Key Takeaways from NENA 2024 — Part 1

As usual, MCP subject-matter experts blanketed last week’s National Emergency Number Association (NENA) conference and trade show. The following represents some of what they learned.

FCC update — David Furth, deputy chief of the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau provided his annual update on the latest activities at the commission and matters affecting 911 centers and their ability provide emergency response. He was joined by Rachel Wehr, an attorney advisor working for the bureau.

Wehr started the session with an update on a draft order that would require originating service providers to deliver their traffic to delivery points — also known as demarcation points — designated by the 911 authority.

In the order’s first phase, OSPs are required to deliver 911 traffic in an Internet Protocol (IP)-based format; in the second phase the traffic also would need to comply with Next Generation 911 (NG911) standards. In addition, OSPs are required to cover the costs associated with converting their traffic to IP and transmitting it to the delivery point; 911 authorities are responsible for the costs associated with transmitting the traffic from the delivery point to the 911 center. (However, the order provides some wiggle room for OSPs and 911 authorities to negotiate regarding how these requirements will be met.)

The commission developed the order to accelerate the pace of the transition to NG911, according to Wehr, which has been ongoing for more than a decade.

“There are some issues with the transition, namely that not all OSPs are connecting with IP-based networks in a timely manner, and some are refusing to connect at all,” Wehr said. “So, we think these rules are going to facilitate a smooth transition and move the transition forward.”

An attendee asked about the fines that the FCC might impose upon OSPs for noncompliance, and wondered whether it would be less expensive for an OSP to pay them rather than incur the associated costs. Furth responded with this advice: “I don’t think I would make that argument to our enforcement bureau,” he said. “If these rules are adopted … they will have the full force of our enforcement authority behind them.”

He predicted that no OSP would take that path. “This is 911 and public safety, and I think that everyone in industry and the 911 community is committed to making this happen,” he said. “But if issues come up, or there are questions about timing, we’ll try to resolve them — but if we have to go to enforcement, we’re prepared to do that.”

A draft order issued in January regarding location-based routing (LBR) was rolled into this order. The proposed rules call for wireless providers to deploy LBR technology on their IP-based networks — i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks — and use the technology to deliver voice calls and real-time-text communications to 911 systems on their IP-based networks. The deadlines for doing so are as follows:

• Nationwide providers (i.e., AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile) — November 13, 2023, for voice calls and May 13, 2026, for RTT
• Non-nationwide providers — May 13, 2026, for both voice calls and RTT

“With these rules, we’ll think that we’re going to see a lot more 911 calls and [real-time texts] going to where they need to go, which will save lives,” Wehr said.

The commission is expected to adopt the combined order at its July 18 meeting.

Drones use cases are rapidly expanding — For a long time, unmanned aerial vehicle, aka drone, use cases were law-enforcement centric, i.e., video surveillance and crime-scene investigations. But now the fire service is jumping on board in a big way. Drones are being used to monitor wildfires to anticipate how their direction might change and to support search-and-rescue operations, including dropping supplies to wildfire fighters, and life preservers for swift-water rescues. They’re even being used for fire suppression to deliver water to burning structures.

Depending on their size, drones can carry anywhere from 10 to 50 pounds of gear and can access areas that are not easily accessed by humans — think heavy foliage and/or vegetation. They are much less expensive than helicopters and cover much larger areas faster than humans can cover. They are being fitted with LED lights to illuminate night incidents; are being used to conduct structure fire size-up to enable incident commanders to decide whether response needs to be ramped up or altered; and are being used to assess structural damage and search for survivors — often by using thermal-imaging cameras — in the aftermath of tornados. One speaker stated that there was a time not long ago that fire/rescue departments saw drones as a nuisance, even an enemy, but that clearly is no longer the case.

There are cautions to consider when contemplating a drone program. A pilot’s license is required to operate them; with very few exceptions, they must be operated under the line-of-site provisions of the FCC’s Part 70 rules, which somewhat limits how they can be used; they burn through batteries quickly (typically 15 to 30 minutes); and obstacle avoidance is an issue. They also must be weatherproofed (even so, they can’t be used in a downpour), and they ideally will have a self-righting capability in case they crash (which is not an unusual occurrence). Finally, waivers are required to operate them at low altitudes — due to privacy concerns — and in restricted airspace, e.g., airports.

Nevertheless, the consensus thinking seems to be that the technology will continue to advance, and as it does, even more use cases will emerge. Indeed, drone utilization appears to be on the cusp of an explosion.

Technology adoption needs to ramp up — Speaking of cool technology, walking the trade show floor revealed a cornucopia of innovations intended to improve public-safety operations, especially those related to artificial intelligence (much more on that in a future blog). But discussions with public-safety personnel in MCP’s booth and elsewhere during the conference revealed that innovation adoption is happening more slowly than anticipated, even for technology that has been available for a while.

The “diffusion of innovations” theory espoused more than six decades ago by E.M. Rogers, who at the time was a University of New Mexico communications theorist, divides technology adopters into five categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards, with the distribution taking the form of a typical bell curve. One might expect that some technologies would have moved into at least the early majority stage of adoption at this point based on their ability to dramatically improve operations. CAD-to-CAD interconnections serve as a prime example, given their ability to improve data sharing between 911 centers. Similarly, multiband radios provide native interoperability with other emergency-response agencies during multijurisdictional incidents, which is much more effective than interoperability achieved via gateways, interfaces, and patches.

Curiously, however, based on the anecdotal evidence gathered during the NENA event, technology adoption doesn’t seem to be happening at expected levels. Less curious is the driving factor behind the lack of adoption: a lack of internal expertise and, especially, financial resources. Local agencies, especially smaller agencies, traditionally have struggled to fund their day-to-day operations, much less technological advancements. They often aren’t aware of grant opportunities, and even when they are aware, they don’t have the resources and expertise needed to pursue them. On that note, we can help — MCP has a team available to identify opportunities, navigate the grant guidance, and prepare applications, so please reach out.

Let’s not forget about cybersecurity — This time last year, the public-safety sector was just waking up to the fact that cyberattacks pose a tremendous threat to their operations, and there was quite a buzz about it at NENA’s conference, which was a very positive development. However, this year the buzz was all about artificial intelligence — again, more on that in a future blog — while there seemed to be far less chatter about cybersecurity. This was equally surprising and disturbing because the risks associated with cyberattacks aren’t going away — if anything, they’re going to continue to worsen — and many public-safety agencies are desperate for cybersecurity help.

Seemingly, many agencies are not pursuing cybersecurity as much as they should for the same reasons that innovation adoption is lagging — a lack of internal expertise and financial resources. The latter reason, however, is tantamount to being pennywise and dollar foolish. The question about cybersecurity is not whether an agency can afford a cybersecurity program, but rather, can they afford not to have one, given the disruptive impact of a cyberattack?

One of the challenges in today’s environment concerns the complexities of today’s networks and systems. An analogy comes to mind in this regard. Three decades ago, it was common to see cars with their hoods up and their owners tinkering with their engines — e.g., adjusting the carburetor to adjust the fuel/air mixture that enters the engine — to improve performance. Now, that scene almost is never seen because most cars are completely computerized — the only way to improve performance today is to take the vehicle to a highly trained mechanic.

The situation is similar with today’s public-safety networks and systems. However, there still are a few offensive and defensive tactics that an agency can do tomorrow at relatively low cost to enhance its cybersecurity profile, for example:

• Implementing firewall, antivirus, and endpoint protections.
• Ensuring that patches are applied promptly, especially in the immediate aftermath of a threat advisory.
• Performing penetration testing and vulnerability scans.

Nevertheless, it’s an excellent idea to find a cybersecurity “mechanic” to help your agency develop a strategic plan that aligns with the agency’s resources and operational environment. MCP’s cybersecurity team consists of numerous highly trained subject-matter experts who can perform this vital role — so, please reach out.

Upcoming blogs will provide additional takeaways about 911/988 integration, indoor mapping, artificial intelligence, 911 center culture, telecommunicator reclassification, and much more — so stay tuned!