This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-343 
entitled 'Emergency Communications: Various Challenges Likely to Slow 
Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network' which was 
released on February 22, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2012: 

Emergency Communications: 

Various Challenges Likely to Slow Implementation of a Public Safety 
Broadband Network: 

GAO-12-343: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-343, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Emergency responders across the nation rely on land mobile radio (LMR) 
systems to gather and share information and coordinate their response 
efforts during emergencies. These public safety communication systems 
are fragmented across thousands of federal, state, and local 
jurisdictions and often lack “interoperability,” or the ability to 
communicate across agencies and jurisdictions. To supplement the LMR 
systems, in 2007, radio frequency spectrum was dedicated for a 
nationwide public safety broadband network. Presently, 22 
jurisdictions around the nation have obtained permission to build 
public safety broadband networks on the original spectrum assigned for 
broadband use. This requested report examines (1) the investments in 
and capabilities of LMR systems; (2) plans for a public safety 
broadband network and its expected capabilities and limitations; (3) 
challenges to building this network; and (4) factors that affect the 
prices of handheld LMR devices. GAO conducted a literature review, 
visited jurisdictions building broadband networks, and interviewed 
federal, industry, and public safety stakeholders, as well as 
academics and experts. 

What GAO Found: 

After the investment of significant resources—including billions of 
dollars in federal grants and approximately 100 megahertz of radio 
frequency spectrum—the current land mobile radio (LMR) systems in use 
by public safety provide reliable “mission critical” voice 
capabilities. For public safety, mission critical voice communications 
must meet a high standard for reliability, redundancy, capacity, and 
flexibility. Although these LMR systems provide some data services, 
such as text and images, their ability to transmit data is limited by 
the channels on which they operate. According to the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), interoperability among LMR systems has 
improved due to its efforts, but full interoperability of LMR systems 
remains a distant goal. 

Multiple federal entities are involved with planning a public safety 
broadband network and while such a network would likely enhance 
interoperability and increase data transfer rates, it would not 
support mission critical voice capabilities for years to come, perhaps 
even 10 years or more. A broadband network could enable emergency 
responders to access video and data applications that improve incident 
response. Yet because the technology standard for the proposed 
broadband network does not support mission critical voice 
capabilities, first responders will continue to rely on their current 
LMR systems for the foreseeable future. Thus, a broadband network 
would supplement, rather than replace, current public safety 
communication systems. 

There are several challenges to implementing a public safety broadband 
network, including ensuring the network’s interoperability, 
reliability, and security; obtaining adequate funds to build and 
maintain it; and creating a governance structure. For example, to 
avoid a major shortcoming of the LMR systems, it is essential that a 
public safety broadband network be interoperable across jurisdictions 
and devices by following five key elements to interoperable networks: 
governance, standard operating procedures, technology, training, and 
usage. With respect to creating a governance structure, pending 
legislation—-the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 
among other things—-establishes a new entity, the First Responder 
Network Authority, with responsibility for ensuring the establishment 
of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. 

The price of handheld LMR devices is high-—often thousands of dollars—-
in part because market competition is limited and manufacturing costs 
are high. Further, GAO found that public safety agencies cannot exert 
buying power in relationship to device manufacturers, which may result 
in the agencies overpaying for LMR devices. In particular, because 
public safety agencies contract for LMR devices independently from one 
another, they are not in a strong position to negotiate lower prices 
and forego the quantity discounts that accompany larger orders. For 
similar situations, GAO has recommended joint procurement as a cost 
saving measure because it allows agencies requiring similar products 
to combine their purchase power and lower their procurement costs. 
Given that DHS has experience in emergency communications and 
relationships with public safety agencies, it is well-suited to 
facilitate joint procurement of handheld LMR devices. 

What GAO Recommends: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should work with partners to 
identify and communicate opportunities for joint procurement of public 
safety LMR devices. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS 
agreed with the recommendation. GAO also received technical comments, 
which have been incorporated, as appropriate, in the report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-343]. For more 
information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 
goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Even With Investment of Significant Resources, Current Public Safety 
Communication Systems Provide Mission Critical Voice Capabilities but 
Are Not Fully Interoperable: 

Planning for a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network Progresses, 
but Such a Network Will Not Support Mission Critical Voice for the 
Foreseeable Future: 

Various Challenges Could Jeopardize the Implementation and 
Functionality of a Public Safety Broadband Network: 

Limited Competition and High Manufacturing Costs Increase the Price of 
Handheld LMR Devices, but Options Exist to Reduce Prices: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Federal Grant Programs for Emergency Communications: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Key Elements for Mission Critical Voice Capabilities: 

Table 2: Waiver Jurisdictions as of January 2012 and Federal Funds 
Provided for Public Safety Broadband Networks: 

Table 3: Challenges to Developing Mission Critical Voice Capabilities 
for LTE: 

Table 4: Jurisdictions Contacted: 

Table 5: Commerce Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable 
Expenditure: 

Table 6: DHS Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable 
Expenditure: 

Table 7: Department of Justice Grants with Emergency Communications as 
an Allowable Expenditure: 

Table 8: Other Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable 
Expenditure: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Depiction of LMR System: 

Figure 2: Current Allocation of Public Safety Spectrum: 

Figure 3: Additional Emergency Response Capabilities from Increased 
Data Transfer Rates and Bandwidth: 

Figure 4: SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum with Five Key Elements: 

Figure 5: Example of Infrastructure Required for Current LMR Systems 
and a Public Safety Broadband Network: 

Abbreviations: 

APCO: Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials: 

BTOP: Broadband Technology Opportunities Program: 

CAP: Compliance Assessment Program: 

COPS: Community Oriented Policing Services: 

Commerce: Department of Commerce: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

ECPC: Emergency Communications Preparedness Center: 

ERIC: Emergency Response Interoperability Center: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FCC: Federal Communications Commission: 

GHz: gigahertz: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

kHz: kilohertz: 

LMR: land mobile radio: 

LTE: Long Term Evolution: 

MHz: megahertz: 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration: 

NPSTC: National Public Safety Telecommunications Council: 

OEC: Office of Emergency Communications: 

OIC: Office of Interoperability and Compatibility: 

OJP: Office of Justice Programs: 

P25: Project 25: 

PSHSB: Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau: 

PSCR: Public Safety Communications Research: 

PSST: Public Safety Spectrum Trust: 

USDA: Department of Agriculture: 

UHF: ultra high frequency: 

VHF: very high frequency: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 22, 2012: 

Congressional Requesters: 

Communication systems are essential for public safety officials—-
especially first responders such as police officers and firefighters—-
to gather and share information and coordinate their response efforts 
to save lives during emergencies. Currently, the public safety 
community uses radio frequency spectrum to transmit and receive 
critical voice communications through land mobile radio (LMR) systems 
that are operated by and licensed to state and local jurisdictions. 
[Footnote 1] However, such LMR systems can have issues with 
compatibility, continuity, and capacity in times of large scale 
emergencies or disasters.[Footnote 2] In particular, LMR systems often 
lack “interoperability”—-that is, they lack the capabilities that 
allow first responders to communicate with their counterparts in other 
agencies and jurisdictions as authorized. Notably, during the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina in 
2005, the lack of interoperable public safety communications hampered 
rescue efforts and the overall effectiveness of public safety 
operations. Indeed, public safety communication systems are fragmented 
across thousands of federal, state, and local jurisdictions. This 
fragmentation hampers operations and puts emergency responders and the 
public at risk when the responders cannot talk to one another. More 
than 7 years after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported that 
compatible and adequate communications among public safety 
organizations at the local, state, and federal levels need to be 
addressed, the United States still lacks interoperable public safety 
communications despite substantial investment by emergency response 
agencies to improve their LMR systems.[Footnote 3] One factor 
contributing to continued interoperability issues between 
jurisdictions is the slow progress in developing standards for the 
communication devices that operate on these LMR systems. 

LMR systems currently have the capacity to handle only minimal data 
transmissions. To supplement the current LMR systems, plans for a 
second communication system that would provide nationwide broadband 
services are underway. Such a network would operate on a different 
portion of the radio frequency spectrum from the LMR systems. In 2007, 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assigned a portion of 
spectrum in the upper 700 megahertz (MHz) band exclusively to public 
safety for broadband use.[Footnote 4] Some stakeholders advocated for 
an additional block of spectrum—known as the “D Block”—to be dedicated 
to public safety. In March 2008, FCC attempted to auction the D Block 
with public safety encumbrances but failed to attract a winning 
commercial bidder.[Footnote 5] Pending legislation, the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, includes a provision 
reallocating the D Block to public safety.[Footnote 6] Public safety 
officials believe a public safety broadband network would support 
important data transmission during emergencies, provide first 
responders with information not currently available (such as vital 
signs of critically injured people), and foster greater 
interoperability. However, FCC has estimated that a stand-alone 
broadband network would cost approximately $15 billion to construct. 
[Footnote 7] Furthermore, due to its technical limitations, the 
broadband network would not replace the LMR systems for the 
foreseeable future. A number of jurisdictions sought permission from 
FCC to begin constructing local or regional public safety broadband 
networks, and since May 2010, FCC has granted permission to 22 
jurisdictions. 

Given the important issues surrounding the development of a public 
safety broadband network, you asked us to provide information about 
current and planned public safety communication networks and the 
progress being made to support both voice and data needs. We examined 
(1) the resources that have been provided for current public safety 
communication systems and their capabilities and limitations, (2) how 
a nationwide public safety broadband network is being planned and its 
anticipated capabilities and limitations, (3) the challenges to 
building a nationwide public safety broadband network, and (4) the 
factors that influence competition and cost in the development of 
public safety communication devices and the options that exist to 
reduce prices. 

To address these objectives, we met with officials and reviewed 
documentation from 6 of the 22 jurisdictions that received permission 
from FCC to begin deploying a 700 MHz public safety broadband network, 
including the San Francisco Bay area, California; Adams County, 
Colorado; Iowa; Boston, Massachusetts; Mississippi; and Texas. We 
selected locations based on several criteria, including whether they 
received federal funding and the size of the planned broadband 
network. In all of the locations, we interviewed government agencies 
involved with planning a broadband network, and in locations where 
planning had progressed, we also interviewed emergency responders who 
were part of the planning process and vendors selected to build the 
network, among others. We also interviewed federal agencies involved 
in public safety communications issues, including entities within the 
Department of Commerce (Commerce)-—the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST), the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA), and the Public Safety Communications Research 
(PSCR) program; the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and 
Justice; and FCC. In addition, we reviewed relevant documents from 
these federal entities, including several FCC rulemakings related to 
developing a broadband network and public safety device competition. 
We reviewed relevant legislation and conducted a literature review of 
43 articles from governmental and academic sources related to 
emergency communication networks and devices. We interviewed 
representatives of public safety associations, researchers and 
consultants recognized for their expertise in public safety 
communications, and manufacturers of public safety devices, as well as 
private sector analysts who track this industry. We identified experts 
and industry stakeholders based on prior published literature, 
stakeholder recognition and affiliation with the emergency 
communications and public safety spectrum, and other stakeholders’ 
recommendations. Further details of our scope and methodology are 
provided in appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 to February 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Currently, public safety officials primarily communicate with one 
another using LMR systems that support voice communication and usually 
consist of handheld portable radios, mobile radios, base stations, and 
repeaters, as described:[Footnote 8] 

* Handheld portable radios are typically carried by emergency 
responders and tend to have a limited transmission range. 

* Mobile radios are often located in vehicles and use the vehicle's 
power supply and a larger antenna, providing a greater transmission 
range than handheld portable radios. 

* Base station radios are located in fixed positions, such as dispatch 
centers, and tend to have the most powerful transmitters. A network is 
required to connect base stations to the same communication system. 

* Repeaters increase the effective communication range of handheld 
portable radios, mobile radios, and base station radios by 
retransmitting received radio signals. 

Figure 1 illustrates the basic components of an LMR system. 

Figure 1: Depiction of LMR System: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Depicted in the illustration: 

Portable radio user; 
Repeater; 
Base station; 
Transmitter tower; 
Mobile radio user. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

LMR systems are generally able to meet the unique requirements of 
public safety agencies. For example, unlike commercial cellular 
networks, which can allow seconds to go by before a call is set up and 
answered, LMR systems are developed to provide rapid voice call-setup 
and group-calling capabilities. When time is of the essence, as is 
often the case when public safety agencies need to communicate, it is 
important to have access to systems that achieve fast call-set up 
times. Furthermore, LMR systems provide public safety agencies 
"mission critical" voice capabilities--that is, voice capabilities 
that meet a high standard for reliability, redundancy, capacity, and 
flexibility. Table 1 describes the key elements for mission critical 
voice capabilities, as determined by the National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC).[Footnote 9] 

Table 1: Key Elements for Mission Critical Voice Capabilities: 

Key element: Direct or talk around; 
Description: Ability to communicate unit-to-unit when out of range of 
a wireless network or when working in a confined area; 
both the transmitter and receiver operate without support from 
infrastructure. 

Key element: Push-to-talk; 
Description: Ability to communicate instantly by pushing a button on 
the device to transmit a voice message. The speaker releases the 
button to return to a listening mode of operation. 

Key element: Full duplex voice systems; 
Description: Ability for multiple users to communicate (talk and 
listen) at the same time; 
for example, when communications are necessary with outside parties 
such as citizens with emergencies, language translation services, and 
other outside agencies providing service to an incident or event. 

Key element: Group talk; 
Description: Ability to communicate on a one-to-many basis. Group talk 
is of vital importance to the public safety community because it 
enables a speaker to simultaneously communicate to every member of a 
group, such as all firefighters in the interior of a burning building. 

Key element: Talker identification; 
Description: Ability to identify who is speaking at any given time. 

Key element: Emergency alerting; 
Description: Ability to communicate that a life-threatening condition 
has been encountered and that immediate access to the system is 
required. 

Key element: High quality audio; 
Description: Ability to hear audio in adverse conditions without 
repetition of the message; 
for example, an emergency responder must be able to hear prime voice 
communications regardless of background noises, such as a siren. 

[End of table] 

Source: GAO based on NPSTC information. 

According to NPSTC, for a network to fully support public safety 
mission critical voice communications, each of the elements in table 1 
must address part of the overall voice communications services 
supported by the network. In other words, NPSTC believes a network 
cannot be a mission critical network without all of these elements. 
Furthermore, unlike commercial networks, mission critical 
communication systems rely on "hardened" infrastructure, meaning that 
tower sites and equipment have been designed to provide reliable 
communications even in the midst of natural or man-made disasters. To 
remain operable during disasters, mission critical communications 
infrastructure requires redundancy, back-up power, and fortification 
against environmental stressors such as extremes of temperature and 
wind. 

Nationwide, there are approximately 55,000 public safety agencies. 
These state and local agencies typically receive a license from FCC to 
operate and maintain their LMR voice systems. Since these systems are 
supported by state and local revenues, the agencies generally purchase 
equipment and devices using their own local budgets without always 
coordinating their actions with nearby agencies, which can hinder 
interoperability. Since 1989, public safety associations have 
collaborated with federal agencies to establish common technical 
standards for LMR systems and devices called Project 25 (P25). The 
purpose of these technical standards is to support interoperability 
between different LMR systems, that is, to enable seamless 
communication across public safety agencies and jurisdictions. While 
the P25 suite of standards is intended to promote interoperability by 
making public safety systems and devices compatible regardless of the 
manufacturer, it is a voluntary standard and currently 
incomplete.[Footnote 10] As a result, many LMR devices manufactured 
for public safety are not compatible with devices made by rival 
manufacturers, which can undermine interoperability. 

The federal government plays an important role in public safety 
communications by providing funding for emergency communication 
systems and working to increase interoperable communication systems. 
Congress, in particular, has played a critical role by designating 
radio frequency spectrum for public safety use. Furthermore, Congress 
can direct action by federal agencies and others in support of public 
safety. For example, through the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
Congress established DHS and required the department, among other 
things, to develop a comprehensive national incident management system 
comprising all levels of government and to consolidate existing 
federal government emergency response plans into a single, coordinated 
national response plan.[Footnote 11] 

In its regulatory role, FCC licenses all public safety spectrum for 
state, local, and regional communication networks across the country. 
This includes more than 134,000 licenses for current public safety LMR 
narrowband communication systems and the single nationwide public 
safety broadband license.[Footnote 12] As part of the digital 
television transition, Congress, under the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997, mandated that FCC allocate 24 MHz of spectrum for public safety 
use.[Footnote 13] FCC divided the 24 MHz by assigning 12 MHz for 
public safety narrowband use and 10 MHz for public safety broadband 
use.[Footnote 14] In September 2006, FCC established its Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), which is responsible for 
developing, recommending, and administering FCC's policies pertaining 
to public safety communications issues. FCC has issued a series of 
orders and proposed rulemakings and adopted rules addressing how to 
develop a public safety broadband network, some of which are 
highlighted: 

* In 2007, FCC adopted an order to create a nationwide broadband 
network with the 10 MHz of spectrum designated for a public safety 
broadband network and the adjacent 10 MHz of spectrum--the Upper 700 
MHz D Block, or "D Block."[Footnote 15] As envisioned by FCC, this 
nationwide network would be shared by public safety and a commercial 
provider and operated by a public/private partnership. However, when 
FCC presented the D Block for auction in 2008 under these conditions, 
it received no qualifying bids and thus was not licensed. Subsequently 
it was found that the lack of commercial interest in the D Block was 
due in part to uncertainty about how the public/private partnership 
would work.[Footnote 16] Although many stakeholders and industry 
participants called for the D Block to be reallocated to public 
safety, an alternate view is that auctioning the D Block for 
commercial use would have generated revenues for the U.S. Treasury. 
[Footnote 17] As noted previously, a provision in pending legislation, 
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, reallocates 
the D Block to public safety. 

* In 2007, FCC licensed the 10 MHz of spectrum that FCC assigned for 
public safety broadband use to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust 
(PSST), a nonprofit organization representing major national public 
safety associations. This 10 MHz of spectrum, located in the upper 700 
MHz band is adjacent to the spectrum allocated to public safety for 
LMR communications. As the licensee, the PSST's original 
responsibilities included representing emergency responders' needs for 
a broadband network and negotiating a network sharing agreement with 
the winner of the D Block auction. However, since the D Block was not 
successfully auctioned, FCC stayed the majority of the rules guiding 
the PSST.[Footnote 18] 

* In 2009, public safety entities began requesting waivers from FCC's 
rules to allow early deployment of broadband networks in the 10 MHz of 
spectrum licensed to the PSST, and since 2010, FCC granted waivers to 
22 jurisdictions for early deployment.[Footnote 19] These 
jurisdictions had to request waivers because the rules directing the 
deployment of a broadband network were not complete. In this report, 
we refer to the 22 entities receiving waivers as "waiver 
jurisdictions." As a condition of these waivers, FCC required that 
local or regional networks would interoperate with each other and that 
all public safety entities in the geographic area would be invited to 
use the new networks. In addition, FCC required that all equipment 
operating on the 700 MHz public safety broadband spectrum comply with 
Long Term Evolution (LTE), a commercial data standard for wireless 
technologies.[Footnote 20] As shown in table 2, of the 22 
jurisdictions that successfully petitioned for waivers, only 8 
received federal funding. Seven waiver jurisdictions received funding 
from NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), a 
federal grant program authorized through the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 that had several purposes, including 
promoting the expansion of broadband infrastructure.[Footnote 21] 

Table 2: Waiver Jurisdictions as of January 2012 and Federal Funds 
Provided for Public Safety Broadband Networks: 

Jurisdiction: Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System 
(LA-RICS), California; 
Federal funds[A]: $154.6 million; 
Source: BTOP. 

Jurisdiction: Mississippi Wireless Communications Commission; 
Federal funds[A]: $70.1 million; 
Source: BTOP. 

Jurisdiction: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose (BayWEB), 
California[B]; 
Federal funds[A]: $50.6 million; 
Source: BTOP. 

Jurisdiction: New Jersey; 
Federal funds[A]: $39.6 million; 
Source: BTOP. 

Jurisdiction: New Mexico; 
Federal funds[A]: $38.7 million; 
Source: BTOP. 

Jurisdiction: Charlotte, North Carolina; 
Federal funds[A]: $16.7 million; 
Source: BTOP. 

Jurisdiction: Adams County Communications Center, Colorado; 
Federal funds[A]: $12.1 million; 
Source: BTOP. 

Jurisdiction: Texas; 
Federal funds[A]: $7.6 million; 
Source: Port Security Grant. 

Jurisdiction: Texas; 
Federal funds[A]: $750,000; 
Source: Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant. 

Jurisdiction: Calumet, Outagamie and Winnebago counties, Wisconsin. 

Jurisdiction: Boston, Massachusetts. 

Jurisdiction: Chesapeake, Virginia. 

Jurisdiction: Mesa, Arizona/TOPAZ Regional Wireless Cooperative. 

Jurisdiction: New York, New York. 

Jurisdiction: Pembroke Pines, Florida. 

Jurisdiction: San Antonio, Texas. 

Jurisdiction: Seattle, Washington. 

Jurisdiction: District of Columbia. 

Jurisdiction: Hawaii and various cities and counties. 

Jurisdiction: Iowa. 

Jurisdiction: New York. 

Jurisdiction: Oregon. 

Jurisdiction: Alabama[C]. 

Jurisdiction: Total; 
Federal funds[A]: $390.8 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of FCC and NTIA data. 

[A] This field appears empty for jurisdictions with no federal funds 
identified. 

[B] Motorola, Inc., is the recipient of the BTOP funds used to build 
the BayWEB network. 

[C] Alabama applied and was granted a waiver but did not execute a 
lease agreement with the PSST. 

[End of table] 

* In January 2011, FCC adopted rules and proposed further rules to 
create an effective technical framework for ensuring the deployment 
and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband 
network.[Footnote 22] As part of this proceeding, FCC sought comment 
on technical rules and security for the network as well as testing of 
equipment to ensure interoperability. The comment period for the 
proceeding closed on April 11, 2011, and FCC received comments from 
waiver jurisdictions, consultants, and manufacturers, among others. As 
of February 7, 2012, FCC did not have an expected issuance date for 
its final rules. 

In addition to FCC, DHS has been heavily involved since its inception 
in supporting public safety by assisting federal, state, local, and 
regional emergency response agencies and policy makers with planning 
and implementing interoperable communication networks. Within DHS, 
several divisions have focused on improving public safety 
communications. DHS also has administered groups that bring together 
stakeholders from all levels of government to discuss interoperability 
issues: 

* The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) was created 
in response to Hurricane Katrina by the 21ST Century Emergency 
Communications Act of 2006 to help improve intergovernmental emergency 
communications information sharing.[Footnote 23] The ECPC has 14 
member agencies with a goal, in part, to support and promote 
interoperable public safety communications through serving as a focal 
point and clearing house for information. It has served to facilitate 
collaboration across federal entities involved with public safety 
communications. 

* SAFECOM is a communications program that provides support, including 
research and development, to address interoperable communications 
issues. Led by an executive committee, SAFECOM has members from state 
and local emergency responders as well as intergovernmental and 
national public safety communications associations. DHS draws on this 
expertise to help develop guidance and policy. Among other activities, 
SAFECOM publishes annual grant guidance that outlines recommended 
eligible activities and application requirements for federal grant 
programs providing funding for interoperable public safety 
communications. 

Within Commerce, NTIA and NIST are also involved in public safety 
communications by providing research support to the PSCR program. The 
PSCR serves as a laboratory and advisor on public safety standards and 
technology. It provides research and development to help improve 
public safety interoperability. For example, the PSCR has ongoing 
research in many areas related to communications, including the 
voluntary P25 standard for LMR communication systems, improving public 
safety interoperability, and the standards and technologies related to 
a broadband network. PSCR also conducts laboratory research to improve 
the audio and video quality for public safety radios and devices. 

Even With Investment of Significant Resources, Current Public Safety 
Communication Systems Provide Mission Critical Voice Capabilities but 
Are Not Fully Interoperable: 

Public Investment: 

Congress has appropriated billions in federal funding over the last 
decade to public safety in grants and other assistance for the 
construction and maintenance of LMR voice communication systems and 
the purchase of communication devices. Approximately 40 grant programs 
administered by nine federal agencies have provided this assistance 
for public safety.[Footnote 24] Some of the grants provided a one-time 
infusion of funds, while other grants have provided a more consistent 
source of funding. For example, in 2007, the one-time Public Safety 
Interoperable Communications Grant Program awarded more than $960 
million to assist state and local public safety agencies in the 
acquisition, planning, deployment, or training on interoperable 
communication systems.[Footnote 25] However, the Homeland Security 
Grant Program has provided $6.5 billion since 2008, targeting a broad 
scope of programs that enhance interoperability for states' emergency 
medical response systems and regional communication systems, as well 
as planning at the community level to improve emergency preparedness. 
See appendix II for more information about the grant programs. 

State and local governments have also invested millions of dollars of 
their own funds to support public safety voice communications, and 
continue to do so. Jurisdictions we visited that received federal 
grants to support the construction of a broadband network have 
continued to invest in the upgrade and maintenance of their current 
LMR voice systems. For example, Adams County, Colorado, has spent 
about $19.7 million since 2004 on its LMR system, including $6.9 
million in local funds, supplemented with $12.8 million in federal 
grants. Mississippi, another jurisdiction we visited that is 
constructing a statewide broadband network, has spent about $214 
million on its LMR network, including $57 million in general revenue 
bonds and $157 million in federal grants.[Footnote 26] Officials in 
the jurisdictions we contacted stressed the importance of investing in 
the infrastructure of their LMR networks to maintain the reliability 
and operability of their voice systems, since it was unclear at what 
point the broadband networks would support mission critical voice 
communications. In addition to upgrading and maintaining their LMR 
networks, many jurisdictions are investing millions of dollars to meet 
FCC's requirement that communities use their spectrum more efficiently 
by reducing the bandwidth on which they operate.[Footnote 27] 

In addition to direct federal funding, the federal government has 
allocated more than 100 MHz of spectrum to public safety over the last 
60 years.[Footnote 28] The spectrum is located in various frequency 
bands since FCC assigned frequencies to public safety in new bands 
over time as available frequencies became congested and public 
safety's need for spectrum increased.[Footnote 29] Figure 2 displays 
the spectrum allocated to public safety, which is located between 25 
MHz and 4.9 GHz. As noted previously, the Middle Class Tax Relief and 
Job Creation Act of 2012 requires FCC to reallocate the D Block from 
commercial use to public safety use. 

Figure 2: Current Allocation of Public Safety Spectrum: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

25-50 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications. 

150-174 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications. 

423-425.5 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications in a 
limited number of cities (423-425.5 MHz is used in 3 cities, and 470-
512 MHz is used in 11 cities). 

450-470 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications. 

470-512 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications in a 
limited number of cities (423-425.5 MHz is used in 3 cities, and 470-
512 MHz is used in 11 cities). 
          
Upper 700 band (746-806 MHz): 

746 MHz-763 MHz: Frequencies not used for public safety communications; 
Commercial; D Block. 

763 MHz-775 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications; 
Public safety: 
Broadband; Guardband; LMR. 

775 MHz-793 MHz: Frequencies not used for public safety communications; 
Guardband; Commercial; D Block. 

793 MHz-805 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications; 
Public safety: 
Broadband; Guardband; LMR. 

805 MHz-806 MHz: Frequencies not used for public safety communications. 

806-824 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications. 

851-869 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications. 

4940-4990 MHz: Frequencies used for public safety communications. 

Sources: GAO and FCC. 

[End of figure] 

Public safety agencies purchase radios and communication devices that 
are designed to operate on their assigned frequency. Since different 
frequencies of radio waves have different propagation characteristics, 
jurisdictions typically use the spectrum that is best suited to their 
particular location. For example, very high frequency (VHF) channels--
those located between 30 and 300 MHz--are more useful for 
communications that must occur over long distances without obstruction 
from buildings, since the signals cannot penetrate building walls very 
well. As such, VHF signals are well suited to rural areas. On the 
other hand, ultra high frequency (UHF) channels--those located between 
300 MHz and 3 GHz--are more appropriate for denser urban areas as they 
have more capacity and can penetrate buildings more easily. When we 
visited Adams County, Colorado, we learned that public safety 
officials in the mountainous areas of Colorado use the 150 MHz and 450 
MHz bands because of the range of the signals and their ability to 
navigate around the natural geography. However, public safety 
officials in the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area operate on the 
700 and 800 MHz frequency bands which can support more simultaneous 
voice transmissions, such as communications between fire, police, 
public utility, and transportation officials. 

Current Public Safety Communications Capabilities: 

The current public safety LMR systems use their allocated spectrum to 
facilitate reliable mission critical voice communications. Such 
communications need to be conveyed in an immediate and clear manner 
regardless of environmental and other operating conditions. For 
example, while responding to a building fire, firefighters deep within 
the building need the ability to communicate with each other even if 
they are out of range of a wireless network. The firefighters are able 
to communicate on an LMR system because their handheld devices operate 
on as well as off network. Currently, emergency response personnel 
rely exclusively on their LMR systems to provide mission critical 
voice capabilities. One waiver jurisdiction we visited, Mississippi, 
is constructing a new statewide LMR system and officials there noted a 
high degree of satisfaction with the planned LMR system. They said the 
new system is designed to withstand most disasters and when complete, 
will provide interoperability across 97 percent of the state. Public 
safety officials in the coastal region of the state have already used 
the system to successfully respond to problems caused by the 
Mississippi River flooding in the spring of 2011. 

LMR public safety communication systems also are able to provide some 
data services but the systems are constrained by the narrowband 
channels on which they operate. These channels allow only restricted 
data transfer speeds, thus limiting capacity to send and receive data 
such as text and images, or to access existing databases. Some 
jurisdictions supplement their LMR systems with commercial data 
services that give them better access to applications that require 
higher data transfer rates to work effectively. However, commercial 
service also has limitations, such as the lack of priority access to 
the network in an emergency situation. 

Interoperability of Current Communication Systems Remains a Limitation: 

According to DHS, interoperability of current public safety 
communications has improved as a result of its efforts. In particular, 
the DHS National Emergency Communications Plan established a strategy 
for improving emergency communications across all levels of 
government, and as a result, all states have a statewide 
interoperability coordinator and governing body to make strategic 
decisions within the state and guide current and future communications 
interoperability. According to DHS, it has worked with states to help 
them evaluate and improve their emergency communications abilities. 
DHS also helped to develop the Interoperability Continuum, which 
identifies five critical success elements to assist emergency response 
agencies and policy makers to plan and implement interoperability 
solutions for data and voice communications. Furthermore, DHS created 
guidance to ensure a consistent funding strategy for federal grant 
programs that allow recipients to purchase communications equipment 
and enhance their emergency response capabilities. As we have reported 
in the past, interoperability has also improved due to a variety of 
local technical solutions.[Footnote 30] For example, FCC established 
mutual aid channels, whereby specific channels are set aside for the 
sole purpose of connecting incompatible systems. Another local 
solution is when agencies maintain a cache of extra radios that they 
can distribute during an emergency to other first responders whose 
radios are not interoperable with their own. 

However, despite decades of effort, a significant limitation of 
current LMR systems is that they are not fully interoperable. One 
reason for the lack of interoperability is the fragmentation of 
spectrum assignments for public safety, since existing radios are 
typically unable to transmit and receive in all these frequencies. 
Therefore, a rural area using public safety radios operating on VHF 
spectrum will not be interoperable with radios used in an urban area 
that operate on UHF spectrum. While radios can be built to operate on 
multiple frequencies, which could support greater interoperability, 
this capability can add significant cost to the radios and thus 
jurisdictions may be reluctant to make such investments. In addition, 
public safety agencies historically have acquired communication 
systems without concern for interoperability, often resulting in 
multiple, technically incompatible radio systems. This is compounded 
by the lack of mandatory standards for the current LMR systems or 
devices. Rather, the P25 technical standards remain incomplete and 
voluntary, creating incompatibility among vendors' products. 
Furthermore, local jurisdictions are often unable to coordinate to 
find solutions. Public safety communication systems are tailored to 
meet the unique needs of individual jurisdictions or public safety 
entities within a given region. As such, the groups are reluctant to 
give up management and control of their systems. 

Planning for a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network Progresses, 
but Such a Network Will Not Support Mission Critical Voice for the 
Foreseeable Future: 

Federal Role: 

Numerous federal entities have helped to plan and begin to define a 
technical framework for a nationwide public safety broadband network. 
In particular, FCC, DHS, and Commerce's PSCR program, have coordinated 
their planning and made significant contributions by developing 
technical rules, educating emergency responders, and creating a 
demonstration network, respectively. 

Since 2008, FCC has: 

* Created a new division within its PSHSB, called the Emergency 
Response Interoperability Center (ERIC), to develop technical 
requirements and procedures to help ensure an operable and 
interoperable nationwide network.[Footnote 31] 

* Convened two advisory committees, the ERIC Technical Advisory 
Committee and the Public Safety Advisory Committee, that provide 
advice to FCC.[Footnote 32] The Technical Advisory Committee's 
appointees must be federal officials, elected officers of state and 
local government, or a designee of an elected official. It makes 
recommendations to FCC and ERIC regarding policies and rules for the 
technical aspects of interoperability, governance, authentication, and 
national standards for public safety. ERIC's Public Safety Advisory 
Committee's members can include representatives of state and local 
public safety agencies, federal users, and other segments of the 
public safety community, as well as service providers, equipment 
vendors, and other industry participants. Its purpose is to make 
recommendations for a technical framework that will ensure 
interoperability on a nationwide public safety broadband network. 

* Defined technical rules for the broadband network, including 
identifying LTE as the technical standard for the network, which FCC 
and public safety agencies believe is imperative to the goal of 
achieving an interoperable nationwide broadband network. In addition, 
FCC sought comments on other technical aspects and challenges to 
building the network in its most recent proceeding, which FCC hopes 
will further promote and enable nationwide interoperability. FCC 
officials said they continue to monitor the waiver jurisdictions that 
are developing broadband networks to ensure they are meeting the 
network requirements by reviewing required reports and quarterly 
filings. 

Since 2010, DHS has: 

* Partnered with FCC, Commerce, and the Department of Justice to 
conduct three forums for public safety agencies and others. These 
forums provided insight about the needs surrounding the establishment 
of a public safety broadband network as they relate to funding, 
governance, and the broadband market. 

* Coordinated federal efforts on broadband implementation by bringing 
together the member agencies of ECPC. Also, ECPC updated its grant 
guidance for federal grant programs to clarify that broadband 
deployment is an allowable expense for emergency communications grant 
programs. These updates could result in more federal grant funding 
going to support the development of a broadband network. 

* Updated its SAFECOM program's grant guidance targeting grant 
applicants to include information pertaining to broadband deployment, 
based on input from state and local emergency responders. 

* Worked with public safety entities to define the LTE standard and 
write educational materials about the broadband network. 

* Partnered with state and regional groups and interoperability 
coordinators in preparing broadband guidance documentation. 

* Represented federal emergency responders and advocated for sharing 
agreements between the federal government and the PSST that will 
enable federal users, such as responders from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, to access the broadband network.[Footnote 33] 

Since 2009, PSCR has: 

* Worked with public safety agencies to develop requirements for the 
network and represents their interests before standards-setting 
organizations to help ensure public safety needs are met. 

* Developed a demonstration broadband network that provides a 
realistic environment for public safety and industry to test and 
observe public safety LTE requirements on equipment designed for a 
broadband network. According to PSCR representatives, the 
demonstration network has successfully brought together more than 40 
vendors, including manufacturers and wireless carriers. Among many 
goals, PSCR aims to demonstrate to public safety how the new 
technology can meet their needs and encourage vendors to share 
information and results. FCC requires the 22 waiver jurisdictions and 
their vendors to participate in PSCR's demonstration network and 
provide feedback on the challenges they have faced while building the 
network. PSCR representatives told us that the lessons learned from 
the waiver jurisdictions would be applied to future deployments. 

* Tested interoperable systems and devices and provided feedback to 
manufacturers. Currently, there are five manufacturers working with 
PSCR to develop and test systems and devices. 

Broadband Network Could Improve Incident Response: 

With higher data speeds than the current LMR systems, a public safety 
broadband network could provide emergency responders with new video 
and data applications that are not currently available. Stakeholders 
we contacted, including waiver jurisdictions, emergency responders, 
and federal agencies, identified transmission of video as a key 
potential capability. For example, existing video from traffic cameras 
and police car mounted cameras could provide live video feeds for 
dispatchers. Dispatchers could use the video to help ensure that the 
proper personnel and necessary equipment are being deployed 
immediately to the scene of an emergency. Stakeholders we contacted 
predict that numerous data applications will be developed once a 
broadband network is complete, and that these applications will have 
the potential to further enhance incident response. These could range 
from a global positioning system application that provides directions 
based on traffic patterns to a 3D graphical floor plan display that 
supports firefighters' efforts to battle building fires. In addition, 
unlike the current system, a public safety broadband network could 
provide access to existing databases of information, such as fire 
response plans and mug shots of wanted criminals, which could help to 
keep emergency responders and the public safe. As shown in figure 3, 
moving from lower bandwidth voice communications to a higher bandwidth 
broadband network unleashes the potential for the development of a 
range of public safety data applications. 

Figure 3: Additional Emergency Response Capabilities from Increased 
Data Transfer Rates and Bandwidth: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 0 kb/s; 
Capability: Cellular voice. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 9.6 kb/s; 
Capability: Average LMR data rate. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 30 kb/s; 
Capability: downloading photo. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 250 kb/s; 
Capability: Downloading lower-resolution video. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 250 kb/s; 
Capability: Uploading data into license plate reader. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 275 kb/s; 
Capability: Downloading geographic information system data; 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 275 kb/s; 
Capability: Downloading high resolution images. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 300 kb/s; 
Capability: Transferring 3D graphical displays. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 500 kb/s; 
Capability: Downloading building records. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 500 kb/s; 
Capability: Downloading higher-resolution video. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 630 kb/s; 
Capability: Uploading video of patient. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 900 kb/s; 
Capability: Video teleconference. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 1.13 mb/s; 
Capability: Downloading video of incident. 

Estimated Data transfer rate: 3.5 mb/s; 
Capability: High definition video. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Notes: The data transfer rates listed in this figure are estimates. 
Rates vary depending on whether data are uploaded or downloaded--
typically, data are faster to download than to upload. Download speed 
is the speed of getting information from the Web to a computer or 
handheld device, and upload speed is the reverse. In addition, higher 
data transfer rates may be required when data are transmitted to or 
from a moving device or when a device is further from the tower 
transmitting the signal. 

Kb/s means kilobit per second, and mb/s means megabit per second. 

[End of figure] 

Besides new applications, a public safety broadband network has the 
potential to provide nationwide access and interoperability. 
Nationwide access means emergency responders and other public safety 
officials could access their home networks from anywhere in the 
country, which could facilitate a better coordinated emergency 
response. Interoperability on a broadband network could allow 
emergency responders to share information irrespective of jurisdiction 
or type of public safety agency. For example, officials from two 
waiver jurisdictions indicated that forest fires are a type of 
emergency that brings together multiple jurisdictions, and in these 
situations a broadband network could facilitate sharing of response 
plans. However, an expert we contacted stressed that broadband 
applications should be tailored to the bandwidth needs of the response 
task. For example, responders should not use high-definition video 
when grainy footage would suffice to enable them to pursue a criminal 
suspect. 

Limitations of Broadband Results in Continued Reliance on LMR Voice 
Systems: 

A major limitation of a public safety broadband network is that it 
would not provide mission critical voice communications for many 
years. LTE, the standard FCC identified for the public safety 
broadband network, is a wireless broadband standard that is not 
currently designed to support mission critical voice communications. 
Commercial wireless providers are currently developing voice over LTE 
capabilities, but this will not meet public safety's mission critical 
voice requirements because key elements needed for mission critical 
voice, such as push-to-talk, are not part of the LTE standard. 
[Footnote 34] While one manufacturer believes mission critical voice 
over LTE will be available as soon as 5 years, some waiver 
jurisdictions, experts, government officials, and others told us it 
will likely be 10 years or more due to the challenges described in 
table 3. 

Table 3: Challenges to Developing Mission Critical Voice Capabilities 
for LTE: 

Key element for mission critical voice: Direct or talk around; 
Challenges for LTE: As the LTE standard is a commercial standard, it 
may not be in the financial interest of commercial providers to 
develop this capability. 

Key element for mission critical voice: Push-to-talk; 
Challenges for LTE: Standards need to be developed for this technology 
and the technology needs to be able to connect and transmit with very 
little delay. 

Key element for mission critical voice: Group talk; 
Challenges for LTE: Messages to groups will require bandwidth and the 
amount can vary based on the size of the group. The bandwidth for 
voice will take away from the bandwidth available for data. 

Key element for mission critical voice: High quality audio; 
Challenges for LTE: Digital communications for radio networks have 
created challenges in the past and the new technology should allow a 
voice to be understood without repetition, as well as allow background 
noises to be heard without interference. 

Source: GAO based on industry information. 

[End of table] 

Absent mission critical voice capabilities on a broadband network, 
emergency responders will continue to rely on their current LMR voice 
systems, meaning a broadband network would supplement, rather than 
replace, LMR systems for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, until 
mission critical voice communications exist, issues that exacerbated 
emergency response efforts to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 
2001--in particular, that emergency responders were not able to 
communicate between agencies--will not be resolved by a public safety 
broadband network. As a result, public safety agencies will continue 
to use devices operating on the current LMR systems for mission 
critical voice communications, and require spectrum to be allocated 
for that purpose. Additionally, public safety agencies may be 
reluctant to give up their LMR devices, especially if they were costly 
and are still functional. As jurisdictions continue to spend millions 
of dollars on their LMR networks and devices, they will likely 
continue to rely on such communication systems until they are no 
longer functional.[Footnote 35] 

In addition to not having mission critical communications, emergency 
responders may only have limited access to the public safety broadband 
network from the interior of large buildings. While the 700 MHz 
spectrum provides better penetration of buildings than other bands of 
the spectrum, if emergency responders expect to have access to the 
network from inside large buildings and underground, additional 
infrastructure will need to be constructed. For example, antennas or 
small indoor cellular stations could be installed inside buildings and 
in underground structures to support access to the network. FCC is 
seeking comment on this issue as part of its most recent proceeding. 
Without this added infrastructure, emergency responders using the 
broadband network may not have access to building blue prints or fire 
response plans during building emergencies, such as a fire. In fact, 
one jurisdiction constructing a broadband network that we visited told 
us their network would not support in-building access in one city of 
the jurisdiction because the plan did not include antennas for inside 
the buildings. 

A final limitation to a public safety broadband network could be its 
capacity during emergencies. Emergencies tend to happen in localized 
areas that may be served by a single cell tower or even a single 
cellular antenna on a tower.[Footnote 36] With emergency responders 
gathering to fight a fire or other emergency, the number of responders 
and the types of applications in use may exceed the capacity of the 
network. If the network reaches capacity it could overload and might 
not send life saving information.[Footnote 37] Therefore, the network 
would have to be managed during emergencies to ensure that the most 
important data are being sent, which could be accomplished by 
prioritizing data. Furthermore, capacity could be supplemented through 
deployable cell sites to emergency locations. 

Various Challenges Could Jeopardize the Implementation and 
Functionality of a Public Safety Broadband Network: 

Although the federal agencies have taken important steps to advance 
the broadband network, challenges exist that may slow its 
implementation. Specifically, stakeholders we spoke with prioritized 
five challenges to successfully building, operating, and maintaining a 
public safety broadband network. These challenges include (1) ensuring 
interoperability, (2) creating a governance structure, (3) building a 
reliable network, (4) designing a secure network, and (5) determining 
funding sources. FCC, in its Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, sought comment on some of these challenges, and as 
explained further, the challenge of creating a governance structure 
has been addressed by recent law. However, the other challenges 
currently remain unresolved and, if left unaddressed, could undermine 
the development of a public safety broadband network. 

Ensuring interoperability. To avoid a major shortcoming of the LMR 
communication systems, it is essential that a public safety broadband 
network be interoperable across jurisdictions and devices. DHS, in 
conjunction with its SAFECOM program, developed the Interoperability 
Continuum which identifies five key elements to interoperable 
networks--governance, standard operating procedures, technology, 
training, and usage--that waiver jurisdictions and other stakeholders 
discussed as important to building an interoperable public safety 
broadband network, as shown in figure 4. For example, technology is 
critical to interoperability of the broadband network and most 
stakeholders, including public safety associations, experts, and 
manufacturers believe that identifying LTE as the technical standard 
was a good step towards interoperability. To further promote 
interoperability, stakeholders indicated that additional technical 
functionality, such as data sharing and roaming capabilities, should 
be part of the technical design. If properly designed to the technical 
standard, broadband devices will support interoperability regardless 
of the manufacturer. Testing devices to ensure they meet the 
identified standard could help eliminate devices with proprietary 
applications that might otherwise limit interoperability. In its 
Fourth Further Notice, FCC solicited input on the technical design of 
the network and testing of devices to ensure interoperability. 
[Footnote 38] 

Figure 4: SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum with Five Key Elements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated spectrum] 

Continuum from: 
Limited Leadership, Planning, and Collaboration Among Areas with 
Minimal Investment in the Sustainability of Systems and Documentation; 
to: 
High Degree of Leadership, Planning, and Collaboration Among Areas 
with Commitment to and Investment in Sustainability of Systems and 
Documentation. 

Governance: 
Individual Agencies Working Independently; 
Informal Coordination Between Agencies; 
Key Multi-Discipline Staff Collaboration on a Regular Basis; 
Regional Committee Working within a Statewide Communications 
Interaperability Plan Framework. 

Standard Operating Procedures: 
Individual Agency SOPS; 
Joint SOPs for Planned Events; 
Joint SOPs for Emergencies; 
Regional Set of Communications SOPs; 
National Incident Management System Integrated SOPs. 

Technology: Data elements: 
Swap files; 
Common Applications; 
Custom-Interfaced Applications; 
One-Way Standards-Based Sharing; 
Two-Way Standards-Based Sharing. 

Technology: Voice elements: 
Swap Radios; 
Gateway; 
Shared Channels; 
Proprietary Shared System; 
Standards-Based Shared System. 
 
Training & Exercises: 
General Orientation on Equipment and Applications; 
Single Agency Tabletop Exercises for Key Field and Support Staff; 
Multi-Agency Tabletop Exercises for Key Field and Support Staff; 
Multi-Agency Full Functional Exercises Involving All Staff; 
Regular Comprehensive Regionwide Training and Exercises. 

Usage: 
Planned Events; 
Localized Emergency Incidents; 
Regional Incidents Management; 
Daily Use Throughout Region. 

Source: SAFECOM. 

Note: This graphic was created by DHS in conjunction with its SAFECOM 
program and we made a minor revision to its appearance. 

[End of figure] 

Creating a governance structure. As stated previously, governance is a 
key element for interoperable networks. A governance authority can 
promote interoperability by bringing together federal, state, local, 
and emergency response representatives. Each of the waiver 
jurisdictions we contacted had identified a governance authority to 
oversee its broadband network. Jurisdictions we visited, as well as 
federal agencies, told us that any nationwide network should also have 
a nationwide governance entity to oversee it. Although several federal 
entities are involved with the planning of a public safety broadband 
network, at the time we conducted our work no entity had overall 
authority to make critical decisions for its development, 
construction, and operation. According to stakeholders, decisions on 
developing a common language for the network, establishing user rights 
for federal agencies, and determining network upgrades, could be 
managed by such an entity. Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, establishes a First Responder 
Network Authority as an independent authority within NTIA and gave it 
responsibility for ensuring the establishment of a nationwide, 
interoperable public safety broadband network. Among other things, the 
First Responder Network Authority is required to (1) ensure nationwide 
standards for use and access of the network; (2) issue open, 
transparent, and competitive requests for proposals to private sector 
entities to build, operate, and maintain the network; (3) encourage 
that such requests leverage existing commercial wireless 
infrastructure to speed deployment of the network; and (4) manage and 
oversee the implementation and execution of contracts and agreements 
with nonfederal entities to build, operate, and maintain the network. 

Building a reliable network. A public safety broadband network must be 
as reliable as the current LMR systems but it will require additional 
infrastructure to do so. As mentioned previously, emergency responders 
consider the current LMR systems very reliable, in part because they 
can continue to work in emergency situations. Any new broadband 
network would need to meet similar standards but, as shown in figure 
5, such a network might require up to 10 times the number of towers as 
the current system. This is because a public safety broadband network 
is being designed as a cellular network, which would use a series of 
low powered towers to transmit signals and reduce interference. Also, 
to meet robust public safety standards, each tower must be "hardened" 
to ensure that it can withstand disasters, such as hurricanes and 
earthquakes. According to waiver jurisdictions and other stakeholders, 
this additional infrastructure and hardening of facilities may be 
financially prohibitive for many jurisdictions, especially those in 
rural areas that currently use devices operating on VHF spectrum--
spectrum that is especially well suited to rural areas because the 
signals can travel long distances. 

Figure 5: Example of Infrastructure Required for Current LMR Systems 
and a Public Safety Broadband Network: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Current LMR system: 
single tower coverage area. 

Public safety broadband cellular towers serving same footprint as 
current LMR system: 
multiple tower coverage area. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: The number of towers needed for a cellular network is dependent 
on the amount of spectrum used by the network and the reliability 
needed. 

[End of figure] 

Designing a secure network. Secure communications are important. 
Designing a protected and trusted broadband network will encourage 
increased usage and reliance on it. Security for a public safety 
network will require authentication and access control. By defining 
LTE as the technical standard for the broadband network, a significant 
portion of the security architecture is predetermined because the 
standard governs a certain level of security. Given the importance of 
this issue, FCC required waiver jurisdictions to include some security 
features in their networks and FCC's most recent proceeding seeks 
input on security issues. Furthermore, FCC's Public Safety Advisory 
Committee has issued a report making several security-related 
recommendations. For example, it recommended that standardized 
security features be in place to support roaming to commercial 
technologies. However, one expert we contacted expressed concern that 
the waiver jurisdictions were not establishing sufficient network 
security because they had not received guidance. He believes this 
would result in waiver jurisdictions using security standards applied 
to previous networks. 

Determining funding sources. It is estimated that a nationwide public 
safety broadband network could cost up to $15 billion or more to 
construct, which does not take into account recurring operation and 
maintenance costs.[Footnote 39] As noted previously, of the 22 waiver 
jurisdictions, 8 have received federal grants to support deployment of 
a broadband network. Some of the other waiver jurisdictions have 
obtained limited funding from nonfederal sources, such as through 
issuing bonds. Several of the jurisdictions we spoke with stressed 
that in addition to the upfront construction costs, the ongoing costs 
associated with operating, maintaining, and upgrading a public safety 
broadband network would need to be properly funded. As previously 
indicated, the ECPC and SAFECOM have updated grant guidance to reflect 
changing technologies but this does not add additional funding for 
emergency communications. Rather, it defines broadband as an allowable 
purpose for emergency communications funding grants that may currently 
support the existing LMR systems. Since the LMR systems will not be 
replaced by a public safety broadband network, funding will be 
necessary to operate, maintain, and upgrade two separate communication 
systems. 

Limited Competition and High Manufacturing Costs Increase the Price of 
Handheld LMR Devices, but Options Exist to Reduce Prices: 

Competition for Handheld LMR Devices is Limited: 

Handheld LMR devices often cost thousands of dollars, and many 
stakeholders, including national public safety associations, state and 
local public safety officials, and representatives from the 
telecommunications industry, attribute these high prices to limited 
competition. Industry analysts and stakeholders estimate that the 
approximately $4 billion U.S. market for handheld LMR devices consists 
of one manufacturer with about 75 to 80 percent market share, one or 
two strong competitors, and several device manufacturers with smaller 
shares of the market.[Footnote 40] According to industry stakeholders, 
competition is weak because of limited entry by device manufacturers; 
this may be due to (1) the market's relatively small size and (2) 
barriers to entry that confront nonincumbent device manufacturers. 

Small size of the public safety market. The market for handheld LMR 
devices in the United States includes only about 2 to 3 million 
customers, or roughly 1 percent of the approximately 300 million 
customers of commercial telecommunication devices. According to an 
industry estimate in 2009, approximately 300,000 handheld LMR devices 
that are P25 compliant are sold each year. Annual sales of handheld 
LMR devices are small in part because of low turnover. For example, 
device manufacturers told us that public safety devices are typically 
replaced every 10 to 15 years, suggesting that less than 10 percent of 
handheld LMR devices are replaced annually. In contrast, industry and 
public safety sources indicate that commercial customers replace 
devices roughly every 2 to 3 years, suggesting that about 33 to 50 
percent are replaced annually. Together, low device turnover and a 
small customer base reduce the potential volume of sales by device 
manufacturers, which may make the market unattractive to potential 
entrants. 

The size of the market is reduced further by the need for 
manufacturers to customize handheld LMR devices for individual public 
safety agencies. Differences in spectrum allocations across 
jurisdictions have the effect of decreasing the customer base for any 
single device. As previously discussed, public safety agencies operate 
on different frequencies scattered across the radio spectrum. For 
example, one jurisdiction may need devices that operate on 700 MHz 
frequencies, whereas another jurisdiction may need devices that 
operate on both 800 MHz and 450 MHz frequencies. Existing handheld LMR 
devices typically do not transmit and receive signals in all public 
safety frequencies. As a result, device manufacturers cannot sell a 
single product to customers nationwide, and must tailor devices to the 
combinations of frequencies in use by the purchasing agency. 

Barriers to entry by nonincumbent manufacturers. Device manufacturers 
wishing to enter the handheld LMR device market face barriers in doing 
so, which further limits competition. The use of proprietary 
technologies represents one barrier to entry. The inclusion of 
proprietary technologies often makes LMR devices noninteroperable with 
one another. This lack of interoperability makes it costly for 
customers to switch the brand of their devices, since doing so 
requires them to replace or modify older devices. These switching 
costs may continually compel customers to buy devices from the 
incumbent device manufacturer, preventing less established 
manufacturers from making inroads into the market. For example, in a 
comment filed with FCC, one of the jurisdictions we visited said that 
device manufacturers offer a proprietary encryption feature for free 
or at only a nominal cost.[Footnote 41] When a public safety agency 
buys devices that incorporate this proprietary encryption feature, the 
agency cannot switch its procurement to a different manufacturer 
without undertaking costly modifications to its existing fleet of 
devices. Switching costs are particularly high when a device 
manufacturer has installed a communication system that is incompatible 
with competitors' devices. In this scenario, a public safety agency 
cannot switch to a competitor's handheld device without incurring the 
cost of new equipment or a patching mechanism to resolve the 
incompatibility. Even where devices from different manufacturers are 
compatible, a fear of incompatibility may deter agencies from 
switching to a nonincumbent brand. According to industry stakeholders--
and as we have confirmed in the past--devices marketed as P25 
compliant often are not interoperable in practice.[Footnote 42] This 
lack of confidence in the P25 standard may encourage agencies to 
continue buying handheld LMR devices from their current brand, placing 
less established device manufacturers at a disadvantage and thus 
discouraging competition. 

At the same time that less established manufacturers are at a 
disadvantage, the market leader enjoys distinct "incumbency 
advantages." These advantages refer to the edge that a manufacturer 
derives from its position as incumbent, over and above whatever edge 
it derives from the strength of its product: 

* According to an industry analyst, some public safety agencies are 
reluctant to switch brands of handheld LMR devices because their 
emergency responders are accustomed to the placement of the buttons on 
their existing devices. 

* According to another industry analyst, the extensive network of 
customer representatives that the market leader has established over 
time presents an advantage. According to this analyst, less 
established device manufacturers face difficulty winning contracts 
because their networks of representatives are comparatively thin. 

* The well-recognized brand of the market leader also represents an 
advantage. According to one stakeholder, some agencies mistakenly 
believe that only the market leader is able to manufacturer devices 
compliant with P25, and thus conduct sole-source procurements with 
this manufacturer. Even where procurements are competitive, the market 
leader is likely to enjoy an upper hand over its competitors; 
according to an industry analyst, local procurement officers prefer to 
buy handheld LMR devices from the dominant device manufacturer because 
doing so is an uncontroversial choice in the eyes of their 
management.[Footnote 43] 

High Manufacturing Costs and Lack of Buying Power Increase Device 
Prices: 

Competition aside, handheld LMR devices are costly to manufacture, so 
their prices will likely exceed prices for commercial devices 
regardless of how much competition exists in the market. First, this 
is in large part because these devices need to be reinforced for high-
pressure environments. Handheld LMR devices must be able to withstand 
extremes of temperature as well physical stressors such as dust, 
smoke, impact, and immersion in water. Second, they also have much 
more robust performance requirements than commercial devices--
including greater transmitter and battery power--to enable 
communication at greater ranges and during extended periods of 
operation. Third, the devices are produced in quantities too small to 
realize the cost savings of mass production. Manufacturers of 
commercial telecommunication devices can keep prices lower simply 
because of the large quantities they produce. For example, one 
industry stakeholder told us that economies of scale begin for 
commercial devices when a million or more devices are produced per 
manufacturing run. In contrast, LMR devices are commonly produced in 
manufacturing runs of 25,000 units. Fourth, the exterior of handheld 
LMR devices must be customized to the needs of emergency responders. 
For example, the buttons on these devices must be large enough to 
press while wearing bulky gloves. 

In addition, given that the P25 standard remains incomplete and 
voluntary, device manufacturers develop products based on conflicting 
interpretations of the standard, resulting in incompatibilities 
between their products. Stakeholders from one jurisdiction we visited 
said that agencies can request add-on features--such as the ability to 
arrange channels according to user preference or to scan for radio 
channels assigned for particular purposes--which fall outside the P25 
standard. These features increase the degree of customization required 
to produce handheld LMR devices, pushing costs upward. 

Furthermore, public safety agencies may be unable to negotiate lower 
prices for handheld LMR devices because they cannot exert buying power 
in relationship with device manufacturers. We found that public safety 
agencies are not in an advantageous position to negotiate lower prices 
because they often request customized features and negotiate with 
device manufacturers in isolation from one another. According to a 
public safety official in one jurisdiction we contacted, each agency 
has unique ordinances, purchasing mechanisms, and bidding processes 
for devices. Because public safety agencies contract for handheld LMR 
devices in this independent manner, they sacrifice the quantity 
discounts that come from placing larger orders. Moreover, they are 
unlikely to know what other agencies pay for similar devices, enabling 
device manufacturers to offer different prices to different 
jurisdictions rather than set a single price for the entire market. 
One public safety official told us that small jurisdictions therefore 
pay more than larger jurisdictions for similar devices. As we have 
reported in the past, agencies that require similar products can 
combine their market power--and therefore obtain lower prices--by 
engaging in joint procurement.[Footnote 44] Therefore, wider efforts 
to coordinate procurement at the state, regional, or national level 
are likely to increase the buying power of public safety agencies and 
help bring down prices. 

Although these factors drive up prices in the current market for 
handheld LMR devices, industry observers said that many of these 
factors diminish in the future market for handheld broadband devices. 
As described earlier, FCC has mandated a commercial standard, LTE, for 
devices operating on the new broadband networks. The use of this 
standard may reduce the prevalence of proprietary features that 
inhibit interoperability. In addition, the new broadband networks will 
operate on common 700 MHz spectrum across the nation, eliminating the 
need to customize devices to the frequencies in use by individual 
jurisdictions. Together, the adoption of a commercial standard and the 
use of common spectrum are likely to increase the uniformity of 
handheld public safety devices, which in turn is likely to strengthen 
competition and enable the cost savings that come from bulk 
production. In addition, industry analysts and federal officials told 
us that they expect a heightened level of competition in the market 
for LTE devices because multiple device manufacturers are expected to 
develop them. 

Options Exist to Reduce the Prices of Handheld LMR Devices: 

Options exist to reduce prices in the market for handheld LMR devices 
by increasing competition and the bargaining power of public safety 
agencies. One option is to reduce barriers to entry into the market. 
As described above, less established manufacturers may be discouraged 
from entering the market for handheld LMR devices because of the lack 
of interoperability between devices produced by different 
manufacturers. Consistent implementation of the P25 standard would 
increase interoperability between devices, enabling public safety 
agencies to mix and match handheld LMR devices from different brands. 
As we have reported in the past, independent testing is necessary to 
ensure compliance with standards and interoperability among products. 
[Footnote 45] In the past several years, NIST and DHS have established 
a Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) for the P25 standard. CAP 
provides a government-led forum in which to test devices for 
conformance with P25 specifications.[Footnote 46] If the CAP program 
succeeds in increasing interoperability, it may reduce switching costs-
-that is, the expense of changing manufacturers--and thus may open the 
door to greater competition. Although CAP is a promising means to 
lower costs in this way, it is too soon to assess its effectiveness. 

A second option is for public safety agencies to engage in joint 
procurement to lower costs. Joint procurement of handheld LMR devices 
could increase the bargaining power of agencies as well as facilitate 
cost savings through quantity discounts. One public safety official we 
interviewed said that while local agencies seek to maintain control 
over operational matters--such as which emergency responders operate 
on which channels--they are likely to cede control in procurement 
matters if doing so lowers costs.[Footnote 47] As described earlier in 
this report, DHS provides significant grant funding, technical 
assistance, and guidance to enhance the interoperability of LMR 
systems. For example, as described in its January 2012 Technical 
Assistance Catalog, DHS's Office of Emergency Communications supports 
local public safety entities to ensure that LMR design documents meet 
P25 specifications and are written in a vendor-neutral manner. Based 
on its experience in emergency communications and its outreach to 
local public safety representatives, DHS is positioned to facilitate 
and incentivize opportunities for joint procurement of handheld LMR 
devices. 

Conclusions: 

Despite their interoperability limitations, traditional LMR systems 
have provided public safety agencies with mission critical voice 
capabilities that commercial broadband systems cannot provide. These 
LMR systems will continue to be essential for public safety 
communications until broadband systems are able to meet public safety 
requirements, particularly for mission critical voice. As a result, a 
public safety broadband network would likely supplement, rather than 
replace, current LMR systems for the foreseeable future. Although a 
public safety broadband network could enhance incident response, it 
would have limitations and be costly to construct. Furthermore, since 
the LMR systems will still be operational for many years, funding will 
be necessary to operate, maintain, and upgrade two separate public 
safety communication systems. 

At the time of our work, there was not an administrative entity that 
had the authority to plan, oversee, or direct the public safety 
broadband spectrum. As a result, overarching management decisions had 
not been made to guide the development or deployment of a public 
safety broadband network. According to SAFECOM's interoperability 
continuum, governance structures provide a framework for collaboration 
and decision making with the goal of achieving a common objective and 
therefore foster greater interoperability. In addition to ensuring 
interoperability, a governance entity with proper authority could help 
to address the challenges identified in this report, such as ensuring 
the network is secure and reliable. Pending legislation, the Middle 
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, establishes an 
independent authority within NTIA to manage and oversee the 
implementation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband 
network. 

Handheld communication devices used by public safety officials can 
cost thousands of dollars, mostly due to limited competition and high 
manufacturing costs. However, public safety agencies also lack buying 
power vis-à-vis the device manufacturers, which may result in the 
agencies overpaying for the devices. In particular, since public 
safety agencies negotiate individually with device manufacturers, they 
are unlikely to know what other agencies pay for comparable devices 
and they sacrifice the increased bargaining power and economies of 
scale that accompany joint purchasing. Especially in rural areas, 
public safety agencies may be overpaying for handheld devices. We have 
repeatedly recommended joint procurement as a cost saving measure for 
situations where agencies require similar products because it allows 
them to combine their market power and lower their procurement costs. 
Given that DHS has expertise in emergency communications and 
relationships with local public safety representatives, we believe it 
is well-suited to facilitate opportunities for joint procurement of 
handheld communication devices. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To help ensure that public safety agencies are not overpaying for 
handheld communication devices, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
should work with federal and state partners to identify and 
communicate opportunities for joint procurement of public safety LMR 
devices. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Commerce, DHS, the Department of 
Justice, and FCC for their review and comment. In the draft report we 
sent to the agencies, we included a matter for congressional 
consideration for ensuring that a public safety broadband network has 
adequate direction and oversight, such as by creating a governance 
structure that gives authority to an entity to define rules and 
develop a plan for the overarching management of the network. As a 
result of pending legislation that addresses this issue, we removed 
the matter for congressional consideration from the final report. 

Commerce provided written comments, reprinted in appendix III, in 
which it noted that NIST and NTIA will continue to collaborate with 
and support state, local, and tribal public safety agencies and other 
federal agencies to help achieve effective and efficient public safety 
communications. 

In commenting on the draft report, DHS concurred with our 
recommendation that it should work with federal and state partners to 
identify and communicate opportunities for joint procurement of public 
safety LMR devices. While DHS noted that this recommendation will not 
likely assist near-term efforts to implement a public safety broadband 
network, assisting efforts for the broadband network was not the 
intention of the recommendation. Rather, we intended this 
recommendation to help ensure that public safety agencies do not 
overpay for handheld LMR devices by encouraging joint procurement. DHS 
suggested in response to our recommendation that a GSA solution may be 
more appropriate than DHS contracting activity. Although we recognize 
that a GSA solution is one possibility for joint procurement of 
handheld LMR devices, other opportunities and solutions might exist. 
We believe DHS, based on its experience in emergency communications 
and its outreach to state and local public safety representatives, is 
best suited to identify such opportunities and solutions for joint 
procurement and communicate those to the public safety agencies. In 
its letter, DHS also noted that it continues to work with federal, 
state, local, and private-sector partners to facilitate the deployment 
of a nationwide public safety broadband network, and stressed that 
establishing an effective governance structure is crucial to ensuring 
interoperability and effective use of the network. DHS's written 
comments are reprinted in appendix IV. 

Commerce, DHS, the Department of Justice, and FCC provided technical 
comments on the draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, the 
Chairman of FCC, and appropriate congressional committees. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website 
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Contact information and major 
contributors to this report are listed on appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure: 

Congressional Requesters: 

The Honorable Fred Upton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Greg Walden: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines current communication systems used by public 
safety and issues surrounding the development of a nationwide public 
safety broadband network. Specifically, we reviewed (1) the resources 
that have been provided for current public safety communication 
systems and their capabilities and limitations, (2) how a nationwide 
public safety broadband network is being planned and its anticipated 
capabilities and limitations, (3) the challenges to building a 
nationwide public safety broadband network, and (4) the factors that 
influence competition and cost in the development of public safety 
communication devices and the options that exist to reduce prices. 

To address all objectives, we conducted a literature review of 43 
articles from governmental and academic sources on public safety 
communications. We reviewed these articles and recorded relevant 
evidence in workpapers, which informed our report findings. To 
identify existing studies, we conducted searches of various databases, 
such as EconLit, ProQuest, Academic OneFile, and Social SciSearch. We 
also pursued a snowball technique--following citations from relevant 
articles--to find other relevant articles and asked external 
researchers that we interviewed to recommend additional studies. These 
research methods produced 106 articles for initial review. We vetted 
this initial list by examining summary level information about each 
piece of literature, giving preference to articles that appeared in 
peer-reviewed journals and were germane to our research objectives. As 
a result, the 43 studies that we selected for our review met our 
criteria for relevance and quality. For the 13 articles related to our 
fourth objective--factors that affect competition and cost in the 
market for public safety communication devices--a GAO economist 
performed a secondary review and confirmed the relevance to our 
objective. Articles were then reviewed and evidence captured in 
workpapers. The workpapers were then reviewed for accuracy of the 
evidence gathered. We performed these searches and identified articles 
from June 2011 to September 2011. 

We also interviewed government officials or stakeholders in 6 of the 
22 jurisdictions that are authorized to build early public safety 
broadband networks and obtained information concerning each objective. 
In particular, we obtained information concerning their current 
communication systems and its capabilities, including any funding 
received to support the current network. We discussed their plan for 
building a public safety broadband network and the challenge they had 
faced thus far, including the role each thought the federal government 
should play in developing a network. We also discussed their views on 
the communication device market and the factors shaping the market. We 
selected jurisdictions to contact based on three criteria: (1) whether 
the jurisdiction received grant funds from the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to help build 
the network, (2) whether the planned network would be a statewide or 
regional network, and (3) geographic distribution across the nation. 
Table 4 lists the jurisdictions we selected based on these criteria. 
We selected jurisdictions based on NTIA grant funding because these 
jurisdictions had received the most significant federal funds 
dedicated towards developing a broadband network. Other jurisdictions 
either had not identified any funding or applied smaller grant funding 
that was not primarily targeted at emergency communications. We 
selected the size of the network, statewide or regional, to determine 
if challenges differed based on the size of the network and the number 
of entities involved. Finally, we selected sites based on the 
geographic region to get a geographic mix of jurisdictions from around 
the country. In jurisdictions that received NTIA funding, we met with 
government officials and emergency responders.[Footnote 48] In 
jurisdictions that did not receive NTIA funding we met with the 
government officials since the network had not progressed as much. 

Table 4: Jurisdictions Contacted: 

Jurisdiction: Boston, Massachusetts; 
Criteria: 
NTIA funding: No; 
Scope of network: Regional; 
Geographic region: East. 

Jurisdiction: Texas; 
Criteria: 
NTIA funding: No; 
Scope of network: Statewide; 
Geographic region: South. 

Jurisdiction: Iowa; 
Criteria: 
NTIA funding: No; 
Scope of network: Statewide; 
Geographic region: Midwest. 

Jurisdiction: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose (BayWEB), 
California; 
Criteria: 
NTIA funding: Yes; 
Scope of network: Regional; 
Geographic region: West. 

Jurisdiction: Adams County Communications Center, Colorado; 
Criteria: 
NTIA funding: Yes; 
Scope of network: Regional; 
Geographic region: West. 

Jurisdiction: Mississippi Wireless Communications Commission; 
Criteria: 
NTIA funding: Yes; 
Scope of network: Statewide; 
Geographic region: South. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

To determine the resources that have been provided for current public 
safety communication systems, we reviewed Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) data on spectrum allocations for land mobile radio 
(LMR) systems. In addition, we reviewed relevant documentation and 
interviewed officials from offices within the Departments of Commerce 
(Commerce), Homeland Security (DHS), and Justice that administer grant 
programs or provide grants that identify public safety communications 
as an allowable expense. We selected these agencies to speak with 
because they had more grant programs providing funds or were regularly 
mentioned in interviews as providing funds for public safety 
communications. We also reviewed documents from agencies, such as the 
Departments of Agriculture and Transportation, which similarly operate 
grant programs that identify public safety communications as an 
allowable expense. The grants were identified by DHS's SAFECOM program 
as grants that can support public safety communications. 

To identify the capabilities and limitations of current public safety 
communication systems, we reviewed relevant congressional testimonies, 
academic articles on the capabilities and limitations of LMR networks, 
and relevant federal agency documents, including DHS's National 
Emergency Communications Plan. We interviewed officials from three 
national public safety associations--the Association of Public-Safety 
Communications Officials (APCO), National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), and the Public Safety Spectrum 
Trust (PSST)--as well as researchers and consultants referred to us 
for their knowledge of public safety communications and identified 
during the literature review process. 

To determine the plans for a nationwide public safety broadband 
network and its expected capabilities and limitations, we reviewed 
relevant congressional testimonies and academic articles on services 
and applications likely to operate on a public safety broadband 
network, the challenges to building, operating, and maintaining a 
network. We interviewed officials from APCO, NPSTC, and PSST, as well 
as researchers and consultants who specialize in public safety 
communications to understand the potential capabilities of the 
network. In addition, we reviewed FCC orders and notices of proposed 
rulemaking relating to broadband for public safety, as well as 
comments on this topic submitted to FCC. 

To determine the federal role in the public safety broadband network, 
we interviewed multiple agencies involved in planning this network. 
Within FCC, we interviewed officials from the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), the mission of which is to ensure 
public safety and homeland security by advancing state-of-the-art 
communications that are accessible, reliable, resilient, and secure, 
in coordination with public and private partners. Within Commerce, we 
interviewed officials from NTIA and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), two agencies that develop, test, and 
advise on broadband standards for public safety. We also interviewed 
officials from the Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) 
program, a joint effort between NIST and NTIA that works to research, 
develop, and test public safety communication technologies. Within 
DHS, we interviewed officials from the Office of Emergency 
Communications (OEC) and the Office of Interoperability and 
Compatibility (OIC), two agencies that provide input on the public 
safety broadband network through their participation on interagency 
coordinating bodies. 

To determine the technological, historical, and other factors that 
affect competition in the market for public safety devices, as well as 
what options exist to reduce the cost of these devices, we reviewed 
the responses to FCC's notice seeking comment on competition in public 
safety communications technologies. In addition, we reviewed our prior 
reports and correspondence on this topic between FCC and the House of 
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce that occurred in June 
and July of 2010 and April and May of 2011. We also conducted an 
economic literature review that included 13 academic articles 
examining markets for communications technology and, in particular, 
how issues of standards, compatibility, bundling, and price 
discrimination affect entry and competition in these markets. These 
articles provided a historical and theoretical context for 
communication technology markets, which helped shape our findings. We 
asked about factors affecting the price of public safety devices, as 
well as how to reduce these prices, during our interviews with 
national public safety organizations, local and regional public safety 
jurisdictions, and the federal agencies we contacted during our audit 
work. We also interviewed two researchers specifically identified for 
their knowledge of communication equipment markets based on their 
congressional testimony or publication history. In addition, we 
interviewed representatives from four companies that produce public 
safety devices or network components, as well as two financial 
analysts who track the industry. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 to February 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Federal Grant Programs for Emergency Communications: 

SAFECOM, a program administered by DHS, has identified federal grant 
programs across nine agencies, including the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland 
Security, Interior, Justice, Transportation, and the U.S. Navy that 
allow grant funds to fund public safety emergency communications 
efforts. These grants include recurring grants that support emergency 
communications, research grants that fund innovative and pilot 
projects, and past grants that may be funding ongoing projects. While 
the funding from these grants can support emergency communications, 
the total funding reported does not mean it was all spent on emergency 
communications.[Footnote 49] We provided the amounts of the grants and 
the years funded when this information was available. 

Department of Commerce: 

Two agencies within Commerce--NTIA and NIST--administer grants that 
allow funds to be directed towards public safety emergency 
communications (see table 5). 

Table 5: Commerce Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable 
Expenditure: 

Program (administering agency): Broadband Technology Opportunities 
Program (NTIA); 
Description: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
provided one-time funding for improvements to broadband access, as 
well as, broadband education, awareness, training, equipment, and 
support to community anchor institutions, among other purposes. This 
program provided $3.9 billion including more than $382 million for 
infrastructure projects to deploy public safety wireless broadband 
networks; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2009-2010. 

Program (administering agency): Measurement Science and Engineering 
Research Grants: Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory 
Program (NIST); 
Description: The program provides grants and cooperative agreements 
for the development of fundamental electrical metrology and of 
metrology supporting industry and government agencies (including law 
enforcement standards); 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program (administering agency): Measurement Science and Engineering 
Research Grants: Information Technology Laboratory Grants Program 
(NIST); 
Description: The program provides grants and cooperative agreements in 
the broad areas of mathematical and computational sciences, advanced 
network technologies, information access, and software testing; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program (administering agency): Measurement Science and Engineering 
Research Grants: Physical Measurement Laboratory Grants Program[A] 
(NIST); 
Description: This program provides grants and cooperative agreements 
in several fields of research, including research on time and 
frequency standards and applications; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program (administering agency): Public Safety Interoperable 
Communications Grant Program (NTIA and the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency); 
Description: This grant program provided one-time funding to states 
and territories to enable and enhance public safety agencies' 
interoperable communications capabilities.[B] The program awarded more 
than $968 million to fund interoperable communications projects in the 
56 states and territories; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal year 2007. 

Source: DHS and Commerce. 

Note: Not available is referenced as n/a in the table. 

[A] Formerly the Measurement Science and Engineering Research Grants: 
Physics Laboratory Grant Program. 

[B] The Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant 
Program was created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 
109-171, §3006, 120 Stat. 4, 24 (2006)). The Digital Television 
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 allowed funding for the 
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program. (Pub. L. No. 111-
96). 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Two agencies within DHS administer grants that allow funds to be 
directed towards public safety emergency communications--the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Science and Technology 
Directorate. Another agency, OEC, has administered one such grant 
program. Furthermore, DHS maintains an authorized equipment list to 
document equipment eligible for purchase under its grant programs, 
including interoperable communications equipment.[Footnote 50] (See 
table 6.) 

Table 6: DHS Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable 
Expenditure: 

Program: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program awards grants to fire departments to enhance 
their ability to protect the public and fire service personnel from 
fire and fire-related hazards; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Border Interoperability Demonstration Project (OEC); 
Description: This was a one-time competitive demonstration project 
that provided funding to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to 
develop and identify innovative approaches to improving interoperable 
emergency communications along and across U.S. international borders. 
This grant provided $25.6 million to eligible jurisdictions; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal year 2010. 

Program: Buffer Zone Protection Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program provides funding to states for improving 
preparedness capabilities of jurisdictions surrounding high-priority 
critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants and financial 
institutions. This program has provided almost $333 million to 
eligible jurisdictions; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2005-2010. 

Program: Citizen Corps Grant Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program's mission is to bring community and 
government leaders together to coordinate community-based planning 
efforts. This program has provided almost $186 million; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2007-2011. 

Program: Emergency Management Performance Grant (FEMA); 
Description: The grant assists state and local governments in 
enhancing and sustaining their all-hazards emergency management 
capabilities; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Emergency Management Performance Grants Supplemental (FEMA); 
Description: This supplemental grant provided an additional $50 
million for the Emergency Management Performance Grant program; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal year 2007. 

Program: Emergency Operations Center Grant Program (FEMA); 
Description: This grant program is intended to help building or 
renovating state, local, or tribal Emergency Operation Centers; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (FEMA); 
Description: The purpose of this program is to provide funding to 
protect the intercity bus systems and people traveling on the systems 
from terrorism. Operators may use the funds to purchase emergency 
communications technology that focuses on theft prevention, real-time 
bus inventory, tracking, monitoring, and locating technologies; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Intercity Passenger Rail-Amtrak (FEMA); 
Description: The purpose this grant program is to protect critical 
passenger rail infrastructure and the traveling public from terrorism. 
Amtrak is the only entity eligible to apply for funding under this 
grant program; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program provided funding to state, local and tribal 
entities for governance, planning, and training to improve 
interoperable emergency communications[A]; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Long-Range Broad Agency Announcement (Science and Technology); 
Description: This program serves as an open invitation to the 
scientific and technical communities to fund pioneering research and 
development projects in support of the nation's security. The 
proposals may focus on prototypes that offer potential for advancement 
and improvement of homeland security missions and operations; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Metropolitan Medical Response System Grant Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program provides funding to states to support the 
integration of local emergency management and medical systems into a 
coordinated local response system. Program funds can support 
purchasing of pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment, among 
other things. This program has provided nearly $186 million to 
eligible states; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2007-2011. 

Program: Operation Stonegarden (FEMA); 
Description: This program provides funding to jurisdictions to enhance 
cooperation and coordination between law enforcement agencies that 
work to secure the U.S. borders. Funds must be used to improve 
coordinated operational capabilities of law enforcement agencies. This 
program has provided more than $234 million; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2008-2011. 

Program: Port Security Grant Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program's purpose is to protect critical port 
infrastructure from terrorism, particularly attacks that could cause a 
major disruption to commerce; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Port Security Grant Program-American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act funding (FEMA); 
Description: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
provided additional one-time funding for this program to protect 
critical port infrastructure from terrorism[B]; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2009. 

Program: State Homeland Security Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program awards grants to all 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories on the basis of risk and need. It 
provides funds to build state and local emergency response 
capabilities and implement state homeland security plans. This program 
has provided almost $3.1 billion to eligible entities; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2008-2011. 

Program: Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (FEMA); 
Description: This grant program provides funds to eligible tribes for 
strengthening the nation against terrorism; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Trucking Security Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program supports the trucking industries' adoption 
and implementation of security measures, including global positioning 
systems tracking, and driver emergency alert notification systems, 
among other measures; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Urban Area Security Initiative Nonprofit Security Grant 
Program (FEMA); 
Description: This program provides funding to support nonprofit 
organizations located within a Urban Area Security Initiative region 
that are at high risk of a terrorist attack. Allowable costs include 
security communications and hardening activities; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Urban Areas Security Initiative (FEMA); 
Description: This program focuses on enhancing regional preparedness 
in major metropolitan areas.[C] It is intended to assist participating 
jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for 
prevention, protection, response, and recovery. This program has 
provided more than $3.8 billion; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2007-2011. 

Source: DHS. 

Note: Not available is referenced as n/a in the table. 

[A] This program was jointly implemented by FEMA and OEC. FEMA 
defunded this program in fiscal year 2011 and instead incorporated the 
program's emergency communications goals and activities into the 
Homeland Security Grant program. Each of the five programs that 
comprise the Homeland Security Grant Program allows the grantee to 
purchase interoperable communications equipment. 

[B] Pub. L. No. 111-5. 

[C] FEMA has identified 31 highest risk urban areas eligible for Urban 
Areas Security Initiative funding. 

[End of table] 

Department of Justice: 

Two offices within Department of Justice, the Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 
administer grants that allow funds to be directed towards public 
safety emergency communications (see table 7). 

Table 7: Department of Justice Grants with Emergency Communications as 
an Allowable Expenditure: 

Program: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (OJP); 
Description: This grant program supports many components of the 
criminal justice system, from multijurisdictional drug and gang task 
forces to crime prevention. In fiscal year 2011, the program awarded 
$360 million in grants for 1,400 grantees; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2006-2011. 

Program: Interoperable Communications Technology Grant Program (COPS); 
Description: Program provides funding for continued development of 
technologies and automated systems to help state, local, and tribal 
law enforcement agencies increase interoperability. The program 
awarded approximately $250 million to eligible law enforcement 
agencies; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2003-2006. 

Program: Law Enforcement Technology Program (COPS); 
Description: A noncompetitive program focused on the development of 
technologies to enable better response, investigation, and prevention 
of crime. The program provided $1.3 billion dollars grants to 18,000 
local law enforcement agencies; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 1998-2010. 

Program: National Institute of Justice Research Grants (OJP); 
Description: This program funded research in three areas: (1) 
enhancing the safety of criminal justice officers, (2) advancing use 
of geospatial technologies in law enforcement, and (3) modeling and 
simulation of technologies for virtual criminal justice training; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Tribal Resources Grant Program (COPS); 
Description: Program provides funding directly to federally-recognized 
tribal jurisdictions with established law enforcement agencies. It 
consists of two types of grants: (1) hiring grants and (2) equipment 
and training grants; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Source: DHS and the Department of Justice. 

Note: Not available is referenced as n/a in the table. 

[End of table] 

Other Agency Programs: 

Six additional federal agencies administer grants that can fund public 
safety emergency communications, including the Departments of 
Agriculture (USDA), Transportation (DOT), Health and Human Services 
(HHS), Education, Interior, and the U.S. Navy (see table 8). 

Table 8: Other Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable 
Expenditure: 

Program: Broadband Initiatives Program (USDA); 
Description: This program was funded by ARRA with the purpose of 
awarding grants and loans to facilitate broadband deployment in rural 
communities. This one-time program provided $3.5 billion in loans and 
grants for 320 projects; 
Years funded (if available): Fiscal years 2009-2010. 

Program: Communications and Networking (U.S. Navy); 
Description: This program provides funding for institutions and 
individuals' research and development of antennas, radio 
communications and wireless networking relevant to naval applications; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Enhanced 911 Grant Program (DOT); 
Description: This program provided grants to help 911 call centers 
implement next-generation technologies, such as the receipt of video 
or text messages from wireless callers or other features that could 
improve emergency response or enhance safety. The program provided 
more than $40 million in grants; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Hospital Preparedness Program (HHS); 
Description: The program supports the ability for hospitals and health 
care systems to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism and other 
public health emergencies. All awardees are required to equip 
participating healthcare entities with communication devices; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Public Health Emergency Response Grant Program (HHS); 
Description: The purpose of this grant was to support and enhance the 
state and local public health infrastructure that is critical to 
public health preparedness and response in the event of an influenza 
pandemic. Sixty-two entities, including the 50 states, 4 
municipalities, and 8 territories and freely associated states were 
awarded this one-time grant; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (Education); 
Description: Program provides funds to local educational agencies to 
establish an emergency management process that focuses on reviewing 
and strengthening emergency management plans.[A]; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Rural Development Community Connect Grant Program (USDA); 
Description: The program provides financial assistance to provide 
broadband service in rural communities without broadband. The grants 
establish broadband service for critical facilities, such as fire or 
police stations, while also providing service to residents and 
businesses; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Rural Development Community Facilities Programs (USDA); 
Description: This program provides grants and loans to rural public 
safety agencies by financing needed equipment, improvements, and 
services; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: Rural Fire Assistance Outreach (Interior); 
Description: This program supports increasing local firefighter safety 
and enhancing fire protection capabilities of rural fire departments 
by providing basic wildland firefighting supplies and equipment; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Program: State Health Information Exchange Cooperative Agreement 
Program (HHS); 
Description: This program provided funding to facilitate and expand 
the secure, electronic movement and use of health information among 
organizations according to nationally recognized standards that 
promote interoperability; 
Years funded (if available): n/a. 

Source: DHS and other funding agencies. 

Note: Not available is referenced as n/a in the table. 

[A] The term "local educational agency" means a public board of 
education or other public authority legally constituted within a State 
for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a 
service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools 
in a city, county, township, school district, or other political 
subdivision of a state, or of or for a combination of school districts 
or counties that is recognized in a state as an administrative agency 
for its public elementary schools or secondary schools. 

[End of table] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

United States Department of Commerce: 
The Secretary of Commerce: 
Washington, D.C. 20230: 

February 9, 2012: 

Mr. Gene L. Dodaro: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:  

Dear Mr. Dodaro:  

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Emergency 
Communications: Unresolved Challenges Likely to Slow Implementation of 
a Public Safety Broadband Network" GAO-12-343. Staff from the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) provided 
technical and editorial comments to the draft report in April and 
December of 2011.  

As part of this engagement, GAO met with officials from NIST and NTIA. 
NIST conducts world-class research in science, technology and 
measurement, advancing competitiveness and innovation. NTIA represents 
the Obama Administration on domestic and international 
telecommunications policy matters, manages the U.S. Government's use 
of spectrum, and conducts core research to spur competition and new 
technology deployment. NIST and NTIA staff at the Department of 
Commerce's laboratories in Boulder, CO, have collaborated in the 
Public Safety Communications Research program's broadband 
demonstration network. That project is testing cutting-edge broadband 
network equipment and devices that public safety agencies intend to 
deploy to be sure they meet the unique needs of public safety agencies 
and remain interoperable. NTIA also manages, the Broadband Technology 
Opportunities Program, which awarded $382,466,612 in grants to build 
interoperable, wireless public safety broadband systems, and the 
Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant program, which 
awarded $968,385,000 to fund interoperable communications projects in 
56 states and territories.  

In the draft report, GAO makes recommendations to improve public 
safety agencies' ability to achieve a nationwide interoperable public 
safety broadband network, as well as the procurement of cost-effective 
land mobile radio devices. In particular, I agree with the report's 
recommendation that a single entity should plan and oversee the 
deployment of a public safety broadband network. In fact, the Public 
Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act, S. 911, and the American 
Jobs Act of 2011, S. 1549, both of which the Administration supports, 
would create a non-profit corporation with the diverse expertise and 
necessary funding to build and manage a nationwide, state-of-the-art, 
interoperable public safety broadband network.  

Please be assured that NIST and NTIA will continue to collaborate with 
and support state, local, and tribal public safety agencies and other 
federal agencies to help achieve effective and efficient public safety 
communications. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share the Department's comments 
on this draft report. This Administration is committed to achieving 
first-rate and cost-effective public safety communications, including 
a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John E. Bryson: 

cc: Mark L. Goldstein, Director: 
Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

February 13, 2012: 

Mr. Mark Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report 0A0-12-343, "Emergency Communications: Unresolved
Challenges Likely to Slow Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband 
Network" 

Dear Mr. Goldstein: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The Department is pleased to note GAO's positive recognition of 
contributions DHS has made to support public safety communications 
since its creation 2003. As noted in the report, DHS has been heavily 
involved in: 

* assisting federal, state, local, and regional emergency response 
agencies; 

* bringing stakeholders together from all levels of government to 
discuss interoperability issues; and; 

* enhancing communications capabilities at all levels of government 
through work and coordination by the National Protection and Programs 
Directorate's (NPPPD's) Office of Emergency Communication (OEC). 

The report also discusses the numerous federal grant programs that 
state and local agencies can use to procure communications equipment, 
as well as to support other vital emergency communications activities. 
Through its administration of the Emergency Communications
Preparedness Center, DHS has facilitated the development of 
recommendations for common grant guidance that can be used across 
federal programs that provide financial support for emergency 
communications activities. More widespread adoption of these grant 
recommendations by federal departments and agencies will: facilitate 
coordination and compatibility among federally funded emergency 
communications investments; advance national goals and priorities for 
improving emergency communications; and enhance the state of emergency 
communications nationwide. 

Despite the numerous challenges threatening the implementation of the 
Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, DHS continues to work with 
its federal, state, local, and private-sector partners to facilitate 
its development and deployment. For example, NPPD/OEC has assigned 
staff to support stakeholders currently building broadband networks, 
known as Waiver Jurisdictions, and created a new Broadband and New 
Technologies branch. In addition, OEC is supporting the Waiver 
jurisdictions through its Technical Assistance program to provide the 
services of a Numbering Administrator. We believe these efforts will 
help implement the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. 
However, establishing an effective nationwide public safety governance 
structure is crucial to ensuring interoperability and effective use of 
a wireless broadband network developed for public safety. DHS supports 
the creation of a single entity to oversee the Nationwide Public 
Safety Broadband Network described in the report, as it is consistent 
with the Administration's vision of effective governance for a 
nationwide network, see: [hyperlink, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/publicsafetyreport
.pdf]. 

DHS remains committed to continuing to invest in public safety 
communications and working with its partners throughout all levels of 
government, law enforcement, private industry, and in the public to 
ensure the safety, security, and resilience of our Nation. 

The draft report contained one recommendation directed to DHS, with 
which the Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended: 

Recommendation: To help ensure that public safety agencies are not 
overpaying for handheld communication devices, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security should work with federal and state partners to 
identify and communicate opportunities for joint procurement of public 
safety land mobile radio (LMR) devices. 

Response: Concur. We note, however, this recommendation will not 
likely significantly assist near-term efforts to implement a 
Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. The price of handheld 
devices is only one factor that limits LMR interoperability. 
Therefore, establishing joint procurement of LMR devices, as proposed, 
will not alone overcome all the remaining interoperability challenges. 
The impediments identified by GAO, technical and otherwise, are not 
unique to LMR, but are symptoms of broader challenges—challenges that 
will remain until transition to a nationwide wireless broadband 
infrastructure is complete. 

In at least one instance captured in Footnote 43 of the report, the 
Local Preparedness Acquisition Act, P.L. 110-248, 122 Stat 2316 
(2008), provided state and local governments the opportunity to 
purchase certain equipment through the GSA Purchasing Program. In the 
event a "joint procurement of LMR devices," could be accomplished, 
that model may provide a precedent for such procurements. However, we 
note that (1) statutory authority was required, (2) several provisions 
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation required a deviation for 
implementation, to include the tax clauses, and (3) GSA was the 
contracting agency. With this precedent in mind, a possible GSA 
solution may be more appropriate than DHS contracting activity. 
[Footnote 43, cited in the letter, became footnote 47 due to editing]. 

In the current environment, DHS will continue to coordinate efforts to 
educate federal, state, local, and tribal agencies on the existing 
opportunities for joint procurement or other infrastructure-sharing 
solutions for LMR technology. In addition, DHS will continue to 
coordinate and share information with stakeholders, including those in 
the private sector, on issues related to the Nationwide Public Safety 
Broadband Network. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. We look forward to working with you on future Homeland 
Security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Sally Moino, Assistant 
Director; Namita Bhatia-Sabharwal; Dave Hooper; Eric Hudson; Josh 
Ormond; Bonnie Pignatiello Leer; Ellen Ramachandran; Andrew Stavisky; 
Hai Tran; and Mindi Weisenbloom made significant contributions to this 
report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Emergency Communications: National Communications System Provides 
Programs for Priority Calling, but Planning for New Initiatives and 
Performance Measurement Could Be Strengthened. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-822]. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 
2009. 

Emergency Communications: Vulnerabilities Remain and Limited 
Collaboration and Monitoring Hamper Federal Efforts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-604]. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 
2009. 

First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications 
Interoperability. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-301]. 
Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2007. 

Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental 
Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable 
Communications. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-740]. 
Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004. 

Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort 
Requires Stronger Collaboration. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-494]. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 
2004. 

Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 
Communications for First Responders. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-231T]. Washington, D.C.: November 
6, 2003. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The radio frequency spectrum is the part of the natural spectrum 
of electromagnetic radiation lying between the frequency limits of 3 
kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). Radio signals travel through 
space in the form of waves. These waves vary in length, and each 
wavelength is associated with a particular radio frequency. 

[2] Capacity refers to a communication system's ability to handle 
demand, provide coverage, and send different types of information. 

[3] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the 
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States 
(Washington, D.C.: July 2004). 

[4] Congress, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 
111 Stat. 251, mandated that FCC allocate 24 MHz of spectrum for 
public safety services by January 1, 1998. 

[5] See Auction 73, 700 MHz Band, at (last accessed Feb. 17, 2012) 
[hyperlink, 
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=73].
 
[6] As of February 17, 2012, the House of Representatives and the 
Senate had adopted the conference report accompanying the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, but the legislation had not 
been signed by the President at the time our work was completed on 
February 21, 2012. H.R. Rep. 112-399, accompanying the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, H.R. 3630, 112th Cong. (2012) 
as reported out on February 16, 2012. 

[7] FCC, A Broadband Network Cost Model: A Basis for Public Funding 
Essential to Bringing Nationwide Interoperable Communications to 
America's First Responders, OBI Technical Paper No. 2 (May 2010). FCC 
staff told us they believe, based on information in the marketplace, 
that the cost of the network has risen since the May 2010 publication. 
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act authorizes $7 billion 
for the construction of the network from the potential proceeds of 
"incentive auctions." Incentive auctions are a special type of auction 
in which an existing user could receive a portion of the proceeds from 
the auction if the user relinquishes its rights to the spectrum. 

[8] Public safety officials include all emergency responders and 
public safety agencies, such as firefighters, police officers, and 
paramedics who are the first to arrive at the scene of an emergency, 
as well as other responders such as hospital personnel, who might not 
be on the scene of an emergency but are essential in supporting 
effective response and recovery operations. Public safety agencies 
include 911 call centers that are also essential in supporting an 
effective response. 

[9] NPSTC is a federation of organizations whose mission is to improve 
public safety communications and interoperability through 
collaborative leadership. 

[10] The P25 suite of standards contains 8 open interfaces that exist 
between the various components of an LMR system. According to a PSCR 
official, of the 8 interfaces, only about 1.5 were complete at the 
time of our report. 

[11] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, §502(5) and 
(6),116 Stat. 2135, 2212 (2002). 

[12] The number of licenses excludes the 700 MHz public safety 
broadband license, the 4.9 GHz band, and public safety point-to-point 
microwave licenses. 

[13] Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
Act of 2012, increases the amount of spectrum FCC is required to 
allocate for public safety from 24 to 34 MHz. 

[14] The remaining 2 MHz were used as guardbands to protect from 
unwanted interference. Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 15289 
(2007). 

[15] Spectrum is divided into frequency bands, each having technical 
characteristics that affect electronic transmission in different ways. 
"Bandwidth" is related to the transmission capacity of a frequency 
band and both the bandwidth and the frequency band can be described in 
MHz. 

[16] FCC issued two further notices of proposed rulemakings since it 
attempted to auction the D Block, and a final order has not been 
adopted. 

[17] When FCC auctions spectrum, the proceeds are to be deposited in 
the U.S. Treasury. 49 U.S.C. §309(j)(8). 

[18] Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice, Service Rules 
for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 Bands; Implementing a Nationwide, 
Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, 26 
FCC Rcd 733 (2011). 

[19] Requests for Waiver of Various Petitioners to Allow the 
Establishment of 700 MHz Interoperable Public Safety Wireless 
Broadband Networks, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 5145, May 12, 2010; Requests for 
Waiver of Various Petitioners to Allow the Establishment of 700 MHz 
Interoperable Public Safety Wireless Broadband Networks, Order, 25 FCC 
Rcd 6783, May 12, 2011. 

[20] LTE--the standard created and adopted by the Third Generation 
Partnership Project, a standards organization--is the closest standard 
to fourth generation wireless (4G) technology that existed at that 
time. LTE has been accepted and adopted by national and international 
communities as the foundation for future mobile telecommunications. 

[21] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-
5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

[22] FCC issued its Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. See, Service Rules for the 
698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 Bands; Implementing a Nationwide, 
Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; 
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission Rules, Third Report and Order 
and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 14301 (2011). 

[23] Pub. L. No.109-295, §671, 120 Stat.1433, 1440 (2006). 

[24] Funding from these grants can support emergency communications; 
not all funding was spent on the LMR voice communication systems. 

[25] The Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program is 
an NTIA program administered by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency. 

[26] Mississippi retained a portion of the grant funds for 
administrative purposes. 

[27] FCC requires that public safety LMR systems migrate to at least 
12.5 kHz efficiency technology by January 1, 2013, in an effort to 
ensure more efficient use of the spectrum. 47 C.F.R. §90.209(b)(5), 
fn. 3. 

[28] In comparison, FCC has licensed about 260 MHz of spectrum for 
broadband personal communication services through auctions, which are 
a market-based mechanism in which FCC assigns a license to the entity 
that submits the highest bid for specific bands of spectrum. Public 
safety has received spectrum outside of the auction process. 

[29] Approximately half of this allocation is located at 4.9 GHz, 
which according to DHS has limited value to public safety. Ideal 
spectrum for public safety lies in the 150 to 800 MHz bands. 

[30] GAO, First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve 
Communications Interoperability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-301] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 
2007). 

[31] Establishment of an Emergency Response Interoperability Center, 
PS Docket 06-229, Order, FCC 10-67 (rel. Apr. 23, 2010). 

[32] The Public Safety Advisory Committee is subject to the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act; the Technical Advisory Committee is not. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act regulates the creation, operation, and 
termination of executive branch advisory committees. 

[33] Federal users are allowed to access the public safety broadband 
network, subject to the public safety broadband licensee's approval, 
47 C.F.R. § 2.103(c)(1). FCC cannot license federal users, but federal 
users might be able to subscribe to the network. 

[34] The LTE standard is still being developed. 

[35] LMR devices typically operate for more than 10 years, much longer 
than the standard commercial device. 

[36] The technical design of a cellular network involves multiple 
hexagonal shaped cells merging together to form the network. 

[37] One waiver jurisdiction ran simulations on 10 MHz of 700 MHz 
spectrum and determined that when overloaded the network became 
unusable for video and data. 

[38] Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
Act of 2012, requires the creation of a Technical Advisory Board for 
First Responder Interoperability to develop recommended minimum 
technical requirements to ensure a nationwide level of 
interoperability. 

[39] Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
Act of 2012, authorizes proceeds ($7 billion) from incentive auctions 
to construct the public safety network and authorizes the First 
Responder Network Authority to assess and collect fees to enable the 
authority to recoup its total expenses annually. 

[40] The competitiveness of a market may be determined by factors 
other than the number of manufacturers within it--a market with only 
one manufacturer may be competitive if the manufacturer faces a 
credible threat of entry by competitors because the possibility that 
competitors will take away customers is enough to keep prices down. 

[41] Encryption features convert data into a code to prevent 
unauthorized access. Although the P25 standard permits certain 
encryption features in handheld LMR devices, some device manufacturers 
sell encryption technology that falls outside the P25 standard. 

[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-301]. 

[43] Further, incumbency advantages may be apparent in the standards 
development process. Stakeholders told us that because device 
manufacturers participate in the standards development process, the 
technology standards for handheld LMR devices may reflect the 
interests of dominant device manufacturers. 

[44] GAO, Transit Rail: Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies 
Exist, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-730] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010), and GAO, DOD and VA Pharmacy: 
Progress and Remaining Challenges in Jointly Buying and Mailing Out 
Drugs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-588] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001). 

[45] GAO, Information Assurance: National Partnership Offers Benefits, 
but Faces Considerable Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-392] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 
2006). 

[46] According to DHS, equipment that is found compliant is posted to 
the Responder Knowledge Base at (last accessed, Feb. 17, 2012) 
[hyperlink, https://www.rkb.us/]. 

[47] An alternative approach to fostering joint procurement is through 
a federal supply schedule. In 2008, the Local Preparedness Acquisition 
Act, Pub. L. No. 110-248, 122 Stat. 2316 (2008), gave state and local 
governments the opportunity to buy emergency response equipment 
through GSA's Cooperative Purchasing Program. The Cooperative 
Purchasing Program may provide a model for extending joint procurement 
to state and local public safety agencies. 

[48] In two of the jurisdictions that received NTIA funding, we also 
met with technology vendors. 

[49] It would be very difficult to review all grants to identify the 
total funding spent exclusively on emergency communications. 

[50] Interoperable Communications Equipment eligible for purchase 
under DHS's authorized equipment list can be found at (last accessed 
Feb. 17, 2012) [hyperlink, 
https://www.rkb.us/mel.cfm?expand=1&subtypeid=549]. See Category 6 for 
Interoperable Communication Equipment. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.