51] Without identifying the requirements, a viable spectrum plan cannot be developed. In order to provide a comprehensive view on what spectrum and technical solutions may satisfy agency requirements, agencies should consider the following in their spectrum needs planning:

• Throughput and tolerance: The throughput of the applications and application tolerance of deviation (e.g., streaming media versus transmission of file) that are or will become mission critical.

• Latency: The latency tolerance of the applications, i.e., does the application need to hear back within a short time frame or will excess latency cause some degraded quality of service?

• Device requirements (e.g., small PDA, embedded in notebook, PC card): Some critical differentiators include requirements for lightweight, handheld solutions. This will become a driving factor on the coverage footprint, size of the device, battery life, and the usefulness that the public has become accustomed to with today’s commercial devices. If this is not a factor, many more options open up.

• Coverage requirements and spectrum options: If the public safety mission for broadband includes areas within foliage, inside buildings, and in urban or natural canyons, then satellite communications become difficult. On the other hand, building broadband networks in remote areas is expensive. At the other extreme, on-scene communications solutions at unlicensed or 4.9 GHz may provide the needed capacity if the coverage expectations can be met. These may be the main differentiating factors as to what frequency and architecture are needed to address the requirement.

• Required scalability: Agencies will need to estimate demand over time to ensure growing user communities and usage will be accommodated. Projections for the growth in data needs are critical in understanding the needed pace for technological advancements of any data solution. Other solutions, such as cell splitting, may be an alternative solution to address capacity, especially for same-frequency-reuse technologies. However, it is critical to understand the demand curve for individual applications and users, and in aggregate, to ensure the spectrum and infrastructure solutions can stay ahead of the curve.

• Required reliability of the solution: It is vital to consider the degree to which the data solutions are mission critical and their impact if lost. Important factors for reliability include the power, backhaul, and other redundant components. Additionally, the type of priority access may become an important consideration.

• Commercial services: Agencies may consider the trade-offs of using commercial services and networks instead of private networks in satisfying the identified broadband requirements.

Begin Planning To Share Spectrum Resources

Some may debate the need of public safety broadband capacity. Others may also question the need for public safety operated networks. In any case, these are important issues that will require years of planning to achieve regional or nationwide solutions. In the event that private broadband networks are needed in the coming years, planning must begin to address the need. Regardless of method, public safety must share spectrum at some level in order to accommodate its broadband needs – either with the public or with other public safety agencies or governments. WARN demonstrated the feasibility of spectrum sharing among governments, but considerable efforts are required to make such a solution permanent.

Additionally, it is impractical for individual jurisdictions to go it alone. Both high deployment and operational costs will result. The more entities that work together to deploy similar solutions, the more built-in interoperability will inherently exist. Additionally, regional efforts can share significant costs in the build-out and operations phase. Regional deployments and systems could also reduce the complexity of roaming arrangements.

Partnerships between federal agencies, regions, states, and their local jurisdictions are an important component of an effective public safety broadband solution. Partnerships among federal, state and local public safety entities, as demonstrated by WARN, have shown to improve coordination and interoperability between federal and non-federal agencies. Interoperability is needed at the borders between states and regions, and therefore, a more global approach to spectrum and technology use is required to address these areas. It is also impractical to set up agreements among every local or county jurisdiction in the nation. State, regional, and national partnerships are more appropriate.

Leverage Standardized Economies of Scale

The lessons learned from the District are to choose standard solutions that are also affordable due to mass commercialization. The WARN pilot provided for lower-cost network and subscriber devices when compared to LMR systems, but subscriber devices were considerably more expensive than commercial cellular devices. Further, the subscriber device options in the commercial markets provide tremendous choices that will benefit public safety as compared to the limited choices offered to WARN users.

These same commercial technologies decrease year-by-year in cost versus an increase in the LMR marketplace. Therefore, over time, the cost disparity between commercial broadband and other solutions will grow even larger. Public safety should leverage commercial wide-area solutions in order to continue to harness the economies of scale. If demand is as significant as presented by WARN, it may also be important to tap the research and development efforts and solutions that deliver exponential growth in capacity and features of the commercial markets.

Additionally, these solutions may inherently deliver built-in roaming solutions. As a result of mass-scale standard technology use, vendors will find it easier to deliver solutions that can support the frequencies of public safety and commercial markets. This will enable roaming on to commercial networks from private public safety networks using inexpensive subscriber devices.

The benefits of the use of standard solutions can also facilitate national interoperability. Such mass-scale solutions are already delivering national commercial networks and can be adopted to address seamless interoperability among private networks. If state and local public safety entities deploy different broadband solutions across the country, then it is likely that federal agencies would have to buy multiple devices (and routers to support seamless operations) to have coverage on each operating network. Whether the federal solution becomes a private one hosted by regional state and local public safety agencies, or a federally-owned network, the devices that are purchased should be compatible with existing nationwide commercial networks. Initially, any private solution will provide an island of coverage. Compatibility with commercial services could then also deliver more cost-effective national solutions to accommodate federal and regional needs through economies of scale.

Improve Buying Power and Public Safety Capabilities

A significant limitation for deploying this type of broadband solution is the reduction in coverage compared to a LMR system operating on the same frequency band. Agencies will desire network capacity and the ability to support more broadband applications. However, their ability to deploy more sites to address the limited coverage in comparison to 700 MHz or 800 MHz LMR deployments could be problematic. In order for broadband solutions to become viable, they may need to deliver coverage on par with LMR networks. This would allow public safety to fully leverage existing assets such as sites, generators, and backhaul.

Several technologies are on the horizon that could potentially improve coverage and investments in infrastructure, and subscriber devices are needed to bring these technologies to the marketplace. Smart antennas, for one, focus signals where needed and away from areas where they would cause interference. Other techniques such as transmit diversity, whereby the same signal is transmitted from two antennas and at two different points in time, may also deliver improvements in range. More mobile power may also deliver additional range, but at the expense of reduced portability.

A focused effort around broadband solutions will help to energize a public safety broadband marketplace and result in a lower cost, yet customized solution for agencies nationwide.

Consider Commercial Services Where Appropriate

As discussed previously, it was the District’s decision not to use commercial services for a broadband network because user requirements (reliability, coverage, security, and network management) could not be met. However, in some areas, commercial services may be the only solution in the near term for affordable broadband services. Should commercial services be used, public safety agencies will need to deal with issues like coverage, priority service, redundancy, reliability, and other features (e.g., streaming video, access to GPS information, etc) to ensure that they can perform their missions. Public safety agencies are encouraged to appropriately use commercial services for broadband applications should their requirements dictate.

SUMMARY

WARN demonstrated a critical value in supporting federal and non-federal agencies as they work towards a spectrum sharing solution to meet the increasing complexity of public safety’s wireless broadband communication needs in the coming decades. In these times of heightened awareness and security, public safety agencies are asked to provide more effective vigilance, response, and recovery efforts for its citizens. The WARN pilot demonstrated a new way to approach this demand.

Specifically based upon this pilot, the following observations and recommendations were identified:

*Observations*	*Recommendations*
Spectrum Planning
WARN demonstrated that in-depth spectrum planning and coordination are required to satisfy emerging broadband requirements. · WARN illustrated a growing need for broadband capabilities within the District.	Federal agencies should clearly identify all broadband requirements in their agency strategic spectrum plans submitted to NTIA. State and local public safety entities should develop spectrum plans that address their emerging broadband requirements.
Spectrum Use
WARN demonstrated that the availability of broadband leads to the realization of broadband potential and the creative identification of new applications. According to the District’s experiences, it appears the amount of spectrum used by WARN (2.5 MHz) under the experimental license may be insufficient for public safety broadband use.	The FCC should conclude their revision of the current 700 MHz band plan to provide the capability for public safety entities to deploy broadband services.
Spectrum Sharing
The WARN pilot showed that partnerships that share spectrum resources between all levels of government greatly increase interoperable communications. The District discovered during the WARN pilot that spectrum and communications infrastructure sharing tends to provide operational and cost-effective solutions.	Broadband partnerships should be considered by the public safety community to include all levels of government.
Feasibility of Commercial Services
· The District analyzed the use of commercial services and determined that commercial networks did not meet the requirements of WARN. However, they are available and may be appropriate for non-mission-critical uses if reliability, throughput, coverage, security, and network management issues are addressed.	· Public safety agencies should use commercial broadband services, where appropriate, if they can satisfy their broadband requirements.

This page intentionally blank

1xRTT	A version of CDMA2000 that utilizes a pair of 1.25 MHz radio channels. 1xRTT (Radio Transmission Technology) offers high-speed data services and voice capability and is more efficient due to its use of a pilot signal and more channels between fixed stations and mobile users.
4.9 GHz	The frequency band 4940-4990 MHz designated by the FCC for fixed and mobile wireless services and for use in support of public safety. The allocation of this band for public safety provided public safety users with additional spectrum to support new broadband applications.
700 MHz	The frequency band 764-776 and 794-806 MHz designated by the FCC for general use and interoperability narrowband channels, narrowband low power channels and wideband general use channels for public safety.
800 MHz	The frequency band designated by the FCC for public safety use in the 806-869 MHz range. This band is currently in a re-banding process to alleviate the commercial/public safety interference issues.
ALMRS	Alaska Land Mobile Radio System is the shared and interoperable statewide public safety telecommunications system used by state, local and federal first responders and public safety agencies in Alaska.
AVL	Automatic Vehicle Location is a technology that monitors vehicles in real-time and conveys navigational or operational data to the driver or monitoring center.
CDMA	Code-Division Multiple Access is a technology for digital transmissions of radio signals between a wireless device and a radio base station.
DC FEMS	District Fire Emergency Medical Services is the agency that provides emergency support services in the District.
DCWAN-VLAN	District Wide Area Network-Virtual Local Area Network is the telecommunications network providing coverage to the government agencies in the District.
DHS	U.S. Department of Homeland Security develops and coordinates a comprehensive national strategy to strengthen and protect against terrorist threats or attacks in the United States.
“Direct” Communications	Short-range, line-of-sight communications directly from one radio to another without benefit of a repeater to extend the range of the transmitted communication.
Downlink	The downlink (otherwise known as forward or download) path is the path from the base station to the wireless subscriber device (e.g., computer modem).
EVDO	Evolution Data Optimized, EVDO is a standard for broadband wireless technology. Initially developed by Qualcomm, EVDO operates on a CDMA signal with a higher data rate capability that 1xRTT. It has been adopted by many CDMA mobile phone service providers as an “always-on” on wireless connections, similar to DSL.
FCC	The Federal Communications Commission was established to regulate all non-federal government use of radio spectrum, interstate communications, and international communications that begin or end in the United States.
IPSec	Internet Protocol Security is a framework of standards for secure communications over the Internet.
IT	Information Technology is the branch of engineering that deals with the use of computers and telecommunications to gather, store, and transmit information.
LMR	Land Mobile Radio is a mobile service between fixed base stations and stations capable of surface movement within geographical limits.
MACC	A Multi-Agency Communication Center is a consolidated emergency response point in which agencies come together in a central location to coordinate responses to emergency situations.
MHz	Megahertz is a unit of frequency equal to one million cycles per second.

Section 1

OBJECTIVES

Section 2