What company appeared at the conference this year to sponsor the featured speaker, Mike Schlappi? It was Nextel, whose spokeswoman noted the company was "actively" listening to public safety. The company's radio systems have been implicated in interference of 800 MHz public safety systems, and wasn't a previous sponsor of APCO events.

Talk about staffing shortage! Some 1,500 luncheon attendees were forced to squeeze through one set of doors into the ballroom, even though three doors were available. Not enough ticket takers!

Is the economy affecting public safety trade shows? Doesn't seem that way. APCO noted 58 new exhibitors at the show this year, including such notables as Midland Radio, U.S. Tower Corp., David Clark Company, Inc., and NLnovalink.

When conference chair Michol Abraham introduced several local public safety heads, and asked them to stand during the opening luncheon, only about half the people appeared! We assume an emergency precluded their appearance.

APCO has thoughtfully provided water stations throughout the convention center to help parched throats.

Also check the on-line coverage of the conference by Mobile Radio Technology.

DISPATCH Monthly Magazine's Coverage of the
Annual APCO Conference

FCC Panels Repeat Message:
Lots To Be Done on 700 MHz, Wireless 911

The first official day of the annual conference of APCO included double panel appearances by officials of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer questions about spectrum management and wireless E911.

Today, slightly cooler (96 degrees) due to a light overcast, also featured keynote speakers and the formal presentation of APCO annual awards.

The FCC officials repeated statements and information given during the earlier NENA conference in Orlando, that Oct. 1 is simply a milestone date intended to signify the beginning of wireless E911 implementation. The FCC staff could not say much about the pending waiver requests filed by wireless carriers, but did say that grants were not a foregone conclusion. On the issue of the 700 MHz band allocation to public safety, the FCC officials said the focus is now on the regional planning committees, even as issues in the commercial sector and digital television are resolved.

The conference kicked off at 9:30 a.m. in Abravanel Hall, adjacent to the convention center. The beautiful performing arts center's main floor (cap. 1,800) was nearly full for the presentation of APCO's annual awards, and the featured motivational speaker, Mike Schlappi. [APCO's photos]

Telecommunicator of the Year went to Kristin Gill of Sedgwick County (Kan.) Emergency Communications. She was nominated for her ability to handle the unexpected, including two multiple homicides during Dec. 2000. "I still love my job," Gill told APCO in a story they wrote about her. "More than that, I am in love with my job."

Line Supervisor of the Year was given to Danielle Hoglen of Southeast Communications (Richland, Wash.), based on a nomination by former Telecommunicator recipient Brenda Cantu. She was described as a "natural dispatcher, leader and supervisor." She's a member of her agency's critical incident stress team, and admitted that she grew up wanting to become a dispatcher.

Center Director of the Year was awarded to David Barnes of the Edmond (Okla.) Emergency Management agency (photo above), who started as a firefighter and now has 24 years in public safety. Since becoming director in 1997 he has guided the agency through an 800 MHz radio system purchase, and turned around the agency, which the city manager described as "dysfunctional."

Technician of the Year was given to Robert Johnson of the Kittitas County (Wash.) 911 agency, whose jurisdiction covers widely varying terrain. He started as a firefighter, and later worked on King County's (Wash.) transit radio system. He's described by dispatchers as a can-do, "Yes" type of person who always has time to explain why things work--and why they don't.

Following the awards, Lyle Gallagher introduced Utah resident Mike Schlappi, who retold how he was accidentally shot and paralyzed when he was 15 years-old, and how it's changed his life. Schlappi tried to convince the crowd that doing things differently is good. He also explained that "motivation" is not something that needs to be continuous, but can be used as necessary. He later signed copies of his books and tapes in the lobby.

Opening Luncheon

Back at the convention center, nearly 1,500 moved into the giant ballroom for the noon kick-off luncheon. The presentation by APCO president Lyle Gallagher started some 15 minutes late, and attendees couldn't begin eating for another 15-some minutes, after the presentation of Colors, the National Anthem and invocation.

Gallagher then introduced Conference Chair Michol Abraham, who mentioned and thanked the many persons who assisted her in organizing and putting on this year's conference.

Touchingly, Abraham also mentioned the on-duty shooting of Lehi Police Department Officer Joe Adams just the Friday evening before the conference began. Adams was attempting to arrest a drunk driver in the town north of Salt Lake City when he was shot. He leaves behind a wife and 8 month-old daughter. Services for the officer will be held on Wednesday.

The luncheon finished after 1:45 p.m., which was the starting time for the afternoon educational sessions.

FCC Panel #1

APCO's legal counsel, Robert Gurss, moderated a second panel of FCC officials, including Bryan Tramont, senior legal counsel for FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy (just appointed by President Bush), Thomas Sugrue, Kris Monteith, chief of the Policy Division of the WTB, chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), and D'wana Terry, head of the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division of the WTB (left to right in photo).

Gurss asked the panel questions on spectrum management issues, and the panel did their best to answer them. He also allowed some audience questions, which were decided more pointed, if not polite.

700 MHz: The service and operations rules are complete, Terry said, but there are still some Petitions for Reconsideration to be handled. She said the frequency database has been created and that the state frequencies are available for allocation--if the state channels are requested, they revert to the general use pool. She said the primary focus is now on the regional planning committees. "Planning in advance is very important," she said, and that public safety agencies should not wait until 2005 or 2006 to confront the 700 MHz issues.

She noted that the FCC had received some 20 state applications for 700 MHz frequencies, ahead of the Dec. 31 deadline. "I would encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity," Terry said.

Sugrue said there are two myths: that no 700 MHz frequencies are available, and that all 700 MHz frequencies are available. He said the truth is somewhere in between.

Sugrue mentioned the issue of receiver standards for the 700 MHz band, and said such a standard isn't appropriate for the commercial spectrum allocation. He noted that receivers typically don't create interference like transmitters might. He asked for help from public safety experts on setting receiver standards, since it's a new area of endeavor for the FCC.

He noted the presence of guard bands protecting the 24 MHz allocation from the commercial allocation, and the prohibition of cellular-like technology within those guard bands.

Gurss asked how the 24 MHz allocation could be freed up. Tramont mentioned that the Spectrum Clearing Alliance of TV broadcasters who are working on their own set of rules that might expedite their vacating the 700 MHz band. Their rules should be out within a month.

Sugrue mentioned the "Paxton" proposal, a plan by a network owner Bud Paxton to bring together several current TV channel 60-69 licensees to negotiate some type of early movement out of the 700 MHz band. He said public safety could be a secondary beneficiary of such a plan, and the FCC is monitoring the initiative, but is not participating in any way. He noted that the debate on 700 MHz sometimes gets lost between the wireless carriers, the broadcasters and the commercial spectrum interests. Sugrue said, "Make sure people realize that public safety has a piece of it."

Refarming: Gurss asked what has happened with refarming and if it was a success. Terry answered that it was a "definite success" in making changes to how everyone thinks about spectrum management, and the eventual move to narrow-band technology. However, as a practical matter, she said it was "too early" to judge the benefits of refarming--do agencies have more frequencies? She noted that the Balanced Budget Act contains some narrow-band language which will keep that issue alive and active. A Report & Order on narrow-banding is due out later this year.

Gurss opined that a firm date for narrow-banding would be advantageous, but the date should be "far out."

Sugrue explained that it would likely be a two-part process from the FCC: they would stop the manufacture and sale of wide-band gear first, followed by a later requirement to use narrow-band equipment. He noted that public safety would not receive an immediate benefit from narrow-band immediately in most cases. The "extra" spectrum created by changing to 12.5 KHz 6.25 KHz channels would likely create channels in other allocations, not public safety.

4.9 GHz Band: Gurss asked what is happening with this frequency for high-speed data. Monteith said the FCC is taking another look at it. She noted that Motorola filed a White Paper on the subject with the FCC, pointing out how public safety might benefit from an allocation in this band. She said there could be action on the issue in the "next couple of months."

800 MHz Inference: Gurss asked about long and short-term solutions to interference in this band. Sugrue said the Best Practices guide was only a "Band-Aid" solution to the problem. "I don't know if we're going to be able to stay in front of it," he added.

2 GHz Relocation: Gurss wondered if public safety would received the same rights and privileges when they are relocated from the upper portion of this band. Tramont said, "They will!" Gurss noted the heavy use of this band by public safety agencies, and the dual satellite-terrestrial use proposed for the band. In fact, some satellite companies are already using the band.

Q&A: Attendees said they wanted regulation on narrow-banding, to be better prepared to justify budgets for equipment upgrades and changes. Sugrue acknowledged the need. One audience member said, "You did it with color TV and FM stereo, but not with AM stereo. (That's why) we don't have AM stereo," he said.

On a question that amounted to a complaint about the on-line, Universal Licensing System (ULS), Sugrue acknowledged that it's not perfect. But he said the FCC is always seeking constructive suggestions and criticism. An audience member presented Sugrue with a 33-page print-out of one frequency assignment--excessive, the attendee said. Terry pointed out that the ULS was designed for on-line viewing, and not necessarily off-line printing.

FCC Panel #2

APCO's legal counsel, Robert Gurss, moderated a second panel of FCC officials, including Sugrue, Monteith and Tramont. As in the previous panel, Gurss posed questions for the panel.

Wireless 911: Sugrue said, "In many ways we've come a long way." He added that, "Getting a a hand on where we are on Phase I is sometimes a challenge." Monteith said, "We still have a ways to go," but hopefully said, "We're on the rise." She asked for feedback from agencies on issues and obstacles, "so we can deal with them."

Cost Recovery: The panel said the Petition for Reconsideration on this issue should be resolved by the third quarter of this year.

Deadlines: Gurss noted the question raised by Richardson (Tex.) about when the "six month" deadline begins for implementation of Phase II. The issue arose when a wireless carrier claimed that the Texas town had to be ready to accept the Phase II data before they could make their request to the carrier. The panel noted that there is some middle ground between that position (agency totally ready) and agencies making requests, but having no possibility of accepting the data in the near future.

Oct. 1 Date: Gurss asked what the date means and if it will be changed. Sugrue repeated his earlier NENA convention comments that Oct. 1 is viewed as the start of a phased-in implementation, not a "flash-cut" date. He said that waivers without a detailed implementation plan are a "non-starter" and that the requests must be "significant and meaningful."

Waiver Requests: Gurss asked the panel if there were any key issues in the Phase II waiver requests that have been filed by America's major carriers. Sugrue observed that the carriers have cited varying reasons, reinforcing his view that the industry is taking the waiver process seriously--they're not trying to wiggle out using a single excuse. He noted that the FCC has "engaged in very active discussion with carriers about their requests." He did say that the requests seemed to focus on an extension of the Oct. 1 milestone, and not a variation of the accuracy standard. He said he had been very surprised at the wide variation in gear availability dates mentioned in the waiver requests--in some cases, different dates were mentioned for the same equipment manufacturer.

Interestingly, Sugrue admitted that the Phase II waiver issue is consuming the largest portion of his current work time. He said that he waivers were not automatic--"No one gets a pass here," he said. On the other hand, Sugrue said he doesn't want the process to shut down, and for carriers to walk away and take their issues to federal court.

Gurss himself observed that the waiver requests seem to break down into companies that simply need more time to comply, and companies who are moving their wireless system to a different technology, for which there is not yet a compliant Phase II solution.

Tramont opined that the companies may have different reasons for requesting a waiver. However, the FCC deals with them the same--is the public interest, and public safety, being served? As for carriers migrating to new transmission standards, he did said that the FCC must give some consideration for the investment the carriers would have to make in their current technology to meet Phase II standards.

Monteith said she had a staff of 15 engineers and attorneys working on waiver requests, and that the FCC was, "not accepting the representations of carriers blindly."

Uninitialized & Donor Phones: Gurss asked when the FCC might move on the pending issue of phones that have no call-back number. Monteith noted that, "We have a lot on our plate right now," but did say the issue may be acted upon by November-December.

Enforcement: No, the e-mail that recently circulated is wrong on whether carriers can be legally required to be Phase II compliant. Sugrue said he had read the statement of an industry analyst that Phase II is "policy" and not legally enforceable. He said it is, and that the FCC can originate informal or formal investigations by its Enforcement Bureau.

Tramont reiterated that the FCC wants to work with all the involved parties, and not push carriers to the point of their throwing up their hands and going to court.

During the Q&A session, attendees expressed the notion that PSAPs would be willing to accept a lesser Phase II accuracy now from carriers who are changing to another transmission standard (CDMA, TDMA, etc.), instead of waiting for full 100-meter compliance on some date way down the line.

Tomorrow: First APCO business session and Valley Communications tour.