On November 6, 2017, the FCC held an Open Forum on Interference from broadband systems to public safety land mobile radio operations. We were honored to have been asked to participate.
During the session, we were asked about our efforts to provide education to the public safety community about the issue. We told the FCC about our half day interference workshops at the International Wireless Communications Expo (which we’ve done multiple times), presentations at numerous APCO meetings, and magazine articles. The Commission urged us to keep getting the word out, and so this is the purpose of this blog post. Continue reading “800 MHz Post-Rebanding Interference – What You Need To Know”
A Fact Sheet
was recently issued by Democratic FCC Commissioner Clyburn on the FCC’s proposal to eliminate Net Neutrality. As noted by the Commissioner, the Rules sought to be repealed were previously upheld as reasonable regulation by the U.S. Court of Appeals
You may wish to read the Fact Sheet in conjunction with Last Week Tonight’s Story
by John Oliver from a couple of years ago. You might want to move to the 2:30 point of the video to skip the setup jokes.
There are significant questions as to how the elimination of these rules impact public safety communications. It was originally argued
that Net Neutrality would keep carriers from being able to offer public safety preemptive service. That apparent hurdle was overcome, as can be seen by AT&T’s FirstNet offering as well as Verizon’s competing offering.
It has also been suggested
by a former FCC attorney that the absence of Net Neutrality would have a negative impact on public safety.
Regardless of which Net Neutrality position you believe in, what is important is that if the FCC continues on its apparent course to “free” providers of their current responsibilities, the final rules must include provisions that specifically preclude the ability of providers to give a reduced prioritization to public safety traffic (or to make them pay more), regardless of whether such traffic is FirstNet related.
A recent FCC decision resulted in some riled up members of the Part 90 land mobile radio community. Specifically, on July 30 the FCC denied a Waiver Request submitted by the International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA). IMSA had requested that the FCC waive the requirement that Part 90 VHF & UHF radio manufacturers include a 6.25 kHz bandwidth mode (or equivalent efficiency) into newly type-accepted products. Continue reading “Mandatory 6.25 kHz VHF/UHF Narrowbanding? Not Soon!”
Today, the FCC released a Report & Order in WT Docket No. 10-112, which is intended to harmonize the Commission’s Rules between services for license renewal and discontinuance of operation, as well as some other minor tweaks. Continue reading “FCC Makes Important Rule Changes On Continued Operation And Renewals”
Watching the FirstNet decision making process by states has been a fascinating experience. As of this date, a number of states have opted-in, at least one state having “barely considered” opting-out. In contrast, other states have issued RFPs to determine whether in fact alternatives exist which are economically and technically feasible. The State of Michigan has even gone as far as to select Rivada Networks as a vendor if the state opts-out. Continue reading “To FirstNet Or Not To FirstNet, That Is Your Question”
I’ve discussed previously the importance of State’s reviewing FirstNet’s plan in depth prior to making a decision. I’ve emphasized the importance of being able to compare and contrast the FirstNet proposal with other options. Now that the plans are out, it’s time for action. Continue reading “Time To Review Your FirstNet State Plan”
On May 16, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Utility Mapping Services Inc. (UMSI) for its operation of a Trimble R8-Model 2 Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Receiver modem on 461.075 MHz, a Part 90 UHF shared frequency, in a manner that caused interference to co-channel users. Continue reading “Shared Part 90 Spectrum Means Monitoring Before Transmitting”
OK, I admit it, the headline is click-bait. However, given everyone’s opinion on this, now that AT&T is about to roll out state plans, it really is appropriate to fully discuss at this time.
Right now, the proper answer is “I don’t know.” And the reason for that non-committal response is several fold: (1) you haven’t seen your state plan, so it’s impossible to know yet if the FirstNet plan makes sense for your state, regardless of what you’ve been told by people “in the know”; (2) every state is different, there cannot be a cookie cutter answer. What works for one state may not work for another; and (3) I don’t know what you’ve done so far to research your options. Continue reading “Should Your State Opt-Out Of FirstNet?”