By Donny Jackson

A new coalition of public-safety, critical-infrastructure-industry (CII) and telecom entities today announced its launch, as well as its support of local control of 4.9 GHz spectrum—a position that opposes a proposal that would license the mid-band spectrum to FirstNet Authority throughout the nation.

Known as the Coalition for Emergency Response and Critical Infrastructure (CERCI), the coalition’s founding members are the Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Sheriffs Association, Competitive Carriers Association, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), T-Mobile, Verizon, and UScellular, according to a coalition press release.

Airwaves designated to support public-safety communications for more than 20 years, 4.9 GHz spectrum has been deemed by many federal officials as being underutilized. In January, the FCC ruled that the airwaves should have a single band manager and opened a proceeding to determine how such a plan should be implemented.

CERCI Chair Kenneth Corey—retired chief of the New York Police Department (NYPD)—said local public-safety communications operating in the 4.9 GHz band should be protected.

“As a former first responder, I understand the vital role the 4.9 GHz public-safety spectrum band plays in emergency communications,” Corey said in a prepared statement. “Local public-safety agencies must remain free to make their own decisions about their communications needs and build necessary redundancies to protect the public in the event of emergencies.”

In particular, Corey expressed opposition to a proposal by the Public Safety Spectrum Alliance (PSSA) that would give the FirstNet Authority—the government entity that oversees the FirstNet broadband system operated by AT&T—the license to the 50 MHz of 4.9 GHz spectrum and allow it to select the band manager.

“The 4.9 band should not become a nationwide band licensed to FirstNet as has been proposed,” according to Corey’s statement. “The CERCI is committed to protecting local control of the 4.9 band and, at the same time, working with the FCC to find innovative solutions to promote spectrum efficiency and CII uses that support the public interest.”

In an ex-parte filing with the FCC, CERCI stated that the coalition’s recommendations are based on two “important but common-sense” principles:

“The band is essential spectrum for current and future, state and local, public-safety systems, and, as the Commission recently confirmed, the 4.9 GHz band must “retain[] its locally controlled, public safety nature.

“Eligibility for non-public-safety use of the band should be limited to critical infrastructure industry (“CII”) systems operating on a non-interfering basis. CII users have a compatible mission with public safety and a record of coexistence with public-safety licensees in other spectrum bands.”

During an interview with IWCE’s Urgent Communications, Corey said the CERCI coalition opposes the PSSA proposal that would grant the FirstNet Authority a nationwide license to the 4.9 GHz band, but the decision to create the coalition came after the group perceived that the FirstNet Authority—a government entity—supported the PSSA proposal in a filing to the FCC earlier this year.

However, the FirstNet Authority comments issued in April “center on the [FCC’s] discussion and inquiry regarding ‘opportunities for integrating operations in the 4.9 GHz band with broadband networks used by public safety in other spectrum bands,” according to the filing.

“If the FCC permits the pursuit of those opportunities, the FirstNet Authority wishes to make some clarifications regarding its prospective use of the band,” the FirstNet Authority filing states.

Corey said that he has “no argument” with those who contend that the 4.9 GHz band is underutilized, but the coalitions believes that expanding the user base to include critical-infrastructure entities would change that.

“I think that’s where the addition of critical infrastructure comes in, and it’s a natural complement to public safety,” Corey said during the interview with IWCE’s Urgent Communications. “Utility companies, rails, transportation—all of that makes sense to add in [as entities using 4.9 GHz] and can easily be deconflicted with public safety.

“If you’re going to just open up the band basically to everybody, then there’s no more public-safety priority.”

Corey expressed his concerns with the PSSA proposal that calls for the FirstNet Authority to be the sole licensee for the 4.9 GHz spectrum.

“What the PSSA’s proposal would do is wipe all of the existing users off the band, turn it over to FirstNet [the FirstNet Authority], and then everybody who wanted to use it would have to use it through FirstNet,” Corey told IWCE’s Urgent Communications. “But a lot of the technology that they’re using it for is not compatible with FirstNet.

Corey repeatedly noted that his stance on the 4.9 GHz issue should not be interpreted as him being “anti-FirstNet” overall.

“One of the points I’m trying to stress is that I have no actual issue with FirstNet,” Corey said to IWCE’s Urgent Communications. “There are a lot of agencies that use FirstNet, and FirstNet suits their needs. That’s wonderful, but everybody shouldn’t be forced into it.”

Many industry observers have assumed that, if the FCC granted the 4.9 GHz license to the FirstNet Authority, the 50 MHz of 4.9 GHz would be controlled by AT&T, the FirstNet contractor that still has 18 years left on its agreement with the FirstNet Authority. However, others have noted that the FirstNet Authority could conduct an open procurement process that would allow any carrier—including CERCI members Verizon and T-Mobile—to access the mid-band spectrum.

Corey said that CERCI would also would oppose such an open bid, even if one of its members emerged victorious.

“Preserving that local control is the key element,” Corey said to IWCE’s Urgent Communications. “It’s not as if [it would be OK] if they turned it over to Verizon or T-Mobile; none of those would be acceptable, either. The local license holders have to have local control, precisely because the country is very diverse and the use cases are going to be very diverse.

“They have to be able to use it the way that it suits their needs and to allow those critical-infrastructure groups into it, where they can deconflict.”