Take-home impacts from the ESMCP session held at B-APCO 2013

In the ESMCP briefing session at Manchester, we learned that the future of data, and then voice, over LTE, would be provided by partnered provision of LTE (4G/xG) by a partnership of commercial operators (those present were Vodafone and O2 who indicated their ability to provide 18,500 masts combined). This is not contentious or surprising; during our support for the D block, being lobbied for by APCO in the US in summer 2011, I explained that the relative poverty of investment available to public safety communications for the UK, and indeed Europe, would probably mean that eventual provision of LTE would be delivered by the commercial providers of LTE.

Very little detail was proffered about how this would be done by the dates in the briefing, and questions on this area were largely left unanswered. Perhaps what is contentious and surprising is the sheer speed of the migration strategy as it was described.

What must we, as the public safety community, and as an Association, focus upon in terms of being the most significant questions? Which are the key challenges in assuring that the jump to the new technology can be achieved in the time-frame we were given? How must we help to make this plan succeed?

Quoting our President, Sue Lampard, 'Government must clearly mandate public safety communications requirements - resilience, coverage, capacity - to providers of a new technology, so that we can continue to save lives'.

1. We have understood that the existing TETRA-based communications would effectively be surpassed by provision of the equivalent functionality that we need daily over this new technology. We would want to be sure we understand 'when'? We understand that first it's data (LTE is very good for that), then we harden it, and then it's voice. We need a more complete picture.

2. We would want reassurance that the functionality we need could be provided by that date. We would benefit by looking beyond simply what we have today, and ask, can this new technology also support other requirements that we have? What are these requirements? Should we perhaps be leveraging the very capability that has funded B-APCO for the last 3 years, namely the requirements-gathering and analysis going on in our own Project House, to assist in ensuring that we know what we're talking about?

3. 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' is often quoted, but there is a huge credibility gap. Technologists will have their clear vision of how the capabilities can be provided over a new technology. But unless they can engender belief, and assurance, among the professional practitioners of public safety, the gap can generate damaging doubt. So some intense work is needed to reassure our community as to how and why the technology works and is able to deliver the service that we need to save lives on a 24X7 basis, irrespective of any scenario including 7/7 and worse. Can we rely upon the aggressive target dates, considering the enormity of the challenges faced (technical and infrastructural)?

4. What is the resilience? What do we use when the lights go out? How is this provided and paid for?

Please, click here to read the full article

Source: Bapcojournal