Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by the Institution of Engineering and Technology

www.theiet.org/factfiles

2Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

About This Briefing

The Institution of Engineering and Technology acts as a voice for the engineering and technology professions by providing independent, reliable and factual information to the public and policy makers. This Briefing aims to provide an accessible guide to current technologies and scientific facts of interest to the public.

For more Briefings, Position Statements and Factfiles on engineering and technology topics please visit http://www.theiet.org/factfiles.

The Institution of Engineering and Technology

The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) is a global organisation, with over 150,000 members representing a vast range of engineering and technology fields. Our primary aims are to provide a global knowledge network promoting the exchange of ideas and enhance the positive role of science, engineering and technology between business, academia, governments and professional bodies; and to address challenges that face society in the future.

As engineering and technology become increasingly interdisciplinary, global and inclusive, the Institution of Engineering and Technology reflects that progression and welcomes involvement from, and communication between, all sectors of science, engineering and technology.

The Institution of Engineering and Technology is a not for profit organisation, registered as a charity in the UK.

For more information please visit http://www.theiet.org

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

The Institution of Engineering and Technology is registered as a Charity in England & Wales (no 211014) and Scotland (no SC038698).

Enquiries

policy@theiet.org

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ............................................................... 3

Network Evolution ................................................................ 3

Requirements and/or Functionality ....................................... 4

Project Roll-out .................................................................... 5

Standards ............................................................................ 5

Technology .......................................................................... 6

Operational Resilience .......................................................... 7

Appendices I ......................................................................... 9

Appendices II ........................................................................ 9

Appendices III ..................................................................... 10

3Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

access to a small and easily-overloaded pot, thus (perhaps counter-intuitively) improving resilience.

On the issue of transition from today to a longer-term digital and probably shared-network end state, including beyond the 10 year horizon, the current voice (Tetra) system would run for a period, with the parallel introduction of data services on LTE, moving through to 5G. Managing an appropriate transition route is likely to be a key programme activity, with methodology, route and end point developing as the programme progresses. The end point will heavily depend on user demand and how usage evolves with the introduction of new technology/features and the technology itself.

There was consensus that the user and their response to changing technology is an important integral part of any system. Demonstration and test facilities were recommended to support specification, transition and operation from capturing ideas, possibilities/usage development to including hearts and minds with a view to embracing any change. Operational demonstrators also capture valuable real (as opposed to expected) user experience and evolution. Engineering and operational stress tests support final system confidence.

There is broad scope for imaginative (application level) solutions and novel tools that revolutionise emergency and public safety services, making use of escalating data capability and driving traffic. Work is needed to understand and separate actual or future requirements from current or legacy technology, functionality or operating practice. In addition, user case analysis will be needed around system resilience, including reliability and access, in order to better understand technical, operational, financial or other trade-offs. Some difficult technical questions remain to achieve these futures.

Action points/next steps: Clarify further group meetings needed prior to specification and decisions. For example, small groups to discuss or model specific technical and user case issues, including access, prioritisation and separating requirements/functionality from current or legacy technology and working practice. There may be some benefit from a reconvened Expert Panel at a later date.

Network Evolution

Network evolution: from Tetra into a future unknown potentially mixed economy system, via a (different, almost equally unknown) LTE, 4G (+) other technologies mixed economy route.

There are a number of presenting challenges and opportunities, including, but not limited to:

� political, contractual or legislative challenge: e.g. prioritised Wi-Fi access in public spaces.

� technical challenge: multi-network operation and provision, access,

� acceptance challenge: private network function replicated on public network.

� window of opportunity: standards harmonisation, interoperability

Introduction

The Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme (ESMCP) has been created by the Home Office to collate and elaborate the future requirements of the emergency services for mobile communications, research the technological options available in the market and ensure the continued deliver of mobile services communications in the future.

ESMCP activity has included extensive engagement with the mobile communications industry to attempt to understand the approach that should be taken to deliver emergency services communications capability in the future. The engagement, as of August 2012, has so far included:

� An industry engagement day, run by Intellect, in February 2012, including a request for written input from interested parties.

� A variety of helpful responses to the request for input. � Individual follow-up meetings with those who responded.

The consultation produced many interesting insights into the future direction of travel for technology for mobile communications. It has also thrown up many issues where an industry consensus does not exist. In order to facilitate further discussion in a neutral and impartial manner, the IET was approached with the objective of pooling cross industry expertise to hold a forum to investigate areas where a consensus could be agreed.

The following sections outline specific issues addressed along with the respective findings and recommendations.

Executive Summary

An IET ESMCP Expert Panel meeting was held at Savoy Place, October 2012. The aim was to define and clarify areas of broad agreement and specific differences of opinion within industry and give an opportunity to challenge unfounded assumptions about next generation emergency and public safety communications provision.

The agenda held 4 main discussion topics, equally debated: � Group call and other public safety functionality � Direct device to device communications � Prioritisation and guaranteed access � A mixed economy and interoperability

Agenda discussion was very wide ranging, covering many ESMCP aspects, consequently this summary is presented a number of intradependent topics, extracted and reorganised from the meeting notes.

Within the discussion it was broadly agreed that in say, 10 yrs, Emergency Services will using shared or common digital communications technology with the public, including standards, and very possibly a shared network. The likely outcome on some timescale is to add the emergency services available capacity (e.g. spectrum) to civil capacity in exchange for preferred access to civil systems whenever needed. This gives an expandable chunk of a large pot rather than unique

4Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

Several options were discussed, including evolving technology/functionality that will not restrict future requirements and moving from hardware to application based requirements delivery.

There was consensus that LTE, 4G (+) and other technologies can supply/meet rapidly growing data needs and opportunities in parallel to Tetra (voice), moving voice to 4G/5G at some unspecified time. Public networks currently respond to new data usage and expectations driven by smart phones and mobile technology and could cover future private sector voice also. Mobile performance is about 5 yrs behind fixed broadband and is likely to ‘chase’ for the foreseeable future. Current network configuration favours download (8:1), but this balance is shifting. Uploads are increasingly prevalent at large events and higher upload needs are foreseen for incidents or emergencies. Future network demands can only be estimated in the short term. Usage is likely to evolve rapidly once enabling technology and new functionality is in place. Networks, standards and technology need to be ready to respond to a rapidly changing landscape.

New mobile technology alone cannot meet the challenge, and performance will likely require multi-network, multi-technology operation and new ways of working as a transition or end-state. There will be technical challenges relating to in-country and international interoperability, network interconnection (including roaming or multiple sim options) and moving functionality away from standards, infrastructure and handsets into applications layers software. Issues of public safety sharing (network, spectrum or other) on public networks require more specific user case studies.

Widespread femto cell installation over the next 5-10 yrs, shortwave radio and growing Wi-Fi installation are mass market solutions with little or no standards work required. Wi-Fi (also GSM) could resolve in-building access, depending on the building. However it introduces commercial, legal, social, political, security and technical issues such as Wi-Fi roaming, cell distance, prioritisation emergency services, QOS and delivery times. Backhaul capacity raises a public policy issue about the BT monopoly and OFCOM regulation. With strategic choices such as satellite for some hard to reach locations, a broad network evolution is likely be offer wider coverage/access, better resilience and lower maintenance.

Timescales are largely determined by standards development, available product/solution components and commercial or legislative issues, including spectrum allocations and auctions needed to take advantage of new opportunities. Spectrum usage and sharing are also key to technical delivery, with perhaps internationally (UK, USA, EU) agreed degrees of compatibility and operating practice.

The US favours (3) multiple future suppliers to improve coverage while UK improvements from pooling networks depend on location. Published network data includes geographic and population percentages. Extrapolating forward from 2G (not group call) to 3G to IP group needs, group call over multiple networks via national roaming is a sensitive subject. It can be done perhaps only for Emergency Services, not the general

public. Requirements and/or Functionality

Functionality: voice/data/SMS, existing and new, complexity of unknown futures, application-level delivery revolutionising working practice, end-users as essential system ‘components’ whose behaviour, expectations and needs will evolve with or drive the system.

Examples of some challenges and opportunities here include: � requirements challenge: separating real requirements from

legacy practice/provision � specification challenge: technology as innovative enabler,

applications deliver function, � window of opportunity: new applications revolutionise

emergency services, drive standards

Tetra provides secure voice and limited data, reflecting legacy requirements (for example, walkie-talkie replacement push to talk) and technology available at time of development. Other features and functionality extend coverage, increase security, and guarantee or prioritise access. Innovative definition and implementation of actual (rather than legacy) requirements is a challenge.

Growth in smart-phone, Wi-Fi and data (alongside voice) has revolutionised communication, networks and expectations, driving user cases that were never specified. Application level functions provide some freedom from underlying product/technology (e.g. through 3G/LTE/4G and beyond). They potentially allow evolution with changing expectations/demand as users develop unforeseen patterns of behaviour and expectations. This further encourages the use of new mass market (product, device or fixed broadband) developments, with associated cost, availability and support advantages.

User cases are essential, for example push to talk (historically very important), group call, in-vehicle network extension and off-network calls. Work in standards will carry most needs, but transmit inhibit (aircraft mode variation) and emergency button could both drive change. For a group call application, is the requirement for a multi-access voice service or a multi-access conversation delivered via any route (voice, vision, other data/message capability)? How important is it and how many people use it? Call purpose, group size, situation and location, acceptable latency and other characteristics require detailed study in order to determine the most appropriate delivery mechanism. There are technical issues for group call using LTE, including discussions around uni-cast, multi-cast and perhaps SMS in some cases. Technical issues that require further study include getting everyone in a mixed economy into a call, overcoming firewalls (as opposed to encryption, interoperability), and managing latencies.

Ongoing scenario work on historic data for a range of requirements will leverage future specification detail. Security and priorities for new data services need discussion at application level. Related to requirements, 3 considerations were discussed: 1) implementing requirements that are already imaginable using

5Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

plus operator cooperation rather than government or operator alone. There are likely to be legal, planning, environmental, and political constraints that affect installation as well as cost and the potential need for public subsidy in hard to reach areas. Political and contractual decisions will affect spectrum allocation and network access.

Timescales for a programme of managed change are led by standards availability, available components, devices, infrastructure, system (including application) specification development and test and planned roll-out and support. Initial options and decisions need to be supported by scenario planning that allows outlier elimination.

Airwave/Tetra contracts run to 2016-2020. LTE roll-out starting ‘now’ could introduce data initially from 2014 with voice potentially from 2020, running in parallel until a defined Tetra ‘switch off’. Minimising technology combinations/complications both on the journey and at the end-point will help ensure a built-in user demand for applications and change, while supporting and managing end user involvement and expectations is paramount from at all stages from functionality, through user practice development/change to successful roll out.

Developing buy-in is likely to be easier with data (LTE) than voice where there is already a working system. In order to embrace new applications and ways of working, users will need reassurance about stable, working technology and functionality. Balance this also with the need for flexibility, including cost-led or organisational, operational changes, reorganisation and ‘office moves’. Interoperability between services, including infrastructure investment, capital costs, implementation and operation planning are also important. Costs will increase with the use of satellite, special hardware, software, handsets, and other turnkey requirements.

Demonstrators can support possibilities, ideas and user case development. They promote usage development, show reassuring secure technology and provide a conduit for hearts and minds moving forward, a way of embracing change. An operational demonstrator, with real user scenarios also provides the security of (engineering/operations) stress testing.

Standards

Standards: appropriate requirements and (international) harmonisation, release schedules Release 12 (R12) completion in mid/late 2014, with R13 perhaps 18 months later. 3GPP EU/USA harmonisation is working forward from legacy issues. New standards mean some implementations change and some requirements (e.g. transmit inhibit) pose LTE standards challenges.

Other issues include: � Specification challenges: new functionality in applications,

‘new’ requirements delivery routes � Implementation challenges: technology availability,

balancing true requirements against legacy � Window of opportunity: R12, R13, international

harmonisation, functions that drive standards

mobile technology and data today, 2) looking at different ways to provide a new or specific function and 3) ensuring a flexible evolution route.

New services and user interfaces for video, photograph, voice etc are driven by situation/purpose, whether under stress, static, streamed, live (e.g. medical, other) or simply periodically updated. It can be difficult to send a ‘traditional’ text in an emergency situation, but commercial applications already provide a shortcut interface that can deliver GPS, image, or other pre-bundled emergency information. Technical, standards or other work may be needed to establish common protocols and response. SMS as a fall-back on congested networks helps deliver better network performance. Public safety functionality could include (SMS or other) broadcasts, geofencing, flood or other early warnings, and mechanisms for emergency services to communicate with public at large, but with anti-spoofing measures.

Police have 2, 3 or more devices including Tetra, mobile and blackberry plus, so logistics are important. Additional features such as video need careful integration with clarification around what the end-user actually wants as opposed multiple platforms (tablets, headsets, other devices) dictated by Tetra phone capability. User profiling might lead to perhaps 2 handsets (for resilience) with working practice reflecting the potential need for at least daily device charging. Potentially high data service requirements lead to test cases focussed on access rather than network capacity. Project Roll-out

Project roll-out: users as part of the system, user cases, demonstrator, stress-test, timescalesA revolution in applications, operational opportunities and provision. UK LTE will be relatively mature. Demonstration systems critical for hearts and minds from idea generation to stress-testing.

Some challenges and opportunities include: � Specification challenge: fast-changing requirements,

expectations and end-point evolution � Implementation challenge: potential force by force roll-outs

of new stress-tested capability � Hearts and minds opportunities: ambassadors for new

physical/operational capability

Uncertainty and programme risk stem from near and far future requirements, including programme route and end point plus other issues such as technology, development, supply, user, operational, financial and other external contributions.

A gradual, data-led managed handover from Tetra to new capability (cellular plus Wi-Fi?), could initially be satisfied by ‘current’ technology, gradually building into LTE/4G/5G+, and supported by satellite, growing Wi-Fi or other unidentified technical futures. The end point may not be a mixed economy. Practical roll-out issues include positively managing different project phases (network and functional access) between forces to increase demand for change. This will involve government

6Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

will be in R12. Detailed specification definition will start at the November 2012 standards meeting.

Technology

Technology: commonality, from infrastructure through mobile devices to application-level Shared technology, but not necessarily shared network/spectrum, potentially simplifies installed/carried technology and reduces costs, duplication and complexity.

Examples of technology issues include: � Technical challenge: current hardware function replicated

in application layers, encryption � Specification challenges: new functionality in applications,

‘new’ requirements delivery routes � Delivery challenges: perceptions which may seem to

favour private or separate provision. � Window of opportunity: spectrum allocations, leverage

technology/apps for change

UK LTE provision is behind the rest of world (150 by end of year), so UK will be 2nd generation equipment. Technical solutions within any technology (Wi-Fi, mobile broadband, LTE, Tetra, satellite, fibre, mobiles, other) could depend on more powerful or multiple antenna, handsets, classes in various technologies in research, standards and more. Interconnecting between multiple networks including mixed Tetra, mobile, satellite and more raises commercial and technical issues. Further debate is needed around hardware and software provision, including practicality/cost of multiple antennae, health and safety (related to power, for example), ruggedness, IP64, battery life and multiple network/communication provision. The extent that mobile devices are standard or unique to the emergency services depends on different coverage options/combinations. More specific, turnkey designs may mean physical devices are different from consumer provision.

Looking specifically at handsets, adding complexity means increasing handset cost which affects the engineering/supplier balance, although a single handset with application level configuration potentially makes the hardware cheaper. Adding more (LTE) bands has the affect of reducing handset sensitivity. Issues like this re-inforce the need to understand the real drivers behind user requirements in order to identify those that can’t be done because of standards, economics, etc.

TDD LTE will be massively deployed in 2 yrs, but to determine relevance, for example in set to set communications, user cases are needed around geography, surveillance, and other parameters. Other solutions will also be available in a few yrs. A TDD advantage is that you can redistribute from day to day so data capacity is better. While commercial systems are oriented to download, public safety will need increasing upload capacity, including intelligence collecting. TDD is network configurable and can support 8:1 up:down, or down:up. UK broadband is deploying TDD now or very soon. In China, TD-SCDMA has been implemented. Wi-Fi may be directly relevant in some user cases as it is already available in high end smart phones.

Release 12 (R12) completion in mid/late 2014 leads to 2016 for devices/initial component availability (excluding pre-emptive competitive development) and nationwide deployment perhaps 2017 or later. R13 is perhaps 12-18 months behind R12 although standards timescales can shift forward/backwards. Wide (including global) standards are increasingly important, as is common technology with civil and international networks and organisations. 3GPP EU/USA harmonisation is working forward from legacy issues. New standards mean some implementations change, for example true voice becomes LTE VOIP and some requirements in hazard situations) pose LTE standards challenges.

3GPP standards are in R12, gathering user requirements. Groups then look at architecture. Standards for P25 is a global item with work needed to get through the standards body, it is currently defined more as broadcast, like TV, so not designed for voice comms. Architecture groups will need to see what can be reused to support group call, and a challenge might be IMS/application layer. Work in the standards is for components, not solutions (for example multi-cast is not group call).

Relating to requirements (not enabling technology), LTE doesn’t offer voice, it’s more IP bearer, so 2MB doesn’t encompass voice and leads to functionality delivered via VOIP applications development. If LTE fails, it falls back to GSM. Areas currently in the window for relevant standards work include emergency button (pre-emptive priority over the network) and transmit inhibit. This needs keep alive (hold IP session open without paging) and is a variation of aircraft mode so can be done with broadcast functionality. Some requirements will present challenges in powering devices but longer latency increases battery life. Tetra device to device (D2D) has 2 active user-choice applications: powerful network extension (LTE relay function already in standards) and point to point (P2P) for private, off network and/or untraceable communications for any reason, or both when in repeater mode. Identifying actual user sets or purchase quantities for these is difficult because data is hard to collect and it can depend on coverage. Commercial devices require network connection. Commercial standards that allow P2P are driving network connection but public safety want P2P irrespective of network. Standards are due at the same time as group call. Current standards work allows commercial devices to operate P2P, and the US have asked for a hybrid mode to allow for P2P as well as communicating with infrastructure. Direct mode could use dedicated spectrum over and above conventional spectrum (US requirement, other regions unknown). Commercial networks like to control access and are unlikely to offer P2P.

P2P is also a resilience issue, a 3rd type of local trunking if backhaul lost (where a site goes into failover). This will be discussed in the November (R12 meeting) but was not a strong requirement so is in the R13 (2014/15).

Proximity services are in study phase (commercial and public safety), with work ongoing since August 2011. It will soon move to different financing streams with the expectation that it

7Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

and which can be permanent or temporary (for example due to large event catering, weather, accident, disaster, portable technology etc).

4G/LTE/broad UK wide coverage by 2016 may be optimistic. There is fairly broad but unspecified geographical broadband coverage and Tetra provides 99.9% geographic coverage at street level street level, to a vehicle plus hand uplift, but not all buildings. Others have 99% geographic coverage on main roads. Air to ground depends on who needs to fly and where. A target is 98% population public sector mobile coverage by 2015. Indoor coverage is important and there is a need for detailed discussion around what Tetra does/doesn’t do vs. LTE.

Mobile networks are generally aimed at ground cover, so need to build air to ground infrastructure. Also need to understand the radio model for altitude/frequency requirements, for example land or air (including helicopter and fixed wing craft) requirements to 5,000 or 10,000 ft. 10,000ft is within the USMCP consultation. The OFCOM overall requirement of 98% (obligation for one licence) allows individual regions to be 95% population indoors. Voice coverage can be better than data, there is less traffic in rural cells and the high cost of fulfilling remote areas is more wasteful if more than one network provides same coverage.

Geography is vital for guaranteed access, and could mean balancing quality of service vs. cost. Access also depends on penetration, coverage, whether urban/rural, in building, in air. Tetra currently provides an alternative operational mode for black spots. Access can also depend on availability, latency, QOS, capacity, priority, delivery times, and whether communications are terrestrial, air to air or air to ground. For data services, there is a need to decide which data is priority low level info vs. priority content.

Wi-Fi is expected to improve availability, it is becoming more widespread and could resolve in-building access alongside GSM (depends on building). For guaranteed access, there are a number of commercial, legal, moral, political, security, technical (excluding standards) issues to resolve, including Wi-Fi roaming and cell distances. Prioritisation for emergency services is more a contention (QOS) issue. A key point could be delivery timescales and backhaul capacity which leads to a public policy issue. With BT the legal monopoly, is there a case for OFCOM regulation.

(Low) Latency is partly within the codec, partly network architecture and partly management. It may vary with capacity, loading, area and shadows. LTE is the only technology with low call set-up latency (sub 200milisec). Satellite is up to 300millisec. Group call specifications need further definition to answer future latency questions with current 3G latencies probably more than enough, including Skype, especially if pre-emptive priorities are set up.

All criteria, including cost, are affected by the technical solution/spectrum. There are issues related to dedicated emergency services channels vs. shared space. Ring fencing trials indicated a degraded experience for the rest of the

Technical issues that depend on backhaul and cell capacity need to be modelled for well thought-out and prioritised to determine whether the LTE bearer is suitable for voice and data applications. Examples include Tetra vs LTE private/public cell size, group call, uni-cast, and Tetra stripped out to broadcast only (cheaper handsets, fewer base stations). All answers have a large number of dependencies.

Applications are likely to be bespoke, but some may be shared. While standard backbone leverages access to developers, reduces cost and increases speed of response, standard hooks in networks will be developing over next 10-20 yrs.

Operational Resilience

Resilience: the gamut of topics (including cost) that contribute to operational resilience‘Guaranteed’ access for routine, exceptional and emergency situations with wide-ranging choices. From geography, technology, physical location, installed capacity and spectrum, through regulation, legal, contractual, operational and planning to technical challenges at hardware and software levels.

In defining requirements, issues include: � Technical challenge: air/ground links, signal access,

spectrum, coverage extension � Specification challenges: detailed user case analysis,

needs, consequences, contingency � Requirements challenge: political, contractual, perceptions

(etc) mix with technology � Window of opportunity: regulation for capacity/spectrum,

opportunist technologies, e.g. Wi-Fi

Resilience (over shared and/or mixed technology networks including Wi-Fi) covers wide-ranging factors that contribute to delivering and/or restoring appropriate communications as required. The preference is for design quality and reliability, not an insurance-led service. Working technology in any situation has a contributing array of (possibly less tangible) intradependencies, many of which require further analysis, while higher performance can be delivered for more investment. Ultimately resilience, including prioritisation and guaranteed access is derived by identifying a number of options and then making a selection.

Guaranteed network access, however defined, is specified though a combination of criteria, and performance ‘percentages’ and will require further definition. In particular, network analysts should be able to identify and analyse practice vs. theory, including from pre-existing material or results. This could deliver the probability of call getting through vs. congestion, worked against scenarios.

There will always be (coverage) black spots, regardless of technology, although they may not always be identifiable. Characteristics vary with location, technology and conditions, and the issue is how to understand them and manage them out. Issues can relate to in-building, rural, shadow, reflections, regions, geographic area or population. Prioritisation and guaranteed access is only possible where you have coverage,

8Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

network. With emergency services and the public on the same spectrum, emergency services can be prioritised onto a public system depending on the circumstance, implementation and contingency catering (including commercial choice). Choice and capability are within the technology or the commercial organisation/provider. The number of operators (within a pool) delivering public safety services affects network balance. Political decisions may be needed regarding access to social networking (depending on the incident context) as well as a debate on the consequences (on the public/other) of prioritisation or denial of service. Roaming is also a management tool for capacity and access.

Congestion for any installed capacity depends on several technical issues that require clarification, including understanding whether congestion is caused by saturated spectrum or lack of base stations. Questions include whether it is better to have 100% of a private channel or 10% of contended space and whether ceilings should be fixed or flexible. Relative or remaining capacity also moves with the circumstances and prioritising becomes important when capacity is under threat. Event scenarios such as the Olympics, football, civil unrest, or other ‘bubbles’ of incident cases affect (lack of) capacity, as does communication type, data vs. voice, vs. SMS. Users are familiar with variable mobile network access restrictions around incidents. Fair access where there is competition for limited resources is different to limited access in an area of poor/no coverage.

For non-Tetra direct mode (which could be in software), whether (currently) separate channels for emergency and security services are better than shared requires clarification. Issues include potential congestion in a disaster, (future dynamic?) block and channel allocations, managing discrete group cryptography, perceptions around sharing, security against interception, privacy and (scanned) visibility. Software implementations push resilience and flexibility into handsets and away from the network.

Prioritisation is a complex issue and several forms of hard (e.g. specific channel, press to talk) or soft, mathematical factors affect the ability to get onto a network. Degrees of complexity include selective or pre-emptive, emergency vs. public, public social vs. public safety, mass communication vs. individual need, background vs. proactive or reactive. Within public safety, there are single or multiple service issues, escalation potential for any call, data vs. voice vs. SMS access and load requirement. QOS currently works well with limits. In contracts, operators can already throttle individual connections or manage contention ratio-type capability including the capability to block, reduce or manage public access in shared or public ‘space’. MT-PAS is available/used by emergency services.

System recovery after an event (from small scale incident to disaster) runs from traffic reduction to timescales for physical access to install additional/replacement technology, including power provision. Speed of response includes contingency holdings and readiness, and relates to a desire to act as well as management and contractual obligations.

9Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

Appendices IAcronyms

3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project

IP Internet Protocol

LTE Long Term Evolution

MT-PAS Mobile Telephone Privilege Access Scheme

QOS Quality Of Service

SMS Short Message Service

TDD Time Division Duplex

USMCP United State Military Construction Programme

Appendices IIReferences

� ESCMP Cambridge Wireless Document

10Emergency Services Mobile Communications ProgrammeA Briefing provided by The Institution of Engineering and Technology© The IET 2012www.theiet.org/factfiles

Appendices IIIForum Participants

Name Affiliation Area of specialism

Prof William Stewart IET Communications Policy Panel Chair

Stephen Temple IET Communications Policy Panel

David Chater-Lea Motorola Fellow of the technical staff at Motorola

Euros Evans Airwave CTO, Airwave (Tetra)

Dr Mona Mustapha Vodafone Chair of 3GPP SA Working Group 1

Keith James Everything Everywhere Security Engineering Manager at Everything Everywhere Ltd

Tim Rawlings Everything Everywhere

Prof Ed Candy 3 Strategic Advisor, 3

Dr Michael Fitch BT BT Innovation and Design

Dr Walter Tuttlebee Independent Consultant

Billy D’Arcy O2 MD, Public Sector Business

Dino Flore Qualcomm

John Cunliffe Ericsson Chief Technology Officer - Western & Central Europe

Stephen Hearnden Intellect Director of Telecommunications

Dave Hall Vodafone Head of Service Operations

Simon Holmyard Vodafone Head of PSN Strategy

Parker Moss Alcatel Lucent VP Wireless Strategy

Steve Holebrook Arqiva MD, Government , mobile solutions

Steve Leach Ofcom

Paul Robb Airwave

Paul Davies IET

Eur Ing Alan Berry IET

John Wailing Home Office CTO

Cate Walton ESMCP Technical Lead

Mark Durkee Home Office Technical Architect

Paul Sharp Scottish Government

Hillary Taylor Independent consultant

The Institution of Engineering & TechnologyMichael Faraday HouseSix Hills WayStevenageSG1 2AY

01438 765690 - Policy Departmentemail: policy@theiet.orghttp://www.theiet.org/policyhttp://www.theiet.org/factfiles

The Institution of Engineering and Technology is registered as a Charity in England & Wales (no 211014) and Scotland (no SC038698).

© The IET 2012

Issue 1.0 - December 2012