Communications Interoperability

Aging Infrastructure

Much of the nation's public safety wireless infrastructure is antiquated—with most systems more than 15 years old, and many 20 to 25 years old. The maximum optimal life cycle for much of this equipment is 8 years, meaning public safety agencies rely on wireless networks that are two or three generations behind technologically. Furthermore, many wireless networks were developed incrementally over the years, in part because of funding constraints, and their expansion often lags behind demographic shifts or other development changes. The net effect of these conditions is less-than-optimal network design, poor coverage, and dead spots within and between jurisdictions.

Lack of Coordination and Partnerships

The lack of coordination and partnerships among government leaders and public safety officials in planning for and implementing public safety land mobile radio (LMR) systems has created a challenge that is, in many cases, as significant as the technological barriers to interoperability. In fact, findings from an analysis of fire and emergency medical services communications interoperability indicate a significant need for coordinated approaches, relationship building, and information sharing—all critical to solving key interoperability issues such as spectrum sharing, funding, standards development, and systems security.

Several important issues have emerged as challenges to successful coordination and partnership activities. These issues include “turf issues” associated with the management and control of radio systems, the lack of a shared priority for interoperability, and limited sharing of interoperability solutions within the public safety community.

Jurisdictional boundaries often create artificial barriers that hinder cooperation and collaboration in situations in which achieving interoperability is necessary. One such barrier relates to the management and control of wireless systems. Historically, individual communications managers and technical radio specialists were solely responsible for providing communications for their respective agencies, resulting in the development of stand-alone systems that served the mission of a single agency or jurisdiction at the expense of cost efficiencies and interoperability. In addition, the importance of, and need for, interoperability is not sufficiently understood by decision makers or the organizations that influence those decision makers. Finally, information sharing and best practices regarding interoperability are not established or available at all levels of government. Improving communications interoperability [Page 72]requires a willingness to collaborate, despite jurisdictional boundaries or political barriers.

...