NMRC Newsroom - Why First-Responder Interoperability Hasn't Happened

September 22, 2004

WIRELESS BUSINESS FORECAST

Why First-Responder Interoperability Hasn't Happened

It would have been logical for one to assume that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks would have been enough to really jumpstart initiatives to correct certain communications interoperability issues between first responders, especially when that lack of interoperability was considered a factor in the deaths of more than 100 fireman at the World Trade Center in New York City.

However, more than three years later, industry observers note that not much has changed. There is probably enough blame to go around between the government and the first-responder organizations. Technology, however, does not seem to be the problem at this juncture.

At a roundtable discussion sponsored by the New Millennium Research Council in Washington, D.C. last week, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the first responders are nowhere closer to having interoperable communications than they were three years ago, and he cited a "lack of commitment from the government and the U.S. Congress" as a chief reason for the problems not being addressed. "It is three years after [Sept. 11, 2001] and we are still at square one," he said.

Stupak noted that the present Administration and Congress have come up well short of the estimated $18 billion needed to bring about an interoperable network for first responders. He noted that $100 million was earmarked for this expense in fiscal 2003, but no money has been committed in the Bush administration's budgets in FY04 or FY05 specifically geared toward interoperability. And local agencies can't afford to make their systems interoperable without federal assistance, Stupak said.

But the Bush administration and Congress weren't Stupak's only targets for potshots. He also criticized broadcasters and the Federal Communications Commission for not getting the 700 MHz band cleared by the broadcasters so that it finally can be used by first-responders after so many years of promises.

A Long Rollout
The panelists at the roundtable keyed in on a variety of themes as they discussed why any significant measurable progress toward a more interoperable communications environment between first responder agencies had not been made.

From a technology standpoint, there wasn't much disagreement that the technology didn't exist to achieve a significant improvement in the interoperability. However, there was a question of timing in terms of getting the technology deployed in the field.

"There is no near term solution, no silver bullet," said Sal DiRaimo, communications engineer for the New York State Technology Enterprise Corp. The issue is finding common ground amongst more than 60,000 first-responder agencies that cross federal, state and local lines.

A common starting point could be built out in about one to three years, said David Boyd, deputy director of operations for research and development and director of the Safecom Program Office at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But, he added, it would take between 15 to 20 years to achieve
"full interoperability."

And while there is sufficient existing technology to begin taking steps toward addressing interoperability questions, there are other considerations that still have to be addressed related to technology.

For example, Boyd noted that questions still exist regarding building out the necessary infrastructure, and that there will be the requisite objections from the "not in my backyard" crowd should more towers be needed to facilitate such a rollout. He added that the advances in the technology cycle add challenges as well, with an expectation that the technology will be used during a 20-year period versus a technology cycle that lasts 24 months.

Other questions linger regarding the use of some other technologies, including those that are IP-based, to meet interoperability requirements. Other panelists during the roundtable discussion agreed that IP-based networks should be given serious consideration.

According to Boyd, it took the U.S. Department of Defense more than 12 years to get the communications systems from four agencies together to be interoperable with each other. Getting 60,000 first-responder agencies on the same page will take a lot longer.

Full Interoperability And Its Cost

And while the panelists seemed in agreement that the technology itself was not the issue at hand, questions were raised regarding how "full interoperability" between first-responder agencies should be defined and, more importantly, how much it will cost to achieve it.

"How do you define 'full interoperability' from an engineering perspective?" asked Tom Tolman, manager for communications technology at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. There was no immediate answer to that question. And without a clear definition as to what constitutes full interoperability, the answer of how much it will cost becomes near impossible to answer.

The number tossed around by the panelists reached into the billions, but even that was speculative because, as Boyd pointed out, there is no existing database to show what the first-responder agencies across the country currently have in place to give an accurate baseline on how much it will cost to roll out the necessary upgrades to make systems interoperable.

Breaking Down The Proprietary Wall

And although there seemed to be consensus that technology issues could be easily addressed, even if over the long haul, the telecom industry was not spared its share of criticism for its contribution to the lack of progress toward an interoperable environment.

In particular, Tolman criticized the industry for clinging too tightly to the notion of proprietary technology, thus preventing in some ways the development of common standards. "The industry has to want to" back away from the notion of proprietary technology in order to facilitate the buildout of interoperable networks, he said.

A significant part of the problem lies within the structure of the United States itself. In particular, in order for interoperability to truly take root as a concept, it requires the support and agreement by more than 60,000 police, fire, EMT and other agencies across the nation.

"Agencies still have to learn how to get along," DiRaimo said, acknowledging the many jurisdictional battles that occur when different agencies are involved in responding to an emergency event.

A key problem is "the inability of people to put aside their own egos," said William Jenkins, director of homeland security and justice issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. He added that there are other things that would need to be overcome in order to make a fully interoperable network work. For example, Jenkins noted that different agencies and jurisdictions use different code words to describe the same thing, making communications between agencies difficult even if the networks were interoperable.

Adding to the problem is the general lack of communication about these issues among the 60,000-plus agencies. Tolman noted that 75 percent of law enforcement agencies have fewer than 25 sworn officers, and 95 percent have fewer than 100 sworn officers. "A lot [of those smaller agencies] are not in the know" when it comes to getting their communications systems interoperable.

September 20, 2004

RCR Wireless News

Verizon: FCC, Nextel in secret negotiations

By Heather Forsgren-Weaver

WASHINGTON - Verizon Wireless last week sent a blistering letter to the Federal Communications Commission charging that the FCC is negotiating illegally with Nextel Communications Inc. regarding a key portion of the FCC's plan to solve public-safety interference in the 800 MHz band.

''We filed the letter with the FCC to expose, and demand a halt to, the private negotiations Nextel is engaged in at the FCC to cut its cost for getting the G-block spectrum. Nextel is trying to increase the 'value' of the spectrum it is returning,'' said Jeffrey Nelson, Verizon Wireless executive director of communications.

The G-block is the highly contested spectrum in the 1.9 GHz band that Nextel would receive as part of the rebanding plan.

Nextel is to pay money into the Treasury if the value of the spectrum it returns and relocation expenses do not equal $4.86 billion-the value the FCC put on the G-block. The FCC has valued the 800 MHz and 700 MHz band spectrum that Nextel would relinquish as part of the reconfiguration at more than $1.6 billion.

The FCC declined comment.

Nextel dismissed the criticism. ''As we have said and done all along, the meetings and conversation following the release have all been noticed. There is one over-arching concern: If we accept the FCC's plan, what impact would that have on our network, would we still be able to serve our customers? That is the basis of the talks,'' said Tim O'Regan, Nextel manager of public affairs. ''Our ex partes have all been appropriate.''

Verizon uses as evidence of the secret negotiations an investor note released by Legg Mason Sept. 9, which reportedly says Nextel is attempting to reduce its payment by $600 million to $700 million.

''If the Legg Mason report is accurate, Nextel appears to be engaged in a post-decisional yet wholly non-transparent effort to significantly reduce its financial obligations to the U.S. Treasury. If such discussions have taken place, Nextel's ex parte filings certainly do not put the public on notice that the company is seeking to increase the size of its windfall at the expense of the American taxpayer, by some $600 to $700 million,'' wrote R. Michael Senkowski, outside counsel to Verizon Wireless. ''There can be no serious question that a change with a $600 (million) to $700 million impact to the U.S. Treasury must be subject to open and public debate. It cannot and should not be shoe-horned into an erratum, which the Legg Mason report suggests may be under consideration.''

Legg Mason owns 9.48 percent of Nextel stock. It is the second-largest institutional investor in the company behind Fidelity Management & Research Corp. Legg Mason has never been shy about its relationship with Nextel, hosting an investor call on the Consensus Plan when it was first presented to the FCC in 2002.

''Verizon is referencing Legg Mason's report. We will not comment on the Legg Mason report,'' said O'Regan.

On Thursday, Nextel filed its most detailed letter yet about its concerns about the retuning process contemplated by the FCC's plan.

''Nextel has identified a number of areas in which clarification of the rules will serve the public interest by assuring that 800 MHz band reconfiguration is achieved in accordance with the FCC's public policy objectives. Nextel emphasized in meetings with commission staff the importance of operational flexibility for all incumbents during the retuning process and specifically for Nextel as it undertakes repeated retuning of its network on a region-by-region basis to facilitate reconfiguration and accommodate the retuning of other incumbents,'' wrote Nextel outside counsel Regina Keeney, formerly chief of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

The Keeney letter does not discuss the spectrum valuation at the center of Verizon's claims. It does say that Nextel has asked that it be given credit for ''the costs it incurs in adding base stations necessary to maintain its existing network capacity during the band reconfiguration transition process.'' There is also a sentence at the end indicating Nextel soon expects to file updated information regarding what licenses it would return as part of the rebanding process.

The FCC in July adopted a plan to solve the interference problem, swap some spectrum with Nextel and have Nextel pay to move other companies off the spectrum band Nextel would receive. The FCC released the text of the plan-256 pages-in early August. It has yet to be published in the Federal Register. Nextel has 30 days from publication in the Federal Register to say whether it will agree to the plan.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell highlighted the effort to solve public-safety interference in the 800 MHz band when he was asked to respond to criticism from a lawmaker who said leadership from the White House and Congress was lacking when it comes to helping public safety achieve interoperable communications.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), co-chair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, told a conference on public-safety interoperability that more needs to be done sooner to solve the public-safety interoperability crisis.

''The administration talks a great game'' regarding first-responder communications, but then does not budget the money for it, Stupak said, noting that funding for modernizing public-safety communications has fallen well short of the estimated $18 billion needed.

Stupak, sponsor of a bill to use auction revenues for public-safety communications, did not offer a lot of hope that Congress would act on public-safety related legislation this year.

September 15, 2004

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, USA TODAY Police, fire depts. still can't talk

Three years after Sept. 11, emergency radios aren't linked for most first responders.

By Gail Russell Chaddock , staff writer

WASHINGTON - When the NYPD helicopter pilot circling the World Trade Center warned that "large pieces" of the South Tower looked about to topple, the report never got to the firemen inside: Their radios couldn't communicate with those of the police.

It seemed an obvious problem to fix - just as it had after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, and the shootings at Columbine High School in 1999. Yet three years after 9/11, the goal of compatible and adequate communication among the nation's first responders is nearly as remote as ever.

The reason isn't that no one can think of a way to do it. Possible answers range from equipping mobile trucks with patching technology to establishing a nationwide interoperable network for all first responders. The European Union plans to have such a network in place by 2010.

But while the US is just one nation, it is beset by turf battles on this issue, highlighting the way that even apparently obvious gaps in America's security apparatus can require concerted leadership to fix.

The factors inhibiting better communication among the nation's first responders range from the clout of corporations to concerns among police and fire departments that new systems may have problems of their own.

There are some 60,000 first responder organizations in the United States, and each one purchases its own equipment.

"In order for interoperability to really take hold, you would have to convince each one of those procurement officers that interoperability is a good thing," says Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger, a public policy expert at Harvard University's Kennedy School.

Nor are states eager to have Washington mandate a solution, especially one that could require more than $15 billion in local spending on new equipment. Neighboring communities that may need to cooperate in an emergency often start out with vastly different capacities to fund new equipment. Some first responders worry that a fully integrated system could compromise command-and-control in an emergency, by fostering a cacophony of instructions.

Thus, while the need is clear, the way to a solution is not.

Some states and cities are proceeding to address the problem locally, but the goal of a fully interoperable national system will take help from Washington.

The release of the final 9/11 commission report is giving this effort new momentum. The commission describes the inability to communicate as a "critical element" at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Somerset County, Pa., crash sites. It recommends that Congress expedite the increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.

One key is to set a date for the availability of new spectrum, backers say. It gives states and cities an incentive to move more quickly on the investments in new equipment needed for interoperability, especially in urban areas where the volume of users can quickly overload the system in an emergency, as it did in New York and the Pentagon on 9/11.

"With a date certain, public safety officials and advanced wireless providers waiting for broadcasters to vacate the 700 MHz band would know when they will be able to begin operations," said Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in Senate testimony last week. The FCC proposes setting that date at Jan. 1, 2009 - three years later than legislation now pending in Congress.

Already, that recommendation is running up against tough headwinds from bureaucratic and private interests in Washington.

"There is no lobbying group more powerful than the National Association of Broadcasters, and they have chosen to delay the transition to digital," says Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona.

In addition, the FCC is opting for a hands-off approach by encouraging the private sector to take the initiative in ensuring preparedness in an emergency. Critics say it's a case of political inertia where action is needed.

"There are lots of workarounds here, but somebody has got to require them to be done, and that's got to be the federal government or we will have differential standards among cities," says Rand Beers, a national security adviser for Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign. "This administration is not disposed to move on this, because it means a growth in government, and it means there will have to be some standards setting or regulation."

The Department of Homeland Security is tallying the nation's current wireless interoperable communications capabilities. But the survey is not expected to be completed until July 2005.

Recently, the DHS announced that it is setting up an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to help coordinate the federal response.

Meanwhile, some states like Maryland have been working to create systems that talk to one another. "What we most need from Washington is more public safety frequencies," says Tom O'Reilly, administrator for the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety. New Jersey is moving ahead with pilot projects in cities like Camden, to help first responders communicate in the case of a mass evacuation.

Mr. O'Reilly says that the state is looking for low-cost solutions that will enable better communication, while avoiding the danger of becoming a tower of babel, in which the chain of command breaks down in emergencies. "There is a danger: You don't want everyone talking to everyone else all the time," he adds.

COMMUNICATIONS DAILY

Fully Interoperable Communications a Distant Goal

U.S. emergency first response agencies are at least 15-20 years away from fully interoperable communications, David Boyd, dir. of DHS's SAFECOM program said Tues. Boyd and other panelists at a New Millennium Research Council discussion of interoperable communications agreed that getting better equipment by itself will not solve U.S. problems.

"The notion that 3 years after 2001 we could have interoperability is bizarre," Boyd said: "Anybody who imagines that could have been accomplished in 3 years knows nothing about this subject or this field." SAFECOM is the federal umbrella program designed to help local, tribal, state and federal public safety agencies improve public safety response through better wireless communications.

Boyd noted that decades ago, when he was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant, the military decided its communications should become interoperable. That's a relatively small job - with 4 branches and funding overseen by a single committee in the House and Senate, he said. "I retired from the Army after a full career, a little over 12 years ago, and the Defense Dept. is now almost interoperable," he said. The public safety community "has 60,000 agencies and every single one of these agencies is sovereign. Every chief of police sees himself as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his community and every fire chief disagrees."

"We need to look at some side issues that aren't technical but do impact communications, which include the linguistic side of interoperability," said Donald Lund, assoc. prof. at the U. of N.H.: "That includes the use of different codes, the use of different descriptors for resources. We have no standardized resource nomenclature." For instance, almost everyone in N.H. may use the word "ambulance" while one town calls it a "rescue."

Lund said even though responders can technically communicate they may not. Sometimes the issue is one of discipline: "People are talking over each other or stepping on each other because they don't listen before the push the talk switch." Response agencies also need to plan properly to make certain they don't lose battery power. "My last concern is something I call the illusion of communications," he said: "It's the illusion that a message that has been transmitted has been received and understood. Frequently, yes, you get you message out, but it's not understood."

Agency egos and turf battles often work against interoperable communications, said William Jenkins, dir.- Homeland Security & Justice issues at GAO: "If there is not an agreement on how you're going to operate it doesn't matter what the technology is." Jurisdictional issues and lack of agreement loom large. "What the key problem has been and continues to be is the inability of people to put aside egos and address this on a regional basis, not on a stovepipe basis," he said: "From our perspective that is the key fundamental barrier to be able to achieve interoperable communications. It's not the technology so much, it's people and processes."

Boyd said training on new equipment is also critical. "We've got communities whose exercises amounted to putting radio systems in fields and saying, 'Can you hear? Is it okay? Is the signal good?' Not serious exercises you go through to identify things like if I call for a haz-mat team do I know what I'm going to get. Am I going to get a pickup truck with 2 guys with kitty litter or am I going to get a haz-mat squad?"

"There is no silver bullet," said Sal DiRaimo, principal engineer with the N.Y. Technology Enterprise Corp.: "It isn't about the engineering. Interoperability isn't something that's lurking behind the next patent... or great innovation." - Howard Buskirk

COMMUNICATIONS DAILY

Wireless Section

The House and Senate will pass legislation, including a communications title, stemming from the 9/11 Commission report -- but the bills will likely die in conference, Rep. Stupak (D-Mich.), a senior member of the Commerce Committee, predicted Tues. "Both the House and Senate will pass something," he said. "They'll go to conference and it will never happen." Stupak counseled against focusing just on legislation tied to the report. "You don't need the 9/11 Commission Report to do this interoperability," he said. "Sept. 11 just magnified what many of us have been saying for many, many years but nobody ever listened. I hope it doesn't take another tragedy like this to get people to say 'You know we're going to do something this time.'" Stupak said that while the HERO Act (HR-1425) "sounds good" it also won't provide first responders additional funding. Stupak spoke to a New Millennium Research Council forum on interoperable communications.

September 14, 2004

RCR WIRELESS NEWS

Legislator charges Bush administration with lack of public-safety leadership

By Heather Forsgren Weaver

WASHINGTON—It will take leadership from the White House and Congress for public safety to achieve interoperable communications and that leadership has been lacking, charged Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus.

“The administration talks a great game” regarding first-responder communications, but then does not budget the money for it, Stupak said, noting that funding for modernizing public-safety communications has fallen well short of the estimated $18 billion needed.

Stupak, sponsor of a bill to use auction revenues for public-safety communications, did not offer a lot of hope that Congress would act on public-safety related legislation this year.

Speaking with reporters after his appearance at the New Millennium Research Council seminar on public-safety communication, Stupak said Senate Democrats “with the blessing of Sen. John Kerry” (D-Mass.), presidential nominee, attempted to pass an amendment for money for public-safety interoperability, but were unsuccessful.

Following Stupak’s appearance, several panels debated technical and policy issues, with most experts agreeing there are few technical issues, but policy and funding are major impediments to public-safety interoperability. Indeed, one federal government expert said no reliable estimation of how much it would cost for nationwide public-safety interoperability is available, but that Stupak’s estimate of $18 billion was way low.

NATIONAL JOURNAL'S TECHNOLOGY DAILY

SECURITY: Official Calls Expectations For Communications; 'bizarre'

By Chloe Albanesius

A Homeland Security Department official said on Tuesday that it is "bizarre" to expect that the communications systems used by emergency "first responders" would be fully able to communicate with each other three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. U.S. communications networks are so vast that anyone who suggests that the nation's 60,000 emergency agencies already should be able to seamlessly communicate with each other "knows nothing about interoperability," David Boyd, director of the department's Project SAFECOM, said at a forum sponsored by the New Millennium Research Council.

"History suggests that the notion that three years post 9/11 we'd have full interoperability is bizarre," he said. Boyd said he believes it will take at least 15 to 20 years to reach that state among emergency agencies. In the near term, however, he said SAFECOM is focusing on its RapidCom program, which assists 10 cities designated as having the highest threat of terrorism to ensure that they are working most effectively with existing technical capabilities.

But Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said at the forum, "We don't have another 20 years." He blamed the "lack of commitment" from the Bush administration for interoperability delays. Stupak argued that "scant progress" from the White House and Congress since 2001 has meant that three-fourths of U.S. cities are "woefully unprepared" to respond to an emergency.

The White House "talks a great game on homeland security" but has not come through with the funding, said Stupak, a former police officer. He noted the proposal by President Bush to cut aid to first responders in fiscal 2005.

Stupak authored a bill, H.R. 3370, that would create a trust fund for public-service communications. First responders would be funded for the first three years through annual appropriations and would get money in future years from the sale of spectrum, he said. Stupak said having set funds from spectrum sales would ensure that public-safety agencies have money regardless of what happens in the annual appropriations process.

"It's important to remember that [interoperability] is not really a technology issue," said William Jenkins, director of homeland security and justice issues at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). "It's a people and processes issue."

He and Boyd said turf and ego issues could delay the implementation process. In comments after the panel discussion, Deputy Fire Chief Charles Werner of Charlottesville, Va. agreed that most problems are "90 percent human."

"Establishing a good governance structure is crucial," Boyd said. "Developing interoperability is not a static thing. It's a constant process. It's extremely difficult, but over the long term, there's an enormous payoff."

Ignorance of existing technologies or processes slows the efforts to achieve interoperability, the panelists said. Jenkins urged the creation of a nationwide database of available frequencies and an index of available technologies so first responders have all the available information before buying particular technologies.

TR DAILY

LAWMAKER BLASTS ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS FOR INTEROPERABILITY DELAYS

By Paul Kirby

A congressman today blasted both the Bush administration and his fellow colleagues for not moving faster to improve public safety interoperability since the 2001 terrorist attacks. The comments came as government officials and experts debated the best ways to improve interoperability over the short and long terms.

"Our local public safety agencies are nowhere closer to being interoperable than they were three years ago - or 20 years ago when I was working the road," Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.), a former state trooper and co-chair of the House Law Enforcement Caucus, complained at a Capitol Hill panel discussion sponsored by the New Millennium Research Council. "Why is that? I believe there's been a serious lack of commitment by both the administration and the U.S. Congress. This administration talks a great game about homeland security and interoperability, but it doesn't seem to want to fully deliver a product - especially when it comes to funding."

He complained that the administration and Congress have shortchanged interoperability on funding. He said that only $100 million was allocated in fiscal year 2003 for modernizing local public safety communications systems and nothing was allocated in FY 2004. He added that no funding was requested for interoperability in FY 2005. He also criticized what he said was inadequate oversight by the Department of Homeland Security about how funds and grants were spent.

He urged passage of legislation (HR 3370) he's introduced that would use half of future auction proceeds to upgrade communications interoperability. He also cited the need to move TV broadcasters out of 700 megahertz band spectrum allocated for public safety use.

The congressman told reporters after his speech that he wasn't optimistic that the 24 MHz of public safety spectrum would be cleared anytime soon, noting delays in completing the digital TV (DTV) transition. Even if the public safety channels were cleared, agencies can't afford to make the necessary upgrades to achieve interoperability, he said. "But there's some things that we can do," he said. "There's [interoperability] technologies out there that we could put in place that's really not that expensive."

During the panel discussion following Rep. Stupak's speech, experts stressed several actions that were necessary to achieve interoperability. In the short term, they pointed to the importance of using standard terms and providing technical training to first responders. In the long term, they cited, among other things, the need for funding upgrades and clearing the 700 MHz band frequencies, developing open technical standards, and deploying new technologies.

But many said the single most important factor was overcoming "institutional barriers" - the unwillingness of police and fire departments or local, state, and federal agencies to cooperate on joint networks and procedures.

"It is not a technology issue so much as it is a people and processes issue," said William Jenkins Jr., director-homeland security and justice issues for the Government Accountability Office. But he said improving governance to achieve interoperability was "extremely difficult to do because everyone wants to play as long as they make the rules." There's a need for a "balanced carrot and stick approach" to encourage local agencies to move toward interoperability, he added.

Panelists noted that there were 60,000 public safety agencies in the U.S., each in charge of its own network. A report issued by GAO in July urged a greater federal leadership role in supporting interoperability.

Tom Tolman, manager-communications technology at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, which is part of the National Institute of Justice's Office of Science and Technology, agreed that "egos, turf battles, and territory" were a key impediment to achieving interoperability.

Even with such cooperation, however, full-scale interoperability is going to take many years, according to David S. Boyd, director of the SAFECOM Program Office in DHS. "The notion that this is going to happen in two or three years . . . is bizarre," he said. He estimated that it would take one to two years to establish "gateways" that would allow "incident-based" interoperability among agencies during emergencies and "20 years or more" to achieve full interoperability nationwide.

Mr. Boyd also defended the interoperability efforts of the administration, saying that about $ 2.1 billion had gone for interoperability in the past few years. Earlier this year, Mr. Boyd said the administration requested $22 million for FY 2005 for SAFECOM - the same amount appropriated for FY 2004 - but he said the requests were spread out over several departments and were not a single line item.

Regarding current interoperability initiatives, he said his office planned to award a contract next month for a study on the current interoperability baseline in the U.S. He also said DHS was on schedule to launch its new Office for Interoperability and Compatibility Oct. 1.

As for suggestions on public policy remedies that could spur action, Mr. Boyd cited a need for "legislative authority" for DHS's interoperability efforts. He also said Congress could standardize various grant guidance and said lawmakers should set a firm deadline for the return of the 700 MHz channels.

Mr. Jenkins said GAO was working to "drill down" to see how interoperability grant funds were being used. He said there needed to be "a clear understanding" that DHS was responsible for interoperability because SAFECOM lacked its own funding source - as will the new interoperability office, at least initially. He also called for consistency in grant guidance and said grant rules should include "target dates for getting things done."

Mr. Tolman called for an improved process for distributing grant funds to states and localities. But Mr. Jenkins said there was an "amazing amount of misunderstanding about the grants" and that most delays in spending occurred at the state and local, not federal, levels.

September 10, 2004

DETROIT FREE PRESS
Communications lessons of 9/11 largely unheeded

By Mike Wendland, Free Press Columnist

Three years after the 9/11 terror attacks, most local, state and federal police and fire operations still can't communicate with each other.

That was one of the key findings of the 9/11 commission, and it's soon to be elevated into public view as a full-fledged technological crisis.

Experts from across the country will gather in Washington on Tuesday to discuss the so-called inoperability issue, one of the thorniest challenges facing first responders and homeland security agencies. U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat whose district includes the Upper Peninsula and northeastern counties in the Lower Peninsula, is the keynote speaker.

"It's insane," Stupak says. "In most of the country, police officers can't talk to firemen, firefighters can't talk to EMTs, and EMTs can't talk to any of them. They're often all first responders together, and yet they can't talk to each other."

A member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and cochair of the U.S. House Law Enforcement Caucus, Stupak has been the key mover on the House side for action on the project for the past two years.

Southeastern Michigan is much better than most places -- especially Oakland County, where a $42-million system hooks up the sheriff's department with state and local police and fire departments. And the Michigan State Police just completed a major radio upgrade that links all of its posts and patrol cars statewide.

"Michigan may be better than many places, but we're far from the poster child on this," says Stupak. "In rural areas and most of the bigger cities, radio equipment is old, outdated and very limited in terms of interoperability."

Stupak estimates that about $13 billion needs to be spent nationwide to update communications among emergency agencies. He's pushing the Department of Homeland Security for more money and more action.

"This is not a new problem," he said. "The 9/11 attacks showed us how terrible the problem was when all those New York firefighters and police officers died because they were unable to coordinate rescue efforts or hear warnings that the Trade Center was about to collapse. But nothing significant is being done."