This week’s Advocate opens with a discussion of a recent article in Urgent Communications based on statements made by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. “FCC officials are taking a new approach to public-safety spectrum policy, abandoning exclusive-use airwaves in favor of multi-purpose broadband frequencies that can be leveraged to support wireless communications for both first responders and the general public, according to an FCC official.” 
Next we will look toward the future of public-safety communications as I believe they will evolve from today to where it might be later in the 25-year FirstNet contract for network build-out and management services, which, as you know, was awarded to AT&T for what is now FirstNet (Built with AT&T). As we approach the initial five-year build-out deadline, we see the direction The FirstNet Authority is heading with its infusion of additional funds, which leads to thoughts about what the future holds for FirstNet.
The FCC’s Transformation
The Urgent Communications article quoted the FCC Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau presentation given during the online Mission Critical Partner’s Conference, “Advancing Public Safety.” According to the Deputy Chief, the “FCC historically allocated spectrum for public safety’s exclusive use when he joined the agency in the early 1990s. Those exclusive allocations are still there, they’re very important, and I think they will continue to be very important for certainly the indefinite future, because that’s where a lot of the mission-critical communications that public safety relies on take place.” 
This is the good news for public safety. It is not clear to me whether the rest of his statements were an idea being floated during a conference to see how well it would be received, or if it is truly a precursor of what the FCC thinks is best for public safety. In either event, it is worth a discussion and, in my case, some pushback. 
Later in the article, the following quotes caught my attention: 
“FCC officials are taking a new approach to public-safety spectrum policy, abandoning exclusive-use airwaves in favor of multi-purpose broadband frequencies that can be leveraged to support wireless communications for both first responders and the general public,” according to an FCC official.
David Furth, Deputy Chief of the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, described the philosophical change as a “transformation,” noting that the FCC historically allocated spectrum for public safety’s exclusive use when he joined the agency in the early 1990s.
“But what we’re also seeing is that that kind of historically siloed approach to public-safety spectrum is not the model that we are likely to be using going forward, and there are a whole host of reasons for that.”
According to Furth, advances in technology—specifically, “the explosion of broadband”—in terms of both functionality and reliability are key factors that have driven the FCC’s new direction in public-safety spectrum policy.
“These broadband networks, which are multi-use, they can support public safety as much as a siloed network, and they can do so much more cost effectively than standalone networks,” Furth said. “As broadband technology gets better—as networks get better, as we move from 3G to 4G to 5G—what we’re seeing is that those multi-purpose networks can serve commercial needs—they can serve the public—but they can also provide public safety with the reliable and the secure—indeed, mission-critical—types of communications that public safety requires.”
“I remember when there was a debate going on within the commission and in the public-safety community about whether commercial networks would meet public safety’s requirements. I think we are now well past that debate. Now, it is going to be about how they do it, how they compete to do it, and I think public safety benefits from that.”
The above appears to indicate that today’s model of Land Mobile Radio (LMR) spectrum assignments overlaid with a single public-safety broadband network (FirstNet) is in jeopardy. Many of us have spoken up against using multiple broadband networks for public safety and the perils of doing so. Perhaps it is time to ask the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau the following questions:
Will you require every broadband network to upgrade to the latest versions of LTE and 5G standards as they are released?
Will you require every broadband network to use the same pieces and parts of each revision so the networks are 100-percent-compatible?
How will you handle off-network communications? ProSe as it has been developed is not an off-network solution.
When a network experiences a failure, who will be responsible for ensuring the public-safety community remains connected?
Will the FirstNet Authority, a federal government entity, have the capability of overseeing all public safety users on all networks?
What is the required response time for network failures?
How do you propose to handle deployables, and which network is responsible for deploying them in what areas of the United States?
Who will be responsible for approving devices for use by the public-safety community?
Who will be responsible for approving and hosting the applications library and vetting the applications across all broadband networks?
The comment by the Deputy Chief about FirstNet is next: 
“There’s a lot of broadband technology on a variety of bands that can be used by public safety. A prime example of that is FirstNet, but it’s not the only example,” he said. “What we’re seeing, for the first time, is commercial providers that are actually in multiple bands, and they’re competing with one another to serve public safety. That is not something that was going on when I first came to the commission.”
The issue here, and the Deputy Chief knows this, is that there was an open and fair bidding process for a SINGLE nationwide public-safety broadband network. Congress approved a single network; the public-safety community approved a single Nationwide Public-Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN), and AT&T saw fit to submit a bid for a single network when none of the other commercial broadband networks did. Now that FirstNet is a success and has shown it can offer public-safety users what they want and need, the other network operators have decided to horn in on the one network built for public safety with public-safety input. The FirstNet Authority is responsible for FirstNet (Built with AT&T) and it is an entity of the federal government but not a part of the FCC. Rather, it reports to the National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA) and the Department of Commerce (DOC). Does what the Deputy Chief is saying in this article and its presentation at the conference mean a portion of every broadband network will be under the auspices of The FirstNet Authority? I think not. A CEO for one network that did not submit a bid told me, “I like having federal and public-safety users on my network; however, I don’t want to have a partnership with the federal government.” 
My final comments on this article and presentation are if today’s FCC really is heading in this direction, who will make AT&T whole for the $Billions it has already spent building out the FirstNet network to meet the requirements of the FirstNet Authority? Who will ensure that other broadband network operators spend the money to upgrade their networks to public-safety grade? Who does a fire chief or police chief call when their portion of the network is down? Who will oversee fixing the problem and putting it back in service instead of pointing fingers?
The FirstNet Future
On March 30, 2017, The FirstNet Authority awarded a 25-year contract to AT&T to build out the FirstNet network. This means the initial five-year build-out is to be completed by spring of 2022. So far, AT&T is ahead of schedule and it is quite possible FirstNet (Built with AT&T) will have met 100-percent of the five-year build requirements before then. Meanwhile, as discussions in a previous Advocate and in multiple news outlets continue, The FirstNet Authority has voted to reinvest its first $218 Million back into the network as required by the law. 
Some of this money will go toward upgrading the LTE FirstNet core (network brains) to work with 5G as well as LTE. The balance of the funds will go toward procuring more deployables for times of major incidents or when large crowds gather. Meanwhile, AT&T has already announced that the public-safety community (FirstNet customers) will have access to the AT&T 5G network as it is deployed. The stage is set, and as I have said before, no broadband network I know of has ever been declared complete. Newer releases of the 3GPP standard are always forthcoming and they need to be evaluated and then integrated into the network, 5G is being built out and will become available to FirstNet, and at the end of the five-year build period there will still be twenty years remaining on the contract.
Assuming the FCC’s new approach is not implemented and FirstNet remains as it is today and needs to remain, what can we expect? First, as FirstNet (Built with AT&T) has stated, for the time being, the public-safety spectrum known as Band 14 will remain the primary spectrum used by FirstNet customers. Obviously, as 5G is rolled out and new revisions become available, it would seem inevitable that at some point Band 14 will be converted to 5G technology. However, I don’t expect that to happen for a number of years. Like 1G, 2G, and 3G before it, 4G (LTE) will be replaced with 5G. Today’s FCC seems to think this needs to happen right now, today, and has allocated $billions for 5G deployment in rural America. My take is that 5G will be deployed in three separate portions of the spectrum and it will provide vastly different amounts of capacity and data rates depending on how it is deployed over time.
5G will or is finding its way into 600 MHz, 700 MHz, and 800 MHz and over time it will replace LTE that is now called 5G low band. We are told data rates will be better than LTE but we are still waiting to see some commercial network results. Next is high band or as some prefer, mid-band, which is the spectrum from 3.4 GHz to 3.8 GHz (but approved up to 4.2 GHz). Again, expected capacity and speeds are not known for this spectrum but there is a lot of activity in this area. Finally, we will have Millimeter Wave spectrum in the 20-plus Gigahertz bands. These spectrum allocations are for relatively huge amounts of spectrum and speeds of 1 Gigabit or more. The downside of this very fast version of 5G is that each small-cell coverage area is measured in yards not miles.
Over the next ten years or perhaps sooner, 5G will replace 4G on all allocated broadband spectrum. I believe FirstNet’s move to 5G as its prime broadband service will be gradual as the 5G network is built on all three spectrum segments. 5G devices are already available but to my knowledge there is no single LTE/5G device that covers both the LTE bands and 5G bands. Vendors will be able to determine what LTE/5G capabilities to include in their devices once it is known who will own what 5G-capable spectrum. Another factor will be whether network operators will accept network slicing, or carving out portions of small-cell spectrum licensed to one network for use by other broadband networks.
While all this is happening, I hope Congress will finally fund Next-Generation 9-1-1 (NG911) and that it will be fully integrated into the public-safety broadband services system. If the FCC leaves the public-safety LMR spectrum in place, which I assume it will since it is not ideal for broadband, I think most LMR systems will be upgraded to digital technology (perhaps P25) and become IP back-end based. This will provide public safety with incoming voice, text, video, pictures, and data and enable those in the field to access both broadband and LMR services. What I see coming will be:
Separate LTE/5G and LMR devices
Separate but wireless integrated LTE/5G and LMR devices 
Combined LTE/5G and LMR devices (single-band and multiband LMR)
I think sometime in the future we will end up with a single device that will monitor all incoming broadband and narrowband spectrum options for an area and funnel the communications to a speaker and a screen (see mission-critical article). Beyond that, my crystal ball is very cloudy. I know 6G is already on the horizon but at this point it is designed for spectrum above 100 Gigahertz and it will be extremely local, but anything is possible. Today’s communications devices are using spectrum that only a decade or so ago was not believed to have any value.
I have not addressed Artificial Intelligence (AI), speech-to-text, integrated sensors embedded in devices and on people, the Internet of Things (IoT), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs or drones), and other devices to assist public safety. We might even see Little Low Earth Orbiting satellites (LEOs) providing 5G to parts of the United States that cannot be covered by terrestrial communications systems today. I am skeptical about Little LEOs and their ability to truly provide broadband communications at low latency, and I don’t think there is a real economic model to sustain them. 
None of us know exactly what will transpire in the way of communications over the next twenty years and none of us know how public-safety services will change. Many of us won’t be around to see how all this turns out, but we are leaving a viable set of communications platforms to be enhanced and upgraded as new technologies come online and we are providing a solid, grounded set of guidelines for future technologists and public-safety professionals.
Winding Down
I am hopeful that regardless of how the November election turns out, at least one if not two current FCC commissioners will move on to bigger and better things and they will be replaced with two new commissioners who really care about preserving our spectrum and will parcel it out wisely. Moreover, I am hopeful that under new management, we will see the FCC return to times past when FCC engineering staff studied proposed changes in spectrum allocations, ran tests to make sure they would not cause interference, worked with the industry,  actually listened to technologists in its employ, and did not plow ahead simply because they felt the change would be beneficial for the vendor community.
In October, 2016, I was invited to talk with students studying to become radio engineers at Auburn University’s Samuel Ginn College of Engineering. I was asked to speak about radio spectrum and its management, and titled my speech, “The New Stewards of Radio Spectrum.” After a general discussion of the radio spectrum with an emphasis on it being a finite resource, I displayed the following slide:
I outlined how spectrum is regulated starting at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) with the United States being in ITU Region 2. The two bodies that control spectrum in the United States are the NTIA for spectrum assigned to federal users, and the FCC for spectrum assigned to all non-federal users. 
Later in the presentation, I discussed the current use of spectrum and its shortcomings, and looked at what is coming including 5G, which was only beginning to be talked about. Then I introduced Shannon’s Law, which is a statement in information theory that expresses maximum possible data speed that can be obtained in a data channel. Shannon’s Law says the highest obtainable error-free data speed, expressed in bits per second (bps), is a function of  bandwidth and  signal-to-noise ratio. This was followed by a statement and a question: “No wireless systems in existence today operate even close to this theoretical speed,” and “How close will your generation take us to this upper limit?” 
After explaining the RF noise floor and how increases cause receivers not to hear as well as they did, and providing examples of what is driving the RF noise floor higher, I challenged these students to always be aware of the RF noise floor and what they can do to keep it from increasing any further. After reading the Deputy Chief of the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau’s statements, one particular slide came to mind. “Today’s Spectrum Disconnect” argues that driving all radio users toward broadband is not the most sensible plan for RF spectrum in the future. 
I closed with a challenge to be true stewards of our spectrum and warned that “Regardless of how efficiently spectrum is employed, it is doubtful there will ever be enough for all who want and need access.” (Realizing this presentation is now four years old, if you would like a PDF copy, I will be happy to send one to you.)
Many of these students have graduated by now and I hope if they remember only one thing it is my advice about being a steward of our spectrum—especially since some within today’s FCC don’t seem to be aware of that responsibility. 
Until next week…
Andrew M. Seybold©2020, Andrew Seybold, Inc.

Studies show that ECC telecommunicators are faced with higher levels of stress than ever with insufficient resources to handle them.
[Originally published in the July/August 2020 PSC magazine.]
By Dennis L. Snyder Jr.
In the course of your responsibilities as a 9-1-1 call taker or emergency dispatcher, have you ever experienced physical or emotional effects such as a fast heart rate, clammy palms, thinking about calls after work, trouble sleeping, or avoiding calls or friends? Have you found yourself wondering in silence if your coworkers are feeling the same way? Well, as a seasoned call taker myself, I can answer “yes” to of all the above and much more. As I look back, it took me most of my 25 years in public safety to be able to admit this fact.
My epiphany came about a year ago when I attended a year-long public managers course that required me to write an in-depth capstone on a work related topic. If I am being honest, I thought I was choosing an easy topic when I decided to write about stress and its effect on our call takers. However, shame on me for minimizing the impact stress has on our industry. I spent countless hours documenting over 125 pages for my project, and I do not think I even scratched the surface of the research that needs to be done on this subject.
In doing my research, I was shocked to find very little information on the effects of stress on call takers specifically. Most of the documented research highlighted police, fire and other on-scene responders. In hindsight, this shouldn’t have been surprising. With this realization and my time restraints early in my research, I found myself having to refocus and refine my topic. Are “public safety telecommunicators in New Jersey being affected by stress, and as leaders, are we doing enough to help them?”
By narrowing my focus, I was able to identify two prior studies: “The Experience of 9-1-1 Telecommunicators,” and “Effects of Stress on 9-1-1 Call-Takers.” Both these studies are well documented and referenced within our industry and gave me tremendous help in survey development. One study asked a series of questions of a single emergency communications center (ECC) and one used a wider base of subjects reaching out to several ECCs. Both studies concluded that as public safety telecommunicators, we are affected by our work as helpers to others so my goal was to try and replicate these finding here in New Jersey.
I developed a 75-question survey broken down into five categories (demographics, agency impact, stressors, emotions and compassion) to gather information from my participants. I also decided that even though I work in a larger center, to get a true picture I needed to reach out to a diverse range of small to larger ECCs. I am thankful to have received assistance from over 25 centers within New Jersey. Below I will outline the results by category.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Asking questions of the participants to determine a baseline of their background and experience within the industry. I found that my service group was closely split between males (55%) and females (45%). Agency management gender also followed the same trend. When asked about position type, they indicated (75%) held the dual title of call taker and telecommunicator. The majority of participants
(80%) held college degrees and most (70%) were over the age of 30. What was surprising is that participants reporting their years of service (YOS) as one to five years was higher (42%) in the older age
group. The demographic section seemed to indicate that we are hiring a gender diverse, educated and older workforce. My immediate thought was that, since we are hiring a more mature, educated workforce, they might have developed better stress management tools.
AGENCY IMPACT
Questions divided administrative (CEOs) and operational staff to compare understanding of the problem from both perspectives. These questions help start the conversation to determine if we, as leaders, are doing enough to support our staff.
In all, 25% of the CEOs replied that they didn’t believe stress affected their center’s attendance. However, 30% percent of operational staff replied that they have called out of work to avoid listening to peoples’ problems. They also indicated that although 88% of operational staff are happy with their jobs as helpers, 65% indicate that they are emotionally impacted by that same job.
One question asked of all respondents was does your agency have an “Employee Assistance Program” (EAP). The administration replied 85% Yes and 15% No and operational staff replied 65% Yes, 12% No and 24% Don’t Know [Figure 1].
It was not surprising to see agencies that did not have an EAP, but to have a quarter of the participants stating “Don’t Know” was a revelation. Overall, these results support a study done by Hinkle in 2015 that showed we are doing a better job with EAP rollouts but fall short in the follow-up and support.
Administrators also reported that nearly 30% of them were not advised if their staff had utilized their EAP. I found this very concerning. How can we determine if a program is a success if we don’t see the results? I would suggest that CEO’s be made aware of at least program utilization – not who or why, but just if their staff are reaching out. Without this information, how can we determine if we are reaching them?
When CEOs were asked about formal training for supervisors to identify stress in employees, only 40% replied yes. This was also consistent with staff indicating (39%) that they felt their agency didn’t support them with the tools to deal with difficult calls. Line staff also indicated (53%) that they didn’t feel comfortable going to their administration when they felt overwhelmed. This may indicate management style issues and a need to evaluate them but remember as leaders, “If we’re not communicating we are not solving problems.” Can any of you remember the old days when being told by supervisors “it’s part of the job” and to “just walk it off” was a valid response? Well, rest assured, some of those dinosaurs still walk amongst us with 30% of telecommunicators indicating they have received this response. On a positive note, they did indicate a comfort level (55%) with discussing troubling calls with supervisors.
STRESSORS
For this research, we focused on two categories: job and institutional. The job stressors can be further identified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), compassion fatigue, STSD and vicarious trauma. Research has shown that these disorders share common causes like repetitiveness and sensory factors. Recognition that call takers are exposed to repetitiveness and sensory factors has served to dispel the idea that we cannot be affected because we’re not on scene. Taking call after call without breaks or resolution (repetitiveness). On the sensory side, we are trained to visually paint pictures of a scene using caller information, sounds heard and experience. However, most times we are never taught what to do with those mental pictures after the call.
Institutional stressors are those imposed on us during the process of doing our jobs. When we discuss stress within our industry, we commonly look externally at the events that affect our agencies and ignore the internal hurdles. These hurdles like protocols, lack of training, policy and procedure, shift work, work group division, response diversity, organizational fairness, employee support, and communication. Many of the respondents (64%) stated that they could not go to sister field units for closure. It’s generally known that most telecommunicators are type “A” personalities and need closure. In the past, a lot of us would be able to hear the results of our work when responders returned to base and shared the outcome of calls with us. In today’s world of regionalization, I feel this natural coping mechanism will continue to degrade and weigh heavily on telecommunicators.
Response diversity (a phrase I use to describe the following issue) has a large impact on multi-jurisdictional ECCs, but if not controlled, it can affect the smallest as well. Response diversity is allowing like responding departments to have different dispatch procedures to respond to similar events. Allowing this type of diversity to grow unchecked requires telecommunicators to remember multiple ways to do the same job, increasing potential error rates and stress. Participants responded overwhelmingly (70%) to feeling “bogged down” by the systems in place for performing their jobs. They also indicated (20%) that they will purposely arrive to work earlier to avoid working disciplines they are not comfortable covering.
EMOTION
I looked at the emotional roller coaster respondents felt during call taking. When speaking about emotions and the need to separate them, don’t forget the fact that the majority of respondents indicated a dual role as call taker and telecommunicator. So after walking an irate caller through the worst day of their life, the employee now has to possibly send a co-worker into harm’s way while not forgetting to answer the next call.
Many of the respondents (89%) indicated that they had to change their emotions consistently and (98%) had to manage the emotions of others. They also stated that this emotional management was a critical part and requirement of their jobs (98%).
COMPASSION
I measured responses on how respondents felt about doing their job and the effects it has on them. This section clearly showed that we have staff (75%) that are happy with their jobs helping others and (97%) truly believe they’re making a difference. They overwhelmingly (97%) get satisfaction from helping people.
But as the numbers indicate, job satisfaction is coming at a cost to their health as 32% indicated losing sleep over one or more traumatic victims they have helped. The ability to separate their personal lives from their lives as a helper was found to be difficult by 52%. A section of respondents (31%) stated that they have intrusive or frightening thoughts as a result of their jobs as helpers. A majority (83%) stated that they felt some level of exhaustion with their work. One response that hit close to home was that 30% stated they avoid situations because they might remind them of a frightening experience involving a person they have helped.
A trend that is growing in our industry is line-level peer groups. Like the name indicates, these groups are made up of fellow telecommunicators who are trained to immediately respond to the floor and help co-workers through difficult situations. In the past, our field responders addressed these issues with critical stress debriefings that usually excluded telecommunicators. I can actually remember being told that I didn’t need to attend because I wasn’t on scene. In my survey, 65% stated that they have never attended a critical stress debrief, but they also indicated (80%) feeling comfortable speaking with peers and 40% stated they had calls that they wish they could have discussed with a peer person. This seems to be a strong path to follow in supporting our telecommunicators.
In closing, I was relieved to see that our industry is maturing in its diversity at all levels. Earlier in the demographics section, I asked if hiring an older workforce would indicate better coping skills with life experience. The final results didn’t reveal evidence of that, and since my finding almost mirrored the prior studies, it would indicate that life experience has very little impact on managing the stress of a telecommunicator. We are seeing a lot of changes in technology, which will only present more challenges, human resources and peer acknowledgment.
However, there is a slow but positive shift to understanding stress in our industry.
Acceptance by leadership, field personnel and the public that the same stressors affecting scene responders does in fact affect PSTs needs to continue. In most cases, the exposure to these stressors is compounded by call volume and repetitiveness without healthy coping skills. As an industry, we can’t Develop and implement programs like EAPs and then let them sit on a shelf collecting dust. This type of failure is made evident with 24% of respondents not knowing if they even had a program.
In my own observation, with almost 25 years in public safety serving as a deputy sheriff, EMT and public safety telecommunicator, I have to say some of the most difficult memories to shake have come from my time as a PST. From the findings of this survey, I believe my personal observations share something with most of the respondents as shown in figure 2, with 70% of them indicating being emotionally affected by their jobs as helpers. This number alone shows we need to do much more, sooner rather than later.

This article is an overview of my research and hopefully sheds light on the fact that much more work needs to be done to help our first responders. As I stated previously, my goal was to reproduce the results of the two earlier studies here in New Jersey and to ask if we are doing enough to help.
The good news is “I did it,” unfortunately the BAD news is “I did it.” The results show that telecommunicators in my home state are being impacted from their work as helpers, and, although the prior studies are several years old, the change is less than expected. As leaders at all levels, we need to continue to work with our people, accept the reality of our jobs and improve as an industry. If we don’t, who will?
What I would like for everyone to take away from this study though is you’re not alone, and it’s OK to ask for help. •
 
Dennis L. Snyder Jr., ENP, CPM, is 9-1-1 Systems Coordinator, CTO/Instructor, Morris County (N.J.) Department of Law and Public Safety, Communications Division.
REFERENCES
Bachman, K. (2019). Designing Peer Support for Critical Incidents . PCS Public Safety Communications , 13-15.
Hinkle, M. T. (2015). PTSD in 9-1-1 Dispatcher: Are we Doing Enough to Protect the Silent Eyes. American Military University. Charles Town: Masters Capstone Theses.
Laorenza, M. &. (2018). The Resilient 9-1-1 Professional: A Comprehensive Guide to Surviving and Thriving Together in the 9-1-1 Center. South of Heaven Press.
Nena – National Emergency Number Association. (2013, 03 12). Nena Standards on 9-1-1 Acute/Traumatic and Chronic Stress Management. Standards Document.  Alexandria, VA, USA: Nena.
NFPA. (2019, 11 15). NFPA 1221 Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems. (STANDARDS, Performer)
NHTSA, N. H. (2017). Strategic Planning for Collection and Use of Nationwide 911 Data. Retrieved from 911.Gov: https://www.911.gov/project_strategicplanningfor911data.html
Troxell, R. M. (2008). Indirect Exposure to the Trauma of Others: The Experience of 9-1-1 Telecommunicators. Ann Arbor: ProQuest LLC.
Turner, K. D. (2015). Effect of Stress on 9-1-1 Call Takers and Police Dispatchers The San Jose Police Dept. Ann Arbor: ProQuest llc.