EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS

Various Challenges 

Likely to Slow 

Implementation of a 

Public Safety 

Broadband Network

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2012

GAO-12-343

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-343, a report to 

congressional requesters

February 2012

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

Various Challenges Likely to Slow Implementation of 

a Public Safety Broadband Network 

Why GAO Did This Study

Emergency responders across the 

nation rely on land mobile radio (LMR)

systems to gather and share 

information and coordinate their 

response efforts during emergencies. 

These public safety communication 

systems are fragmented across 

thousands of federal, state, and local 

jurisdictions and often lack 

“interoperability,” or the ability to 

communicate across agencies and 

jurisdictions. To supplement the LMR 

systems, in 2007, radio frequency

spectrum was dedicated for a 

nationwide public safety broadband 

network. Presently, 22 jurisdictions 

around the nation have obtained 

permission to build public safety 

broadband networks on the original 

spectrum assigned for broadband use. 

This requested report examines (1) the 

investments in and capabilities of LMR 

systems; (2) plans for a public safety 

broadband network and its expected 

capabilities and limitations; (3) 

challenges to building this network; 

and (4) factors that affect the prices of 

handheld LMR devices. GAO 

conducted a literature review, visited 

jurisdictions building broadband 

networks, and interviewed federal, 

industry, and public safety 

stakeholders, as well as academics 

and experts. 

What GAO Recommends

The Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) should work with partners to 

identify and communicate opportunities

for joint procurement of public safety 

LMR devices. In commenting on a draft 

of this report, DHS agreed with the 

recommendation. GAO also received 

technical comments, which have been 

incorporated, as appropriate, in the 

report. 

What GAO Found

After the investment of significant resources—including billions of dollars in 

federal grants and approximately 100 megahertz of radio frequency spectrum—

the current land mobile radio (LMR) systems in use by public safety provide 

reliable “mission critical” voice capabilities. For public safety, mission critical 

voice communications must meet a high standard for reliability, redundancy, 

capacity, and flexibility. Although these LMR systems provide some data 

services, such as text and images, their ability to transmit data is limited by the 

channels on which they operate. According to the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), interoperability among LMR systems has improved due to its 

efforts, but full interoperability of LMR systems remains a distant goal. 

Multiple federal entities are involved with planning a public safety broadband 

network and while such a network would likely enhance interoperability and 

increase data transfer rates, it would not support mission critical voice 

capabilities for years to come, perhaps even 10 years or more. A broadband 

network could enable emergency responders to access video and data 

applications that improve incident response. Yet because the technology 

standard for the proposed broadband network does not support mission critical 

voice capabilities, first responders will continue to rely on their current LMR 

systems for the foreseeable future. Thus, a broadband network would

supplement, rather than replace, current public safety communication systems.

There are several challenges to implementing a public safety broadband 

network, including ensuring the network’s interoperability, reliability, and security; 

obtaining adequate funds to build and maintain it; and creating a governance 

structure. For example, to avoid a major shortcoming of the LMR systems, it is 

essential that a public safety broadband network be interoperable across 

jurisdictions and devices by following five key elements to interoperable 

networks: governance, standard operating procedures, technology, training, and 

usage. With respect to creating a governance structure, pending legislation—the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, among other things—

establishes a new entity, the First Responder Network Authority, with 

responsibility for ensuring the establishment of a nationwide, interoperable public 

safety broadband network. 

The price of handheld LMR devices is high—often thousands of dollars—in part 

because market competition is limited and manufacturing costs are high. Further, 

GAO found that public safety agencies cannot exert buying power in relationship 

to device manufacturers, which may result in the agencies overpaying for LMR

devices. In particular, because public safety agencies contract for LMR devices 

independently from one another, they are not in a strong position to negotiate 

lower prices and forego the quantity discounts that accompany larger orders. For 

similar situations, GAO has recommended joint procurement as a cost saving 

measure because it allows agencies requiring similar products to combine their 

purchase power and lower their procurement costs. Given that DHS has 

experience in emergency communications and relationships with public safety

agencies, it is well-suited to facilitate joint procurement of handheld LMR devices.

View GAO-12-343 . For more information, 

contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 

or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Letter 1 

Background 4

Even With Investment of Significant Resources, Current Public 

Safety Communication Systems Provide Mission Critical Voice 

Capabilities but Are Not Fully Interoperable 13

Planning for a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network 

Progresses, but Such a Network Will Not Support Mission 

Critical Voice for the Foreseeable Future 18

Various Challenges Could Jeopardize the Implementation and 

Functionality of a Public Safety Broadband Network 24

Limited Competition and High Manufacturing Costs Increase the 

Price of Handheld LMR Devices, but Options Exist to Reduce 

Prices 29

Conclusions 35

Recommendation for Executive Action 37

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 40

Appendix II Federal Grant Programs for Emergency Communications 44

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Commerce 50

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 52

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55

Related GAO Products 56

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Tables

Table 1: Key Elements for Mission Critical Voice Capabilities 6

Table 2: Waiver Jurisdictions as of January 2012 and Federal Funds 

Provided for Public Safety Broadband Networks 10

Table 3: Challenges to Developing Mission Critical Voice 

Capabilities for LTE 23

Table 4: Jurisdictions Contacted 41

Table 5: Commerce Grants with Emergency Communications as an 

Allowable Expenditure 44

Table 6: DHS Grants with Emergency Communications as an 

Allowable Expenditure 46

Table 7: Department of Justice Grants with Emergency 

Communications as an Allowable Expenditure 48

Table 8: Other Grants with Emergency Communications as an 

Allowable Expenditure 49

Figures

Figure 1: Depiction of LMR System 5

Figure 2: Current Allocation of Public Safety Spectrum 15

Figure 3: Additional Emergency Response Capabilities from 

Increased Data Transfer Rates and Bandwidth 21

Figure 4: SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum with Five Key 

Elements 26

Figure 5: Example of Infrastructure Required for Current LMR 

Systems and a Public Safety Broadband Network 28
Page iii GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Abbreviations

APCO Association of Public-Safety Communications 

 Officials

BTOP Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

CAP Compliance Assessment Program

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services

Commerce Department of Commerce

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOT Department of Transportation

GSA General Services Administration

ECPC Emergency Communications Preparedness Center

ERIC Emergency Response Interoperability Center

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FCC Federal Communications Commission

GHz gigahertz

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

kHz kilohertz

LMR land mobile radio

LTE Long Term Evolution

MHz megahertz

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information 

 Administration

NPSTC National Public Safety Telecommunications Council

OEC Office of Emergency Communications

OIC Office of Interoperability and Compatibility

OJP Office of Justice Programs

P25 Project 25

PSHSB Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau

PSCR Public Safety Communications Research

PSST Public Safety Spectrum Trust

USDA Department of Agriculture

UHF ultra high frequency

VHF very high frequency

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 22, 2012

Congressional Requesters

Communication systems are essential for public safety officials—

especially first responders such as police officers and firefighters—to 

gather and share information and coordinate their response efforts to 

save lives during emergencies. Currently, the public safety community 

uses radio frequency spectrum to transmit and receive critical voice 

communications through land mobile radio (LMR) systems that are 

operated by and licensed to state and local jurisdictions.1 However, such 

LMR systems can have issues with compatibility, continuity, and capacity 

in times of large scale emergencies or disasters.2 In particular, LMR 

systems often lack “interoperability”—that is, they lack the capabilities that 

allow first responders to communicate with their counterparts in other 

agencies and jurisdictions as authorized. Notably, during the terrorist 

attacks of September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the lack of 

interoperable public safety communications hampered rescue efforts and 

the overall effectiveness of public safety operations. Indeed, public safety 

communication systems are fragmented across thousands of federal, 

state, and local jurisdictions. This fragmentation hampers operations and 

puts emergency responders and the public at risk when the responders 

cannot talk to one another. More than 7 years after the bipartisan 9/11 

Commission reported that compatible and adequate communications 

among public safety organizations at the local, state, and federal levels 

need to be addressed, the United States still lacks interoperable public 

safety communications despite substantial investment by emergency 

response agencies to improve their LMR systems.3

 

1

The radio frequency spectrum is the part of the natural spectrum of electromagnetic 

radiation lying between the frequency limits of 3 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). 

Radio signals travel through space in the form of waves. These waves vary in length, and 

each wavelength is associated with a particular radio frequency.

One factor 

contributing to continued interoperability issues between jurisdictions is 

2

Capacity refers to a communication system’s ability to handle demand, provide coverage, 

and send different types of information.

3

9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National 

Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Washington, D.C.: July 2004).

 
Page 2 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

the slow progress in developing standards for the communication devices 

that operate on these LMR systems.

LMR systems currently have the capacity to handle only minimal data 

transmissions. To supplement the current LMR systems, plans for a 

second communication system that would provide nationwide broadband 

services are underway. Such a network would operate on a different 

portion of the radio frequency spectrum from the LMR systems. In 2007, 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assigned a portion of 

spectrum in the upper 700 megahertz (MHz) band exclusively to public 

safety for broadband use.4 Some stakeholders advocated for an

additional block of spectrum—known as the “D Block”—to be dedicated to 

public safety. In March 2008, FCC attempted to auction the D Block with 

public safety encumbrances but failed to attract a winning commercial 

bidder.5 Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012, includes a provision reallocating the D Block to 

public safety.6 Public safety officials believe a public safety broadband 

network would support important data transmission during emergencies, 

provide first responders with information not currently available (such as 

vital signs of critically injured people), and foster greater interoperability. 

However, FCC has estimated that a stand-alone broadband network 

would cost approximately $15 billion to construct.7

 

4

Congress, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, 

mandated that FCC allocate 24 MHz of spectrum for public safety services by January 1, 

1998.

Furthermore, due to its 

5

See Auction 73, 700 MHz Band, at (last accessed Feb. 17, 2012) 

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=73.

6

As of February 17, 2012, the House of Representatives and the Senate had adopted the 

conference report accompanying the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012, but the legislation had not been signed by the President at the time our work was 

completed on February 21, 2012. H.R. Rep. 112-399, accompanying the Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, H.R. 3630, 112th Cong. (2012) as reported out 

on February 16, 2012.

7

FCC, A Broadband Network Cost Model: A Basis for Public Funding Essential to Bringing 

Nationwide Interoperable Communications to America’s First Responders, OBI Technical 

Paper No. 2 (May 2010). FCC staff told us they believe, based on information in the 

marketplace, that the cost of the network has risen since the May 2010 publication. The 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act authorizes $7 billion for the construction of 

the network from the potential proceeds of “incentive auctions.” Incentive auctions are a 

special type of auction in which an existing user could receive a portion of the proceeds 

from the auction if the user relinquishes its rights to the spectrum.
Page 3 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

technical limitations, the broadband network would not replace the LMR 

systems for the foreseeable future. A number of jurisdictions sought 

permission from FCC to begin constructing local or regional public safety 

broadband networks, and since May 2010, FCC has granted permission 

to 22 jurisdictions.

Given the important issues surrounding the development of a public 

safety broadband network, you asked us to provide information about 

current and planned public safety communication networks and the 

progress being made to support both voice and data needs. We 

examined (1) the resources that have been provided for current public 

safety communication systems and their capabilities and limitations, (2) 

how a nationwide public safety broadband network is being planned and 

its anticipated capabilities and limitations, (3) the challenges to building a 

nationwide public safety broadband network, and (4) the factors that 

influence competition and cost in the development of public safety 

communication devices and the options that exist to reduce prices.

To address these objectives, we met with officials and reviewed 

documentation from 6 of the 22 jurisdictions that received permission 

from FCC to begin deploying a 700 MHz public safety broadband 

network, including the San Francisco Bay area, California; Adams 

County, Colorado; Iowa; Boston, Massachusetts; Mississippi; and Texas. 

We selected locations based on several criteria, including whether they 

received federal funding and the size of the planned broadband network. 

In all of the locations, we interviewed government agencies involved with 

planning a broadband network, and in locations where planning had 

progressed, we also interviewed emergency responders who were part of 

the planning process and vendors selected to build the network, among 

others. We also interviewed federal agencies involved in public safety 

communications issues, including entities within the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce)—the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), and the Public Safety Communications Research 

(PSCR) program; the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and 

Justice; and FCC. In addition, we reviewed relevant documents from 

these federal entities, including several FCC rulemakings related to 

developing a broadband network and public safety device competition. 

We reviewed relevant legislation and conducted a literature review of 43 

articles from governmental and academic sources related to emergency 

communication networks and devices. We interviewed representatives of 

public safety associations, researchers and consultants recognized for 

their expertise in public safety communications, and manufacturers of 
Page 4 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

public safety devices, as well as private sector analysts who track this 

industry. We identified experts and industry stakeholders based on prior 

published literature, stakeholder recognition and affiliation with the 

emergency communications and public safety spectrum, and other 

stakeholders’ recommendations. Further details of our scope and 

methodology are provided in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 to February 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Currently, public safety officials primarily communicate with one another 

using LMR systems that support voice communication and usually consist 

of handheld portable radios, mobile radios, base stations, and repeaters, 

as described:8

• Handheld portable radios are typically carried by emergency 

responders and tend to have a limited transmission range.

• Mobile radios are often located in vehicles and use the vehicle’s 

power supply and a larger antenna, providing a greater transmission 

range than handheld portable radios.

• Base station radios are located in fixed positions, such as dispatch 

centers, and tend to have the most powerful transmitters. A network is 

required to connect base stations to the same communication system.

• Repeaters increase the effective communication range of handheld 

portable radios, mobile radios, and base station radios by 

retransmitting received radio signals.

 

8

Public safety officials include all emergency responders and public safety agencies, such 

as firefighters, police officers, and paramedics who are the first to arrive at the scene of an 

emergency, as well as other responders such as hospital personnel, who might not be on 

the scene of an emergency but are essential in supporting effective response and 

recovery operations. Public safety agencies include 911 call centers that are also 

essential in supporting an effective response. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Figure 1 illustrates the basic components of an LMR system.

Figure 1: Depiction of LMR System

LMR systems are generally able to meet the unique requirements of 

public safety agencies. For example, unlike commercial cellular networks, 

which can allow seconds to go by before a call is set up and answered, 

LMR systems are developed to provide rapid voice call-setup and groupcalling capabilities. When time is of the essence, as is often the case 

when public safety agencies need to communicate, it is important to have 

access to systems that achieve fast call-set up times. Furthermore, LMR 

systems provide public safety agencies “mission critical” voice 

capabilities—that is, voice capabilities that meet a high standard for 

reliability, redundancy, capacity, and flexibility. Table 1 describes the key 

elements for mission critical voice capabilities, as determined by the 

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC).9

 

9

NPSTC is a federation of organizations whose mission is to improve public safety 

communications and interoperability through collaborative leadership.
Page 6 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Table 1: Key Elements for Mission Critical Voice Capabilities

Key element Description

Direct or talk around Ability to communicate unit-to-unit when out of range of a wireless network or when working in a 

confined area; both the transmitter and receiver operate without support from infrastructure. 

Push-to-talk Ability to communicate instantly by pushing a button on the device to transmit a voice message. The 

speaker releases the button to return to a listening mode of operation. 

Full duplex voice systems Ability for multiple users to communicate (talk and listen) at the same time; for example, when 

communications are necessary with outside parties such as citizens with emergencies, language 

translation services, and other outside agencies providing service to an incident or event.

Group talk Ability to communicate on a one-to-many basis. Group talk is of vital importance to the public safety 

community because it enables a speaker to simultaneously communicate to every member of a 

group, such as all firefighters in the interior of a burning building.

Talker identification Ability to identify who is speaking at any given time.

Emergency alerting Ability to communicate that a life-threatening condition has been encountered and that immediate 

access to the system is required.

High quality audio Ability to hear audio in adverse conditions without repetition of the message; for example, an 

emergency responder must be able to hear prime voice communications regardless of background 

noises, such as a siren.

Source: GAO based on NPSTC information.

According to NPSTC, for a network to fully support public safety mission 

critical voice communications, each of the elements in table 1 must 

address part of the overall voice communications services supported by 

the network. In other words, NPSTC believes a network cannot be a 

mission critical network without all of these elements. Furthermore, unlike 

commercial networks, mission critical communication systems rely on 

“hardened” infrastructure, meaning that tower sites and equipment have 

been designed to provide reliable communications even in the midst of 

natural or man-made disasters. To remain operable during disasters, 

mission critical communications infrastructure requires redundancy, backup power, and fortification against environmental stressors such as 

extremes of temperature and wind.

Nationwide, there are approximately 55,000 public safety agencies. 

These state and local agencies typically receive a license from FCC to 

operate and maintain their LMR voice systems. Since these systems are 

supported by state and local revenues, the agencies generally purchase 

equipment and devices using their own local budgets without always 

coordinating their actions with nearby agencies, which can hinder 

interoperability. Since 1989, public safety associations have collaborated 

with federal agencies to establish common technical standards for LMR 

systems and devices called Project 25 (P25). The purpose of these 

technical standards is to support interoperability between different LMR 
Page 7 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

systems, that is, to enable seamless communication across public safety 

agencies and jurisdictions. While the P25 suite of standards is intended to 

promote interoperability by making public safety systems and devices 

compatible regardless of the manufacturer, it is a voluntary standard and 

currently incomplete.10

The federal government plays an important role in public safety 

communications by providing funding for emergency communication

systems and working to increase interoperable communication systems. 

Congress, in particular, has played a critical role by designating radio 

frequency spectrum for public safety use. Furthermore, Congress can 

direct action by federal agencies and others in support of public safety. 

For example, through the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress 

established DHS and required the department, among other things, to 

develop a comprehensive national incident management system 

comprising all levels of government and to consolidate existing federal 

government emergency response plans into a single, coordinated 

national response plan.

As a result, many LMR devices manufactured for 

public safety are not compatible with devices made by rival 

manufacturers, which can undermine interoperability.

11

In its regulatory role, FCC licenses all public safety spectrum for state, 

local, and regional communication networks across the country. This 

includes more than 134,000 licenses for current public safety LMR 

narrowband communication systems and the single nationwide public 

safety broadband license.12 As part of the digital television transition, 

Congress, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, mandated that FCC 

allocate 24 MHz of spectrum for public safety use.13

 

10The P25 suite of standards contains 8 open interfaces that exist between the various 

components of an LMR system. According to a PSCR official, of the 8 interfaces, only 

about 1.5 were complete at the time of our report. 

FCC divided the 24 

MHz by assigning 12 MHz for public safety narrowband use and 10 MHz 

11Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, §502(5) and (6),116 Stat. 2135, 

2212 (2002). 

12The number of licenses excludes the 700 MHz public safety broadband license, the 4.9 

GHz band, and public safety point-to-point microwave licenses.

13Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

increases the amount of spectrum FCC is required to allocate for public safety from 24 to 

34 MHz.
Page 8 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

for public safety broadband use.14

• In 2007, FCC adopted an order to create a nationwide broadband 

network with the 10 MHz of spectrum designated for a public safety 

broadband network and the adjacent 10 MHz of spectrum––the Upper 

700 MHz D Block, or “D Block.”

In September 2006, FCC established 

its Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), which is 

responsible for developing, recommending, and administering FCC’s 

policies pertaining to public safety communications issues. FCC has 

issued a series of orders and proposed rulemakings and adopted rules 

addressing how to develop a public safety broadband network, some of 

which are highlighted:

15 As envisioned by FCC, this 

nationwide network would be shared by public safety and a 

commercial provider and operated by a public/private partnership. 

However, when FCC presented the D Block for auction in 2008 under 

these conditions, it received no qualifying bids and thus was not 

licensed. Subsequently it was found that the lack of commercial 

interest in the D Block was due in part to uncertainty about how the 

public/private partnership would work.16 Although many stakeholders 

and industry participants called for the D Block to be reallocated to 

public safety, an alternate view is that auctioning the D Block for 

commercial use would have generated revenues for the U.S. 

Treasury.17 As noted previously, a provision in pending legislation, the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, reallocates the 

D Block to public safety. 

• In 2007, FCC licensed the 10 MHz of spectrum that FCC assigned for 

public safety broadband use to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust 

(PSST), a nonprofit organization representing major national public 

safety associations. This 10 MHz of spectrum, located in the upper 

 

14The remaining 2 MHz were used as guardbands to protect from unwanted interference.

Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 15289 (2007).

15Spectrum is divided into frequency bands, each having technical characteristics that 

affect electronic transmission in different ways. “Bandwidth” is related to the transmission 

capacity of a frequency band and both the bandwidth and the frequency band can be 

described in MHz.

16FCC issued two further notices of proposed rulemakings since it attempted to auction 

the D Block, and a final order has not been adopted.

17When FCC auctions spectrum, the proceeds are to be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. 

49 U.S.C. §309(j)(8).
Page 9 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

700 MHz band is adjacent to the spectrum allocated to public safety 

for LMR communications. As the licensee, the PSST’s original 

responsibilities included representing emergency responders’ needs 

for a broadband network and negotiating a network sharing 

agreement with the winner of the D Block auction. However, since the 

D Block was not successfully auctioned, FCC stayed the majority of 

the rules guiding the PSST.18

• In 2009, public safety entities began requesting waivers from FCC’s 

rules to allow early deployment of broadband networks in the 10 MHz 

of spectrum licensed to the PSST, and since 2010, FCC granted 

waivers to 22 jurisdictions for early deployment.19 These jurisdictions 

had to request waivers because the rules directing the deployment of 

a broadband network were not complete. In this report, we refer to the 

22 entities receiving waivers as “waiver jurisdictions.” As a condition 

of these waivers, FCC required that local or regional networks would 

interoperate with each other and that all public safety entities in the 

geographic area would be invited to use the new networks. In 

addition, FCC required that all equipment operating on the 700 MHz 

public safety broadband spectrum comply with Long Term Evolution 

(LTE), a commercial data standard for wireless technologies.20

 

18Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice, Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-

762 and 777-792 Bands; Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public 

Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, 26 FCC Rcd 733 (2011).

As 

shown in table 2, of the 22 jurisdictions that successfully petitioned for 

waivers, only 8 received federal funding. Seven waiver jurisdictions 

received funding from NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities

Program (BTOP), a federal grant program authorized through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that had several 

19Requests for Waiver of Various Petitioners to Allow the Establishment of 700 MHz 

Interoperable Public Safety Wireless Broadband Networks, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 5145, May 

12, 2010; Requests for Waiver of Various Petitioners to Allow the Establishment of 700 

MHz Interoperable Public Safety Wireless Broadband Networks, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 

6783, May 12, 2011. 

20LTE—the standard created and adopted by the Third Generation Partnership Project, a 

standards organization—is the closest standard to fourth generation wireless (4G) 

technology that existed at that time. LTE has been accepted and adopted by national and

international communities as the foundation for future mobile telecommunications.
Page 10 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

purposes, including promoting the expansion of broadband 

infrastructure.21

Table 2: Waiver Jurisdictions as of January 2012 and Federal Funds Provided for 

Public Safety Broadband Networks

Jurisdiction Federal funds Source a

Los Angeles Regional Interoperable 

Communications System (LA-RICS), California

$154.6 million BTOP

Mississippi Wireless Communications 

Commission

70.1 million BTOP

San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose 

(BayWEB), California

50.6 million b BTOP

New Jersey 39.6 million BTOP

New Mexico 38.7 million BTOP

Charlotte, North Carolina 16.7 million BTOP

Adams County Communications Center, 

Colorado

12.1 million BTOP

Texas 7.6 million Port Security Grant

750,000 Regional 

Catastrophic 

Planning Grant

Calumet, Outagamie and Winnebago counties, 

Wisconsin

Boston, Massachusetts

Chesapeake, Virginia

Mesa, Arizona/TOPAZ Regional Wireless 

Cooperative

New York, New York

Pembroke Pines, Florida

San Antonio, Texas

Seattle, Washington

District of Columbia 

Hawaii and various cities and counties

Iowa 

New York 

 

21American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 

(2009). 
Page 11 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Jurisdiction Federal funds Source a

Oregon 

Alabamac

Total $390.8 million

Source: GAO analysis of FCC and NTIA data.

a

This field appears empty for jurisdictions with no federal funds identified.

b

Motorola, Inc., is the recipient of the BTOP funds used to build the BayWEB network. 

c

Alabama applied and was granted a waiver but did not execute a lease agreement with the PSST.

• In January 2011, FCC adopted rules and proposed further rules to 

create an effective technical framework for ensuring the deployment 

and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband 

network.22

In addition to FCC, DHS has been heavily involved since its inception in 

supporting public safety by assisting federal, state, local, and regional 

emergency response agencies and policy makers with planning and 

implementing interoperable communication networks. Within DHS, 

several divisions have focused on improving public safety 

communications. DHS also has administered groups that bring together 

stakeholders from all levels of government to discuss interoperability 

issues: 

As part of this proceeding, FCC sought comment on 

technical rules and security for the network as well as testing of 

equipment to ensure interoperability. The comment period for the 

proceeding closed on April 11, 2011, and FCC received comments 

from waiver jurisdictions, consultants, and manufacturers, among 

others. As of February 7, 2012, FCC did not have an expected 

issuance date for its final rules.

• The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) was 

created in response to Hurricane Katrina by the 21st Century 

Emergency Communications Act of 2006 to help improve 

intergovernmental emergency communications information sharing.23

 

22FCC issued its Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in this proceeding. See, Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 

Bands; Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in 

the 700 MHz Band; Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission Rules, Third Report and 

Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 14301 (2011). 

23Pub. L. No.109-295, §671, 120 Stat.1433, 1440 (2006).
Page 12 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

The ECPC has 14 member agencies with a goal, in part, to support 

and promote interoperable public safety communications through 

serving as a focal point and clearing house for information. It has 

served to facilitate collaboration across federal entities involved with 

public safety communications.

• SAFECOM is a communications program that provides support, 

including research and development, to address interoperable 

communications issues. Led by an executive committee, SAFECOM 

has members from state and local emergency responders as well as 

intergovernmental and national public safety communications 

associations. DHS draws on this expertise to help develop guidance 

and policy. Among other activities, SAFECOM publishes annual grant 

guidance that outlines recommended eligible activities and application 

requirements for federal grant programs providing funding for 

interoperable public safety communications.

Within Commerce, NTIA and NIST are also involved in public safety 

communications by providing research support to the PSCR program. 

The PSCR serves as a laboratory and advisor on public safety standards 

and technology. It provides research and development to help improve 

public safety interoperability. For example, the PSCR has ongoing 

research in many areas related to communications, including the 

voluntary P25 standard for LMR communication systems, improving 

public safety interoperability, and the standards and technologies related 

to a broadband network. PSCR also conducts laboratory research to 

improve the audio and video quality for public safety radios and devices.
Page 13 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Congress has appropriated billions in federal funding over the last decade 

to public safety in grants and other assistance for the construction and 

maintenance of LMR voice communication systems and the purchase of 

communication devices. Approximately 40 grant programs administered 

by nine federal agencies have provided this assistance for public safety.24

Some of the grants provided a one-time infusion of funds, while other 

grants have provided a more consistent source of funding. For example, 

in 2007, the one-time Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant 

Program awarded more than $960 million to assist state and local public 

safety agencies in the acquisition, planning, deployment, or training on 

interoperable communication systems.25

 

24Funding from these grants can support emergency communications; not all funding was 

spent on the LMR voice communication systems. 

However, the Homeland Security 

Grant Program has provided $6.5 billion since 2008, targeting a broad 

scope of programs that enhance interoperability for states’ emergency 

medical response systems and regional communication systems, as well 

as planning at the community level to improve emergency preparedness. 

See appendix II for more information about the grant programs.

25The Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program is an NTIA program 

administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Even With Investment 

of Significant 

Resources, Current 

Public Safety 

Communication 

Systems Provide 

Mission Critical Voice 

Capabilities but Are 

Not Fully 

Interoperable 

Public Investment
Page 14 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

State and local governments have also invested millions of dollars of their 

own funds to support public safety voice communications, and continue to 

do so. Jurisdictions we visited that received federal grants to support the 

construction of a broadband network have continued to invest in the 

upgrade and maintenance of their current LMR voice systems. For 

example, Adams County, Colorado, has spent about $19.7 million since 

2004 on its LMR system, including $6.9 million in local funds, 

supplemented with $12.8 million in federal grants. Mississippi, another 

jurisdiction we visited that is constructing a statewide broadband network, 

has spent about $214 million on its LMR network, including $57 million in 

general revenue bonds and $157 million in federal grants.26 Officials in 

the jurisdictions we contacted stressed the importance of investing in the 

infrastructure of their LMR networks to maintain the reliability and 

operability of their voice systems, since it was unclear at what point the 

broadband networks would support mission critical voice 

communications. In addition to upgrading and maintaining their LMR 

networks, many jurisdictions are investing millions of dollars to meet 

FCC’s requirement that communities use their spectrum more efficiently 

by reducing the bandwidth on which they operate.27

In addition to direct federal funding, the federal government has allocated 

more than 100 MHz of spectrum to public safety over the last 60 years.28

The spectrum is located in various frequency bands since FCC assigned 

frequencies to public safety in new bands over time as available 

frequencies became congested and public safety’s need for spectrum 

increased.29

 

26Mississippi retained a portion of the grant funds for administrative purposes.

Figure 2 displays the spectrum allocated to public safety, 

which is located between 25 MHz and 4.9 GHz. As noted previously, the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires FCC to 

reallocate the D Block from commercial use to public safety use. 

27FCC requires that public safety LMR systems migrate to at least 12.5 kHz efficiency 

technology by January 1, 2013, in an effort to ensure more efficient use of the spectrum. 

47 C.F.R. §90.209(b)(5), fn. 3.

28In comparison, FCC has licensed about 260 MHz of spectrum for broadband personal 

communication services through auctions, which are a market-based mechanism in which 

FCC assigns a license to the entity that submits the highest bid for specific bands of 

spectrum. Public safety has received spectrum outside of the auction process.

29Approximately half of this allocation is located at 4.9 GHz, which according to DHS has 

limited value to public safety. Ideal spectrum for public safety lies in the 150 to 800 MHz 

bands.
Page 15 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Figure 2: Current Allocation of Public Safety Spectrum

Public safety agencies purchase radios and communication devices that 

are designed to operate on their assigned frequency. Since different 

frequencies of radio waves have different propagation characteristics, 

jurisdictions typically use the spectrum that is best suited to their 

particular location. For example, very high frequency (VHF) channels—

those located between 30 and 300 MHz—are more useful for 

communications that must occur over long distances without obstruction 

from buildings, since the signals cannot penetrate building walls very well. 

As such, VHF signals are well suited to rural areas. On the other hand, 

ultra high frequency (UHF) channels—those located between 300 MHz 

and 3 GHz—are more appropriate for denser urban areas as they have 

more capacity and can penetrate buildings more easily. When we visited 

Adams County, Colorado, we learned that public safety officials in the 

mountainous areas of Colorado use the 150 MHz and 450 MHz bands 

because of the range of the signals and their ability to navigate around 

the natural geography. However, public safety officials in the Denver, 

Colorado, metropolitan area operate on the 700 and 800 MHz frequency 

bands which can support more simultaneous voice transmissions, such 

as communications between fire, police, public utility, and transportation 

officials.
Page 16 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

The current public safety LMR systems use their allocated spectrum to 

facilitate reliable mission critical voice communications. Such 

communications need to be conveyed in an immediate and clear manner 

regardless of environmental and other operating conditions. For example, 

while responding to a building fire, firefighters deep within the building 

need the ability to communicate with each other even if they are out of 

range of a wireless network. The firefighters are able to communicate on 

an LMR system because their handheld devices operate on as well as off 

network. Currently, emergency response personnel rely exclusively on 

their LMR systems to provide mission critical voice capabilities. One 

waiver jurisdiction we visited, Mississippi, is constructing a new statewide 

LMR system and officials there noted a high degree of satisfaction with 

the planned LMR system. They said the new system is designed to 

withstand most disasters and when complete, will provide interoperability 

across 97 percent of the state. Public safety officials in the coastal region 

of the state have already used the system to successfully respond to 

problems caused by the Mississippi River flooding in the spring of 2011.

LMR public safety communication systems also are able to provide some 

data services but the systems are constrained by the narrowband 

channels on which they operate. These channels allow only restricted 

data transfer speeds, thus limiting capacity to send and receive data such 

as text and images, or to access existing databases. Some jurisdictions 

supplement their LMR systems with commercial data services that give 

them better access to applications that require higher data transfer rates 

to work effectively. However, commercial service also has limitations, 

such as the lack of priority access to the network in an emergency 

situation.

According to DHS, interoperability of current public safety 

communications has improved as a result of its efforts. In particular, the 

DHS National Emergency Communications Plan established a strategy 

for improving emergency communications across all levels of 

government, and as a result, all states have a statewide interoperability 

coordinator and governing body to make strategic decisions within the 

state and guide current and future communications interoperability. 

According to DHS, it has worked with states to help them evaluate and 

improve their emergency communications abilities. DHS also helped to 

develop the Interoperability Continuum, which identifies five critical 

success elements to assist emergency response agencies and policy 

makers to plan and implement interoperability solutions for data and voice 

communications. Furthermore, DHS created guidance to ensure a 

Current Public Safety 

Communications 

Capabilities

Interoperability of Current 

Communication Systems 

Remains a Limitation
Page 17 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

consistent funding strategy for federal grant programs that allow 

recipients to purchase communications equipment and enhance their 

emergency response capabilities. As we have reported in the past, 

interoperability has also improved due to a variety of local technical 

solutions.30

However, despite decades of effort, a significant limitation of current LMR 

systems is that they are not fully interoperable. One reason for the lack of 

interoperability is the fragmentation of spectrum assignments for public 

safety, since existing radios are typically unable to transmit and receive in 

all these frequencies. Therefore, a rural area using public safety radios 

operating on VHF spectrum will not be interoperable with radios used in 

an urban area that operate on UHF spectrum. While radios can be built to 

operate on multiple frequencies, which could support greater 

interoperability, this capability can add significant cost to the radios and 

thus jurisdictions may be reluctant to make such investments. In addition, 

public safety agencies historically have acquired communication systems 

without concern for interoperability, often resulting in multiple, technically 

incompatible radio systems. This is compounded by the lack of 

mandatory standards for the current LMR systems or devices. Rather, the 

P25 technical standards remain incomplete and voluntary, creating 

incompatibility among vendors’ products. Furthermore, local jurisdictions 

are often unable to coordinate to find solutions. Public safety 

communication systems are tailored to meet the unique needs of 

individual jurisdictions or public safety entities within a given region. As 

such, the groups are reluctant to give up management and control of their 

systems. 

For example, FCC established mutual aid channels, whereby 

specific channels are set aside for the sole purpose of connecting 

incompatible systems. Another local solution is when agencies maintain a 

cache of extra radios that they can distribute during an emergency to 

other first responders whose radios are not interoperable with their own.

 

30GAO, First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications 

Interoperability, GAO-07-301 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2007).
Page 18 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Numerous federal entities have helped to plan and begin to define a 

technical framework for a nationwide public safety broadband network. In 

particular, FCC, DHS, and Commerce’s PSCR program, have 

coordinated their planning and made significant contributions by 

developing technical rules, educating emergency responders, and 

creating a demonstration network, respectively.

Since 2008, FCC has:

• Created a new division within its PSHSB, called the Emergency 

Response Interoperability Center (ERIC), to develop technical 

requirements and procedures to help ensure an operable and 

interoperable nationwide network.31

• Convened two advisory committees, the ERIC Technical Advisory 

Committee and the Public Safety Advisory Committee, that provide 

advice to FCC.32

 

31Establishment of an Emergency Response Interoperability Center, PS Docket 06-229, 

Order, FCC 10-67 (rel. Apr. 23, 2010). 

The Technical Advisory Committee’s appointees 

must be federal officials, elected officers of state and local 

government, or a designee of an elected official. It makes 

32The Public Safety Advisory Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act; the Technical Advisory Committee is not. The Federal Advisory Committee Act 

regulates the creation, operation, and termination of executive branch advisory 

committees.

Planning for a 

Nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband 

Network Progresses, 

but Such a Network 

Will Not Support 

Mission Critical Voice 

for the Foreseeable 

Future 

Federal Role
Page 19 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

recommendations to FCC and ERIC regarding policies and rules for 

the technical aspects of interoperability, governance, authentication, 

and national standards for public safety. ERIC’s Public Safety 

Advisory Committee’s members can include representatives of state 

and local public safety agencies, federal users, and other segments of 

the public safety community, as well as service providers, equipment 

vendors, and other industry participants. Its purpose is to make 

recommendations for a technical framework that will ensure 

interoperability on a nationwide public safety broadband network.

• Defined technical rules for the broadband network, including 

identifying LTE as the technical standard for the network, which FCC 

and public safety agencies believe is imperative to the goal of 

achieving an interoperable nationwide broadband network. In addition, 

FCC sought comments on other technical aspects and challenges to 

building the network in its most recent proceeding, which FCC hopes 

will further promote and enable nationwide interoperability. FCC 

officials said they continue to monitor the waiver jurisdictions that are 

developing broadband networks to ensure they are meeting the 

network requirements by reviewing required reports and quarterly 

filings.

Since 2010, DHS has:

• Partnered with FCC, Commerce, and the Department of Justice to 

conduct three forums for public safety agencies and others. These 

forums provided insight about the needs surrounding the 

establishment of a public safety broadband network as they relate to 

funding, governance, and the broadband market.

• Coordinated federal efforts on broadband implementation by bringing 

together the member agencies of ECPC. Also, ECPC updated its 

grant guidance for federal grant programs to clarify that broadband 

deployment is an allowable expense for emergency communications 

grant programs. These updates could result in more federal grant 

funding going to support the development of a broadband network.

• Updated its SAFECOM program’s grant guidance targeting grant 

applicants to include information pertaining to broadband deployment, 

based on input from state and local emergency responders.

• Worked with public safety entities to define the LTE standard and 

write educational materials about the broadband network.
Page 20 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

• Partnered with state and regional groups and interoperability 

coordinators in preparing broadband guidance documentation.

• Represented federal emergency responders and advocated for 

sharing agreements between the federal government and the PSST 

that will enable federal users, such as responders from the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, to access the broadband 

network.33

Since 2009, PSCR has:

• Worked with public safety agencies to develop requirements for the 

network and represents their interests before standards-setting 

organizations to help ensure public safety needs are met.

• Developed a demonstration broadband network that provides a 

realistic environment for public safety and industry to test and observe 

public safety LTE requirements on equipment designed for a 

broadband network. According to PSCR representatives, the 

demonstration network has successfully brought together more than 

40 vendors, including manufacturers and wireless carriers. Among 

many goals, PSCR aims to demonstrate to public safety how the new 

technology can meet their needs and encourage vendors to share 

information and results. FCC requires the 22 waiver jurisdictions and 

their vendors to participate in PSCR’s demonstration network and 

provide feedback on the challenges they have faced while building the 

network. PSCR representatives told us that the lessons learned from 

the waiver jurisdictions would be applied to future deployments.

• Tested interoperable systems and devices and provided feedback to 

manufacturers. Currently, there are five manufacturers working with 

PSCR to develop and test systems and devices.

With higher data speeds than the current LMR systems, a public safety 

broadband network could provide emergency responders with new video 

and data applications that are not currently available. Stakeholders we 

contacted, including waiver jurisdictions, emergency responders, and 

 

33Federal users are allowed to access the public safety broadband network, subject to the 

public safety broadband licensee’s approval, 47 C.F.R. § 2.103(c)(1). FCC cannot license

federal users, but federal users might be able to subscribe to the network.

Broadband Network Could 

Improve Incident 

Response 
Page 21 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

federal agencies, identified transmission of video as a key potential 

capability. For example, existing video from traffic cameras and police car 

mounted cameras could provide live video feeds for dispatchers. 

Dispatchers could use the video to help ensure that the proper personnel 

and necessary equipment are being deployed immediately to the scene of 

an emergency. Stakeholders we contacted predict that numerous data 

applications will be developed once a broadband network is complete, 

and that these applications will have the potential to further enhance 

incident response. These could range from a global positioning system 

application that provides directions based on traffic patterns to a 3D 

graphical floor plan display that supports firefighters’ efforts to battle 

building fires. In addition, unlike the current system, a public safety 

broadband network could provide access to existing databases of 

information, such as fire response plans and mug shots of wanted 

criminals, which could help to keep emergency responders and the public 

safe. As shown in figure 3, moving from lower bandwidth voice 

communications to a higher bandwidth broadband network unleashes the 

potential for the development of a range of public safety data applications.

Figure 3: Additional Emergency Response Capabilities from Increased Data Transfer Rates and Bandwidth

Notes: The data transfer rates listed in this figure are estimates. Rates vary depending on whether 

data are uploaded or downloaded—typically, data are faster to download than to upload. Download 

speed is the speed of getting information from the Web to a computer or handheld device, and upload 

speed is the reverse. In addition, higher data transfer rates may be required when data are 

transmitted to or from a moving device or when a device is further from the tower transmitting the 

signal.
Page 22 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Kb/s means kilobit per second, and mb/s means megabit per second.

Besides new applications, a public safety broadband network has the 

potential to provide nationwide access and interoperability. Nationwide 

access means emergency responders and other public safety officials 

could access their home networks from anywhere in the country, which 

could facilitate a better coordinated emergency response. Interoperability 

on a broadband network could allow emergency responders to share 

information irrespective of jurisdiction or type of public safety agency. For 

example, officials from two waiver jurisdictions indicated that forest fires 

are a type of emergency that brings together multiple jurisdictions, and in 

these situations a broadband network could facilitate sharing of response 

plans. However, an expert we contacted stressed that broadband 

applications should be tailored to the bandwidth needs of the response 

task. For example, responders should not use high-definition video when 

grainy footage would suffice to enable them to pursue a criminal suspect.

A major limitation of a public safety broadband network is that it would not 

provide mission critical voice communications for many years. LTE, the 

standard FCC identified for the public safety broadband network, is a 

wireless broadband standard that is not currently designed to support 

mission critical voice communications. Commercial wireless providers are 

currently developing voice over LTE capabilities, but this will not meet

public safety’s mission critical voice requirements because key elements 

needed for mission critical voice, such as push-to-talk, are not part of the 

LTE standard.34 While one manufacturer believes mission critical voice 

over LTE will be available as soon as 5 years, some waiver jurisdictions, 

experts, government officials, and others told us it will likely be 10 years 

or more due to the challenges described in table 3.

 

34The LTE standard is still being developed.

Limitations of Broadband 

Results in Continued 

Reliance on LMR Voice 

Systems
Page 23 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Table 3: Challenges to Developing Mission Critical Voice Capabilities for LTE

Key element for mission 

critical voice Challenges for LTE

Direct or talk around As the LTE standard is a commercial standard, it may not be in the financial interest of commercial 

providers to develop this capability. 

Push-to-talk Standards need to be developed for this technology and the technology needs to be able to connect 

and transmit with very little delay. 

Group talk Messages to groups will require bandwidth and the amount can vary based on the size of the group. 

The bandwidth for voice will take away from the bandwidth available for data. 

High quality audio Digital communications for radio networks have created challenges in the past and the new 

technology should allow a voice to be understood without repetition, as well as allow background 

noises to be heard without interference. 

Source: GAO based on industry information.

Absent mission critical voice capabilities on a broadband network, 

emergency responders will continue to rely on their current LMR voice 

systems, meaning a broadband network would supplement, rather than 

replace, LMR systems for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, until 

mission critical voice communications exist, issues that exacerbated 

emergency response efforts to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 

2001—in particular, that emergency responders were not able to 

communicate between agencies—will not be resolved by a public safety 

broadband network. As a result, public safety agencies will continue to 

use devices operating on the current LMR systems for mission critical 

voice communications, and require spectrum to be allocated for that 

purpose. Additionally, public safety agencies may be reluctant to give up 

their LMR devices, especially if they were costly and are still functional. 

As jurisdictions continue to spend millions of dollars on their LMR 

networks and devices, they will likely continue to rely on such 

communication systems until they are no longer functional.35

In addition to not having mission critical communications, emergency 

responders may only have limited access to the public safety broadband 

network from the interior of large buildings. While the 700 MHz spectrum 

provides better penetration of buildings than other bands of the spectrum, 

if emergency responders expect to have access to the network from 

inside large buildings and underground, additional infrastructure will need 

to be constructed. For example, antennas or small indoor cellular stations 

 

35LMR devices typically operate for more than 10 years, much longer than the standard 

commercial device.
Page 24 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

could be installed inside buildings and in underground structures to 

support access to the network. FCC is seeking comment on this issue as 

part of its most recent proceeding. Without this added infrastructure, 

emergency responders using the broadband network may not have 

access to building blue prints or fire response plans during building 

emergencies, such as a fire. In fact, one jurisdiction constructing a 

broadband network that we visited told us their network would not support 

in-building access in one city of the jurisdiction because the plan did not 

include antennas for inside the buildings.

A final limitation to a public safety broadband network could be its 

capacity during emergencies. Emergencies tend to happen in localized 

areas that may be served by a single cell tower or even a single cellular 

antenna on a tower.36 With emergency responders gathering to fight a fire 

or other emergency, the number of responders and the types of 

applications in use may exceed the capacity of the network. If the network 

reaches capacity it could overload and might not send life saving 

information.37 Therefore, the network would have to be managed during 

emergencies to ensure that the most important data are being sent, which 

could be accomplished by prioritizing data. Furthermore, capacity could 

be supplemented through deployable cell sites to emergency locations. 

Although the federal agencies have taken important steps to advance the 

broadband network, challenges exist that may slow its implementation. 

Specifically, stakeholders we spoke with prioritized five challenges to 

successfully building, operating, and maintaining a public safety 

broadband network. These challenges include (1) ensuring 

interoperability, (2) creating a governance structure, (3) building a reliable 

network, (4) designing a secure network, and (5) determining funding 

sources. FCC, in its Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

sought comment on some of these challenges, and as explained further, 

the challenge of creating a governance structure has been addressed by 

recent law. However, the other challenges currently remain unresolved 

 

36The technical design of a cellular network involves multiple hexagonal shaped cells 

merging together to form the network. 

37One waiver jurisdiction ran simulations on 10 MHz of 700 MHz spectrum and 

determined that when overloaded the network became unusable for video and data. 

Various Challenges 

Could Jeopardize the 

Implementation and 

Functionality of a 

Public Safety 

Broadband Network
Page 25 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

and, if left unaddressed, could undermine the development of a public 

safety broadband network.

Ensuring interoperability. To avoid a major shortcoming of the LMR 

communication systems, it is essential that a public safety broadband 

network be interoperable across jurisdictions and devices. DHS, in 

conjunction with its SAFECOM program, developed the Interoperability 

Continuum which identifies five key elements to interoperable networks—

governance, standard operating procedures, technology, training, and 

usage—that waiver jurisdictions and other stakeholders discussed as 

important to building an interoperable public safety broadband network, 

as shown in figure 4. For example, technology is critical to interoperability 

of the broadband network and most stakeholders, including public safety 

associations, experts, and manufacturers believe that identifying LTE as 

the technical standard was a good step towards interoperability. To 

further promote interoperability, stakeholders indicated that additional 

technical functionality, such as data sharing and roaming capabilities, 

should be part of the technical design. If properly designed to the 

technical standard, broadband devices will support interoperability 

regardless of the manufacturer. Testing devices to ensure they meet the 

identified standard could help eliminate devices with proprietary

applications that might otherwise limit interoperability. In its Fourth Further 

Notice, FCC solicited input on the technical design of the network and 

testing of devices to ensure interoperability.38

 

38Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, requires 

the creation of a Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability to develop 

recommended minimum technical requirements to ensure a nationwide level of 

interoperability.
Page 26 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Figure 4: SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum with Five Key Elements

Note: This graphic was created by DHS in conjunction with its SAFECOM program and we made a 

minor revision to its appearance. 

Creating a governance structure. As stated previously, governance is a 

key element for interoperable networks. A governance authority can

promote interoperability by bringing together federal, state, local, and 

emergency response representatives. Each of the waiver jurisdictions we 

contacted had identified a governance authority to oversee its broadband 

network. Jurisdictions we visited, as well as federal agencies, told us that 

any nationwide network should also have a nationwide governance entity 

to oversee it. Although several federal entities are involved with the 

planning of a public safety broadband network, at the time we conducted 

our work no entity had overall authority to make critical decisions for its 
Page 27 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

development, construction, and operation. According to stakeholders, 

decisions on developing a common language for the network, 

establishing user rights for federal agencies, and determining network 

upgrades, could be managed by such an entity. Pending legislation, the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, establishes a First 

Responder Network Authority as an independent authority within NTIA 

and gave it responsibility for ensuring the establishment of a nationwide, 

interoperable public safety broadband network. Among other things, the 

First Responder Network Authority is required to (1) ensure nationwide 

standards for use and access of the network; (2) issue open, transparent, 

and competitive requests for proposals to private sector entities to build, 

operate, and maintain the network; (3) encourage that such requests 

leverage existing commercial wireless infrastructure to speed deployment 

of the network; and (4) manage and oversee the implementation and 

execution of contracts and agreements with nonfederal entities to build, 

operate, and maintain the network. 

Building a reliable network. A public safety broadband network must be 

as reliable as the current LMR systems but it will require additional 

infrastructure to do so. As mentioned previously, emergency responders 

consider the current LMR systems very reliable, in part because they can 

continue to work in emergency situations. Any new broadband network 

would need to meet similar standards but, as shown in figure 5, such a 

network might require up to 10 times the number of towers as the current 

system. This is because a public safety broadband network is being 

designed as a cellular network, which would use a series of low powered 

towers to transmit signals and reduce interference. Also, to meet robust 

public safety standards, each tower must be “hardened” to ensure that it 

can withstand disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes. According 

to waiver jurisdictions and other stakeholders, this additional 

infrastructure and hardening of facilities may be financially prohibitive for 

many jurisdictions, especially those in rural areas that currently use 

devices operating on VHF spectrum—spectrum that is especially well

suited to rural areas because the signals can travel long distances.
Page 28 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Figure 5: Example of Infrastructure Required for Current LMR Systems and a Public 

Safety Broadband Network

Note: The number of towers needed for a cellular network is dependent on the amount of spectrum 

used by the network and the reliability needed.

Designing a secure network. Secure communications are important. 

Designing a protected and trusted broadband network will encourage 

increased usage and reliance on it. Security for a public safety network 

will require authentication and access control. By defining LTE as the 

technical standard for the broadband network, a significant portion of the 

security architecture is predetermined because the standard governs a 

certain level of security. Given the importance of this issue, FCC required 

waiver jurisdictions to include some security features in their networks 

and FCC’s most recent proceeding seeks input on security issues. 

Furthermore, FCC’s Public Safety Advisory Committee has issued a

report making several security-related recommendations. For example, it

recommended that standardized security features be in place to support 

roaming to commercial technologies. However, one expert we contacted 

expressed concern that the waiver jurisdictions were not establishing 
Page 29 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

sufficient network security because they had not received guidance. He 

believes this would result in waiver jurisdictions using security standards 

applied to previous networks. 

Determining funding sources. It is estimated that a nationwide public 

safety broadband network could cost up to $15 billion or more to 

construct, which does not take into account recurring operation and 

maintenance costs.

39 As noted previously, of the 22 waiver jurisdictions, 8 

have received federal grants to support deployment of a broadband 

network. Some of the other waiver jurisdictions have obtained limited 

funding from nonfederal sources, such as through issuing bonds. Several 

of the jurisdictions we spoke with stressed that in addition to the upfront 

construction costs, the ongoing costs associated with operating, 

maintaining, and upgrading a public safety broadband network would 

need to be properly funded. As previously indicated, the ECPC and 

SAFECOM have updated grant guidance to reflect changing technologies 

but this does not add additional funding for emergency communications. 

Rather, it defines broadband as an allowable purpose for emergency 

communications funding grants that may currently support the existing 

LMR systems. Since the LMR systems will not be replaced by a public 

safety broadband network, funding will be necessary to operate, maintain, 

and upgrade two separate communication systems.

 

39Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

authorizes proceeds ($7 billion) from incentive auctions to construct the public safety 

network and authorizes the First Responder Network Authority to assess and collect fees 

to enable the authority to recoup its total expenses annually. 

Limited Competition 

and High 

Manufacturing Costs 

Increase the Price of 

Handheld LMR 

Devices, but Options 

Exist to Reduce 

Prices 
Page 30 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Handheld LMR devices often cost thousands of dollars, and many 

stakeholders, including national public safety associations, state and local 

public safety officials, and representatives from the telecommunications 

industry, attribute these high prices to limited competition. Industry 

analysts and stakeholders estimate that the approximately $4 billion U.S. 

market for handheld LMR devices consists of one manufacturer with 

about 75 to 80 percent market share, one or two strong competitors, and 

several device manufacturers with smaller shares of the market.40

Small size of the public safety market. The market for handheld LMR 

devices in the United States includes only about 2 to 3 million customers, 

or roughly 1 percent of the approximately 300 million customers of 

commercial telecommunication devices. According to an industry 

estimate in 2009, approximately 300,000 handheld LMR devices that are 

P25 compliant are sold each year. Annual sales of handheld LMR devices 

are small in part because of low turnover. For example, device 

manufacturers told us that public safety devices are typically replaced 

every 10 to 15 years, suggesting that less than 10 percent of handheld 

LMR devices are replaced annually. In contrast, industry and public safety 

sources indicate that commercial customers replace devices roughly 

every 2 to 3 years, suggesting that about 33 to 50 percent are replaced 

annually. Together, low device turnover and a small customer base 

reduce the potential volume of sales by device manufacturers, which may 

make the market unattractive to potential entrants.

According to industry stakeholders, competition is weak because of 

limited entry by device manufacturers; this may be due to (1) the market’s 

relatively small size and (2) barriers to entry that confront nonincumbent 

device manufacturers.

The size of the market is reduced further by the need for manufacturers to 

customize handheld LMR devices for individual public safety agencies. 

Differences in spectrum allocations across jurisdictions have the effect of 

decreasing the customer base for any single device. As previously 

discussed, public safety agencies operate on different frequencies 

scattered across the radio spectrum. For example, one jurisdiction may 

need devices that operate on 700 MHz frequencies, whereas another 

 

40The competitiveness of a market may be determined by factors other than the number of 

manufacturers within it—a market with only one manufacturer may be competitive if the 

manufacturer faces a credible threat of entry by competitors because the possibility that 

competitors will take away customers is enough to keep prices down.

Competition for Handheld 

LMR Devices is Limited
Page 31 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

jurisdiction may need devices that operate on both 800 MHz and 450 

MHz frequencies. Existing handheld LMR devices typically do not 

transmit and receive signals in all public safety frequencies. As a result, 

device manufacturers cannot sell a single product to customers 

nationwide, and must tailor devices to the combinations of frequencies in 

use by the purchasing agency.

Barriers to entry by nonincumbent manufacturers. Device 

manufacturers wishing to enter the handheld LMR device market face 

barriers in doing so, which further limits competition. The use of 

proprietary technologies represents one barrier to entry. The inclusion of 

proprietary technologies often makes LMR devices noninteroperable with 

one another. This lack of interoperability makes it costly for customers to 

switch the brand of their devices, since doing so requires them to replace 

or modify older devices. These switching costs may continually compel 

customers to buy devices from the incumbent device manufacturer, 

preventing less established manufacturers from making inroads into the 

market. For example, in a comment filed with FCC, one of the 

jurisdictions we visited said that device manufacturers offer a proprietary 

encryption feature for free or at only a nominal cost.41 When a public 

safety agency buys devices that incorporate this proprietary encryption 

feature, the agency cannot switch its procurement to a different 

manufacturer without undertaking costly modifications to its existing fleet 

of devices. Switching costs are particularly high when a device 

manufacturer has installed a communication system that is incompatible 

with competitors’ devices. In this scenario, a public safety agency cannot 

switch to a competitor’s handheld device without incurring the cost of new 

equipment or a patching mechanism to resolve the incompatibility. Even 

where devices from different manufacturers are compatible, a fear of 

incompatibility may deter agencies from switching to a nonincumbent 

brand. According to industry stakeholders—and as we have confirmed in 

the past—devices marketed as P25 compliant often are not interoperable 

in practice.42

 

41Encryption features convert data into a code to prevent unauthorized access. Although 

the P25 standard permits certain encryption features in handheld LMR devices, some 

device manufacturers sell encryption technology that falls outside the P25 standard.

This lack of confidence in the P25 standard may encourage 

agencies to continue buying handheld LMR devices from their current 

42GAO-07-301. 
Page 32 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

brand, placing less established device manufacturers at a disadvantage 

and thus discouraging competition.

At the same time that less established manufacturers are at a 

disadvantage, the market leader enjoys distinct “incumbency 

advantages.” These advantages refer to the edge that a manufacturer 

derives from its position as incumbent, over and above whatever edge it 

derives from the strength of its product:

• According to an industry analyst, some public safety agencies are 

reluctant to switch brands of handheld LMR devices because their 

emergency responders are accustomed to the placement of the 

buttons on their existing devices.

• According to another industry analyst, the extensive network of 

customer representatives that the market leader has established over 

time presents an advantage. According to this analyst, less 

established device manufacturers face difficulty winning contracts 

because their networks of representatives are comparatively thin.

• The well-recognized brand of the market leader also represents an 

advantage. According to one stakeholder, some agencies mistakenly 

believe that only the market leader is able to manufacturer devices 

compliant with P25, and thus conduct sole-source procurements with 

this manufacturer. Even where procurements are competitive, the 

market leader is likely to enjoy an upper hand over its competitors; 

according to an industry analyst, local procurement officers prefer to 

buy handheld LMR devices from the dominant device manufacturer 

because doing so is an uncontroversial choice in the eyes of their 

management.43

Competition aside, handheld LMR devices are costly to manufacture, so 

their prices will likely exceed prices for commercial devices regardless of 

how much competition exists in the market. First, this is in large part 

because these devices need to be reinforced for high-pressure 

environments. Handheld LMR devices must be able to withstand 

 

43Further, incumbency advantages may be apparent in the standards development 

process. Stakeholders told us that because device manufacturers participate in the 

standards development process, the technology standards for handheld LMR devices may 

reflect the interests of dominant device manufacturers. 

High Manufacturing Costs 

and Lack of Buying Power 

Increase Device Prices
Page 33 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

extremes of temperature as well physical stressors such as dust, smoke, 

impact, and immersion in water. Second, they also have much more 

robust performance requirements than commercial devices––including 

greater transmitter and battery power––to enable communication at 

greater ranges and during extended periods of operation. Third, the 

devices are produced in quantities too small to realize the cost savings of 

mass production. Manufacturers of commercial telecommunication 

devices can keep prices lower simply because of the large quantities they 

produce. For example, one industry stakeholder told us that economies of 

scale begin for commercial devices when a million or more devices are 

produced per manufacturing run. In contrast, LMR devices are commonly 

produced in manufacturing runs of 25,000 units. Fourth, the exterior of 

handheld LMR devices must be customized to the needs of emergency 

responders. For example, the buttons on these devices must be large 

enough to press while wearing bulky gloves.

In addition, given that the P25 standard remains incomplete and 

voluntary, device manufacturers develop products based on conflicting 

interpretations of the standard, resulting in incompatibilities between their 

products. Stakeholders from one jurisdiction we visited said that agencies 

can request add-on features––such as the ability to arrange channels 

according to user preference or to scan for radio channels assigned for 

particular purposes—which fall outside the P25 standard. These features 

increase the degree of customization required to produce handheld LMR 

devices, pushing costs upward.

Furthermore, public safety agencies may be unable to negotiate lower 

prices for handheld LMR devices because they cannot exert buying 

power in relationship with device manufacturers. We found that public 

safety agencies are not in an advantageous position to negotiate lower 

prices because they often request customized features and negotiate with 

device manufacturers in isolation from one another. According to a public 

safety official in one jurisdiction we contacted, each agency has unique 

ordinances, purchasing mechanisms, and bidding processes for devices. 

Because public safety agencies contract for handheld LMR devices in this 

independent manner, they sacrifice the quantity discounts that come from 

placing larger orders. Moreover, they are unlikely to know what other 

agencies pay for similar devices, enabling device manufacturers to offer 

different prices to different jurisdictions rather than set a single price for 

the entire market. One public safety official told us that small jurisdictions 

therefore pay more than larger jurisdictions for similar devices. As we 

have reported in the past, agencies that require similar products can 

combine their market power—and therefore obtain lower prices—by 
Page 34 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

engaging in joint procurement.44

Although these factors drive up prices in the current market for handheld 

LMR devices, industry observers said that many of these factors diminish 

in the future market for handheld broadband devices. As described 

earlier, FCC has mandated a commercial standard, LTE, for devices 

operating on the new broadband networks. The use of this standard may 

reduce the prevalence of proprietary features that inhibit interoperability. 

In addition, the new broadband networks will operate on common 700 

MHz spectrum across the nation, eliminating the need to customize 

devices to the frequencies in use by individual jurisdictions. Together, the 

adoption of a commercial standard and the use of common spectrum are 

likely to increase the uniformity of handheld public safety devices, which 

in turn is likely to strengthen competition and enable the cost savings that 

come from bulk production. In addition, industry analysts and federal 

officials told us that they expect a heightened level of competition in the 

market for LTE devices because multiple device manufacturers are 

expected to develop them.

Therefore, wider efforts to coordinate 

procurement at the state, regional, or national level are likely to increase 

the buying power of public safety agencies and help bring down prices.

Options exist to reduce prices in the market for handheld LMR devices by 

increasing competition and the bargaining power of public safety 

agencies. One option is to reduce barriers to entry into the market. As 

described above, less established manufacturers may be discouraged 

from entering the market for handheld LMR devices because of the lack 

of interoperability between devices produced by different manufacturers. 

Consistent implementation of the P25 standard would increase 

interoperability between devices, enabling public safety agencies to mix 

and match handheld LMR devices from different brands. As we have 

reported in the past, independent testing is necessary to ensure 

compliance with standards and interoperability among products.45

 

44GAO, Transit Rail: Potential Rail Car Cost-Saving Strategies Exist, 

In the 

past several years, NIST and DHS have established a Compliance 

GAO-10-730

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010), and GAO, DOD and VA Pharmacy: Progress and 

Remaining Challenges in Jointly Buying and Mailing Out Drugs, GAO-01-588

(Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001).

45GAO, Information Assurance: National Partnership Offers Benefits, but Faces 

Considerable Challenges, GAO-06-392 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2006).

Options Exist to Reduce 

the Prices of Handheld 

LMR Devices
Page 35 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Assessment Program (CAP) for the P25 standard. CAP provides a 

government-led forum in which to test devices for conformance with P25 

specifications.46

A second option is for public safety agencies to engage in joint 

procurement to lower costs. Joint procurement of handheld LMR devices 

could increase the bargaining power of agencies as well as facilitate cost 

savings through quantity discounts. One public safety official we 

interviewed said that while local agencies seek to maintain control over 

operational matters—such as which emergency responders operate on 

which channels—they are likely to cede control in procurement matters if 

doing so lowers costs.

If the CAP program succeeds in increasing 

interoperability, it may reduce switching costs—that is, the expense of 

changing manufacturers—and thus may open the door to greater 

competition. Although CAP is a promising means to lower costs in this 

way, it is too soon to assess its effectiveness.

47 As described earlier in this report, DHS provides 

significant grant funding, technical assistance, and guidance to enhance 

the interoperability of LMR systems. For example, as described in its 

January 2012 Technical Assistance Catalog, DHS’s Office of Emergency 

Communications supports local public safety entities to ensure that LMR 

design documents meet P25 specifications and are written in a vendorneutral manner. Based on its experience in emergency communications 

and its outreach to local public safety representatives, DHS is positioned 

to facilitate and incentivize opportunities for joint procurement of handheld 

LMR devices.

Despite their interoperability limitations, traditional LMR systems have 

provided public safety agencies with mission critical voice capabilities that 

commercial broadband systems cannot provide. These LMR systems will 

continue to be essential for public safety communications until broadband 

systems are able to meet public safety requirements, particularly for 

 

46According to DHS, equipment that is found compliant is posted to the Responder 

Knowledge Base at (last accessed, Feb. 17, 2012) https://www.rkb.us/. 

47An alternative approach to fostering joint procurement is through a federal supply 

schedule. In 2008, the Local Preparedness Acquisition Act, Pub. L. No. 110-248, 122 Stat. 

2316 (2008), gave state and local governments the opportunity to buy emergency 

response equipment through GSA’s Cooperative Purchasing Program. The Cooperative 

Purchasing Program may provide a model for extending joint procurement to state and 

local public safety agencies. 

Conclusions 
Page 36 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

mission critical voice. As a result, a public safety broadband network 

would likely supplement, rather than replace, current LMR systems for the 

foreseeable future. Although a public safety broadband network could 

enhance incident response, it would have limitations and be costly to 

construct. Furthermore, since the LMR systems will still be operational for 

many years, funding will be necessary to operate, maintain, and upgrade 

two separate public safety communication systems.

At the time of our work, there was not an administrative entity that had the 

authority to plan, oversee, or direct the public safety broadband spectrum. 

As a result, overarching management decisions had not been made to 

guide the development or deployment of a public safety broadband 

network. According to SAFECOM’s interoperability continuum, 

governance structures provide a framework for collaboration and decision

making with the goal of achieving a common objective and therefore

foster greater interoperability. In addition to ensuring interoperability, a 

governance entity with proper authority could help to address the

challenges identified in this report, such as ensuring the network is secure 

and reliable. Pending legislation, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012, establishes an independent authority within NTIA to 

manage and oversee the implementation of a nationwide, interoperable 

public safety broadband network. 

Handheld communication devices used by public safety officials can cost 

thousands of dollars, mostly due to limited competition and high 

manufacturing costs. However, public safety agencies also lack buying 

power vis-à-vis the device manufacturers, which may result in the 

agencies overpaying for the devices. In particular, since public safety 

agencies negotiate individually with device manufacturers, they are 

unlikely to know what other agencies pay for comparable devices and 

they sacrifice the increased bargaining power and economies of scale 

that accompany joint purchasing. Especially in rural areas, public safety 

agencies may be overpaying for handheld devices. We have repeatedly 

recommended joint procurement as a cost saving measure for situations 

where agencies require similar products because it allows them to 

combine their market power and lower their procurement costs. Given 

that DHS has expertise in emergency communications and relationships 

with local public safety representatives, we believe it is well-suited to 

facilitate opportunities for joint procurement of handheld communication 

devices.
Page 37 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

To help ensure that public safety agencies are not overpaying for 

handheld communication devices, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

should work with federal and state partners to identify and communicate 

opportunities for joint procurement of public safety LMR devices.

We provided a draft of this report to Commerce, DHS, the Department of 

Justice, and FCC for their review and comment. In the draft report we 

sent to the agencies, we included a matter for congressional 

consideration for ensuring that a public safety broadband network has 

adequate direction and oversight, such as by creating a governance 

structure that gives authority to an entity to define rules and develop a 

plan for the overarching management of the network. As a result of 

pending legislation that addresses this issue, we removed the matter for 

congressional consideration from the final report. 

Commerce provided written comments, reprinted in appendix III, in which 

it noted that NIST and NTIA will continue to collaborate with and support 

state, local, and tribal public safety agencies and other federal agencies 

to help achieve effective and efficient public safety communications. 

In commenting on the draft report, DHS concurred with our 

recommendation that it should work with federal and state partners to 

identify and communicate opportunities for joint procurement of public 

safety LMR devices. While DHS noted that this recommendation will not 

likely assist near-term efforts to implement a public safety broadband 

network, assisting efforts for the broadband network was not the intention 

of the recommendation. Rather, we intended this recommendation to help 

ensure that public safety agencies do not overpay for handheld LMR 

devices by encouraging joint procurement. DHS suggested in response to 

our recommendation that a GSA solution may be more appropriate than 

DHS contracting activity. Although we recognize that a GSA solution is 

one possibility for joint procurement of handheld LMR devices, other 

opportunities and solutions might exist. We believe DHS, based on its 

experience in emergency communications and its outreach to state and 

local public safety representatives, is best suited to identify such 

opportunities and solutions for joint procurement and communicate those 

to the public safety agencies. In its letter, DHS also noted that it continues 

to work with federal, state, local, and private-sector partners to facilitate 

the deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband network, and 

stressed that establishing an effective governance structure is crucial to 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation 
Page 38 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

ensuring interoperability and effective use of the network. DHS’s written 

comments are reprinted in appendix IV. 

Commerce, DHS, the Department of Justice, and FCC provided technical 

comments on the draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, the 

Chairman of FCC, and appropriate congressional committees. In addition, 

the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. Contact information and major contributors to 

this report are listed on appendix V.

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure
Page 39 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

List of Requesters

The Honorable Fred Upton

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV

Chairman

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Greg Walden

Chairman

The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Edward J. Markey

House of Representatives
Page 40 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

This report examines current communication systems used by public 

safety and issues surrounding the development of a nationwide public 

safety broadband network. Specifically, we reviewed (1) the resources 

that have been provided for current public safety communication systems 

and their capabilities and limitations, (2) how a nationwide public safety 

broadband network is being planned and its anticipated capabilities and 

limitations, (3) the challenges to building a nationwide public safety 

broadband network, and (4) the factors that influence competition and 

cost in the development of public safety communication devices and the 

options that exist to reduce prices.

To address all objectives, we conducted a literature review of 43 articles 

from governmental and academic sources on public safety 

communications. We reviewed these articles and recorded relevant 

evidence in workpapers, which informed our report findings. To identify 

existing studies, we conducted searches of various databases, such as 

EconLit, ProQuest, Academic OneFile, and Social SciSearch. We also 

pursued a snowball technique—following citations from relevant articles—

to find other relevant articles and asked external researchers that we 

interviewed to recommend additional studies. These research methods 

produced 106 articles for initial review. We vetted this initial list by 

examining summary level information about each piece of literature, 

giving preference to articles that appeared in peer-reviewed journals and 

were germane to our research objectives. As a result, the 43 studies that

we selected for our review met our criteria for relevance and quality. For 

the 13 articles related to our fourth objective—factors that affect 

competition and cost in the market for public safety communication 

devices—a GAO economist performed a secondary review and confirmed 

the relevance to our objective. Articles were then reviewed and evidence 

captured in workpapers. The workpapers were then reviewed for 

accuracy of the evidence gathered. We performed these searches and 

identified articles from June 2011 to September 2011.

We also interviewed government officials or stakeholders in 6 of the 22 

jurisdictions that are authorized to build early public safety broadband 

networks and obtained information concerning each objective. In 

particular, we obtained information concerning their current 

communication systems and its capabilities, including any funding 

received to support the current network. We discussed their plan for 

building a public safety broadband network and the challenge they had 

faced thus far, including the role each thought the federal government 

should play in developing a network. We also discussed their views on 

the communication device market and the factors shaping the market. We 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Page 41 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

selected jurisdictions to contact based on three criteria: (1) whether the 

jurisdiction received grant funds from the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration (NTIA) to help build the network, (2) 

whether the planned network would be a statewide or regional network, 

and (3) geographic distribution across the nation. Table 4 lists the 

jurisdictions we selected based on these criteria. We selected 

jurisdictions based on NTIA grant funding because these jurisdictions had 

received the most significant federal funds dedicated towards developing 

a broadband network. Other jurisdictions either had not identified any 

funding or applied smaller grant funding that was not primarily targeted at 

emergency communications. We selected the size of the network, 

statewide or regional, to determine if challenges differed based on the 

size of the network and the number of entities involved. Finally, we 

selected sites based on the geographic region to get a geographic mix of 

jurisdictions from around the country. In jurisdictions that received NTIA 

funding, we met with government officials and emergency responders.1

Table 4: Jurisdictions Contacted 

In 

jurisdictions that did not receive NTIA funding we met with the 

government officials since the network had not progressed as much.

Criteria

Jurisdiction NTIA funding Scope of network Geographic region

Boston, Massachusetts No Regional East 

Texas No Statewide South

Iowa No Statewide Midwest

San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose (BayWEB), California Yes Regional West

Adams County Communications Center, Colorado Yes Regional West

Mississippi Wireless Communications Commission Yes Statewide South

Source: GAO analysis.

To determine the resources that have been provided for current public 

safety communication systems, we reviewed Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) data on spectrum allocations for land mobile radio 

(LMR) systems. In addition, we reviewed relevant documentation and 

interviewed officials from offices within the Departments of Commerce 

(Commerce), Homeland Security (DHS), and Justice that administer grant 

 

1

In two of the jurisdictions that received NTIA funding, we also met with technology 

vendors.
Page 42 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

programs or provide grants that identify public safety communications as 

an allowable expense. We selected these agencies to speak with 

because they had more grant programs providing funds or were regularly 

mentioned in interviews as providing funds for public safety 

communications. We also reviewed documents from agencies, such as 

the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation, which similarly 

operate grant programs that identify public safety communications as an 

allowable expense. The grants were identified by DHS’s SAFECOM 

program as grants that can support public safety communications.

To identify the capabilities and limitations of current public safety 

communication systems, we reviewed relevant congressional testimonies, 

academic articles on the capabilities and limitations of LMR networks, and 

relevant federal agency documents, including DHS’s National Emergency 

Communications Plan. We interviewed officials from three national public 

safety associations—the Association of Public-Safety Communications 

Officials (APCO), National Public Safety Telecommunications Council 

(NPSTC), and the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST)—as well as 

researchers and consultants referred to us for their knowledge of public 

safety communications and identified during the literature review process.

To determine the plans for a nationwide public safety broadband network 

and its expected capabilities and limitations, we reviewed relevant 

congressional testimonies and academic articles on services and 

applications likely to operate on a public safety broadband network, the 

challenges to building, operating, and maintaining a network. We 

interviewed officials from APCO, NPSTC, and PSST, as well as 

researchers and consultants who specialize in public safety 

communications to understand the potential capabilities of the network. In 

addition, we reviewed FCC orders and notices of proposed rulemaking 

relating to broadband for public safety, as well as comments on this topic 

submitted to FCC.

To determine the federal role in the public safety broadband network, we 

interviewed multiple agencies involved in planning this network. Within 

FCC, we interviewed officials from the Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau (PSHSB), the mission of which is to ensure public safety 

and homeland security by advancing state-of-the-art communications that 

are accessible, reliable, resilient, and secure, in coordination with public 

and private partners. Within Commerce, we interviewed officials from 

NTIA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), two 

agencies that develop, test, and advise on broadband standards for 

public safety. We also interviewed officials from the Public Safety 
Page 43 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Communications Research (PSCR) program, a joint effort between NIST 

and NTIA that works to research, develop, and test public safety 

communication technologies. Within DHS, we interviewed officials from 

the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) and the Office of 

Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), two agencies that provide input 

on the public safety broadband network through their participation on 

interagency coordinating bodies.

To determine the technological, historical, and other factors that affect 

competition in the market for public safety devices, as well as what 

options exist to reduce the cost of these devices, we reviewed the 

responses to FCC’s notice seeking comment on competition in public 

safety communications technologies. In addition, we reviewed our prior 

reports and correspondence on this topic between FCC and the House of 

Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce that occurred in 

June and July of 2010 and April and May of 2011. We also conducted an 

economic literature review that included 13 academic articles examining 

markets for communications technology and, in particular, how issues of 

standards, compatibility, bundling, and price discrimination affect entry 

and competition in these markets. These articles provided a historical and 

theoretical context for communication technology markets, which helped 

shape our findings. We asked about factors affecting the price of public 

safety devices, as well as how to reduce these prices, during our 

interviews with national public safety organizations, local and regional 

public safety jurisdictions, and the federal agencies we contacted during 

our audit work. We also interviewed two researchers specifically identified 

for their knowledge of communication equipment markets based on their 

congressional testimony or publication history. In addition, we interviewed 

representatives from four companies that produce public safety devices 

or network components, as well as two financial analysts who track the 

industry.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2011 to February 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Page 44 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

SAFECOM, a program administered by DHS, has identified federal grant

programs across nine agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 

Interior, Justice, Transportation, and the U.S. Navy that allow grant funds 

to fund public safety emergency communications efforts. These grants 

include recurring grants that support emergency communications, 

research grants that fund innovative and pilot projects, and past grants 

that may be funding ongoing projects. While the funding from these 

grants can support emergency communications, the total funding reported 

does not mean it was all spent on emergency communications.1 We 

provided the amounts of the grants and the years funded when this 

information was available.

Two agencies within Commerce—NTIA and NIST—administer grants that 

allow funds to be directed towards public safety emergency 

communications (see table 5).

Table 5: Commerce Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable Expenditure

Program (administering agency) Description

Years funded 

(if available) 

Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program (NTIA)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided one-time 

funding for improvements to broadband access, as well as, broadband 

education, awareness, training, equipment, and support to community anchor 

institutions, among other purposes. This program provided $3.9 billion 

including more than $382 million for infrastructure projects to deploy public 

safety wireless broadband networks.

Fiscal years 

2009-2010

Measurement Science and 

Engineering Research Grants: 

Electronics and Electrical 

Engineering Laboratory Program 

(NIST) 

The program provides grants and cooperative agreements for the 

development of fundamental electrical metrology and of metrology supporting 

industry and government agencies (including law enforcement standards). 

n/a

Measurement Science and 

Engineering Research Grants: 

Information Technology Laboratory 

Grants Program (NIST)

The program provides grants and cooperative agreements in the broad areas 

of mathematical and computational sciences, advanced network technologies, 

information access, and software testing. 

n/a

 

1

It would be very difficult to review all grants to identify the total funding spent exclusively 

on emergency communications. 

Appendix II: Federal Grant Programs for 

Emergency Communications

Department of 

Commerce
Page 45 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Program (administering agency) Description

Years funded 

(if available) 

Measurement Science and 

Engineering Research Grants: 

Physical Measurement Laboratory 

Grants Programa

This program provides grants and cooperative agreements in several fields of 

research, including research on time and frequency standards and 

applications.

 (NIST) 

n/a

Public Safety Interoperable 

Communications Grant Program 

(NTIA and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency)

This grant program provided one-time funding to states and territories to 

enable and enhance public safety agencies’ interoperable communications 

capabilities.b

Fiscal year 

2007

The program awarded more than $968 million to fund 

interoperable communications projects in the 56 states and territories.

Source: DHS and Commerce.

Note: Not available is referenced as n/a in the table.

a

Formerly the Measurement Science and Engineering Research Grants: Physics Laboratory Grant 

Program.

b The Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program was created by the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-171, §3006, 120 Stat. 4, 24 (2006)). The Digital Television 

Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 allowed funding for the Interoperable Emergency 

Communications Grant Program. (Pub. L. No. 111-96).

Two agencies within DHS administer grants that allow funds to be 

directed towards public safety emergency communications—the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Science and 

Technology Directorate. Another agency, OEC, has administered one 

such grant program. Furthermore, DHS maintains an authorized 

equipment list to document equipment eligible for purchase under its 

grant programs, including interoperable communications equipment.2

(See table 6.)

 

2

Interoperable Communications Equipment eligible for purchase under DHS’s authorized 

equipment list can be found at (last accessed Feb. 17, 2012) 

https://www.rkb.us/mel.cfm?expand=1&subtypeid=549. See Category 6 for Interoperable 

Communication Equipment. 

Department of 

Homeland Security
Page 46 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Table 6: DHS Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable Expenditure

Program Description

Years funded 

(if available)

Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

Program (FEMA)

This program awards grants to fire departments to enhance their ability to 

protect the public and fire service personnel from fire and fire-related hazards. 

n/a

Border Interoperability 

Demonstration Project (OEC)

This was a one-time competitive demonstration project that provided funding to 

state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to develop and identify innovative 

approaches to improving interoperable emergency communications along and 

across U.S. international borders. This grant provided $25.6 million to eligible 

jurisdictions.

Fiscal year 

2010

Buffer Zone Protection Program 

(FEMA) 

This program provides funding to states for improving preparedness 

capabilities of jurisdictions surrounding high-priority critical infrastructure, such 

as nuclear power plants and financial institutions. This program has provided 

almost $333 million to eligible jurisdictions.

Fiscal years 

2005-2010

Citizen Corps Grant Program 

(FEMA) 

This program’s mission is to bring community and government leaders 

together to coordinate community-based planning efforts. This program has 

provided almost $186 million. 

Fiscal years 

2007-2011

Emergency Management 

Performance Grant (FEMA)

The grant assists state and local governments in enhancing and sustaining 

their all-hazards emergency management capabilities. 

n/a

Emergency Management 

Performance Grants Supplemental

(FEMA) 

This supplemental grant provided an additional $50 million for the Emergency 

Management Performance Grant program. 

Fiscal year 

2007

Emergency Operations Center Grant 

Program (FEMA)

This grant program is intended to help building or renovating state, local, or 

tribal Emergency Operation Centers. 

n/a

Intercity Bus Security Grant Program 

(FEMA) 

The purpose of this program is to provide funding to protect the intercity bus 

systems and people traveling on the systems from terrorism. Operators may 

use the funds to purchase emergency communications technology that 

focuses on theft prevention, real-time bus inventory, tracking, monitoring, and 

locating technologies.

n/a

Intercity Passenger Rail–Amtrak 

(FEMA) 

The purpose this grant program is to protect critical passenger rail 

infrastructure and the traveling public from terrorism. Amtrak is the only entity 

eligible to apply for funding under this grant program. 

n/a

Interoperable Emergency 

Communications Grant Program 

(FEMA) 

This program provided funding to state, local and tribal entities for governance, 

planning, and training to improve interoperable emergency communications.a n/a 

Long-Range Broad Agency 

Announcement (Science and 

Technology)

This program serves as an open invitation to the scientific and technical 

communities to fund pioneering research and development projects in support 

of the nation’s security. The proposals may focus on prototypes that offer 

potential for advancement and improvement of homeland security missions 

and operations. 

n/a

Metropolitan Medical Response 

System Grant Program (FEMA)

This program provides funding to states to support the integration of local 

emergency management and medical systems into a coordinated local 

response system. Program funds can support purchasing of pharmaceuticals 

and personal protective equipment, among other things. This program has 

provided nearly $186 million to eligible states.

Fiscal years 

2007-2011
Page 47 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Program Description

Years funded 

(if available)

Operation Stonegarden (FEMA) This program provides funding to jurisdictions to enhance cooperation and 

coordination between law enforcement agencies that work to secure the U.S. 

borders. Funds must be used to improve coordinated operational capabilities 

of law enforcement agencies. This program has provided more than $234 

million. 

Fiscal years

2008-2011

Port Security Grant Program (FEMA) This program’s purpose is to protect critical port infrastructure from terrorism, 

particularly attacks that could cause a major disruption to commerce. 

n/a

Port Security Grant Program–

American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act funding (FEMA)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided additional 

one-time funding for this program to protect critical port infrastructure from 

terrorism.

Fiscal years 

2009 b

State Homeland Security Program 

(FEMA) 

This program awards grants to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 5 

U.S. territories on the basis of risk and need. It provides funds to build state 

and local emergency response capabilities and implement state homeland 

security plans. This program has provided almost $3.1 billion to eligible 

entities. 

Fiscal years 

2008-2011

Tribal Homeland Security Grant 

Program (FEMA)

This grant program provides funds to eligible tribes for strengthening the nation 

against terrorism. 

n/a

Trucking Security Program (FEMA) This program supports the trucking industries’ adoption and implementation of 

security measures, including global positioning systems tracking, and driver 

emergency alert notification systems, among other measures. 

n/a

Urban Area Security Initiative 

Nonprofit Security Grant Program 

(FEMA) 

This program provides funding to support nonprofit organizations located 

within a Urban Area Security Initiative region that are at high risk of a terrorist 

attack. Allowable costs include security communications and hardening 

activities. 

n/a

Urban Areas Security Initiative 

(FEMA) 

This program focuses on enhancing regional preparedness in major 

metropolitan areas.c Fiscal years It is intended to assist participating jurisdictions in 2007-2011

developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response, 

and recovery. This program has provided more than $3.8 billion.

Source: DHS.

Note: Not available is referenced as n/a in the table.

a

This program was jointly implemented by FEMA and OEC. FEMA defunded this program in fiscal 

year 2011 and instead incorporated the program’s emergency communications goals and activities 

into the Homeland Security Grant program. Each of the five programs that comprise the Homeland 

Security Grant Program allows the grantee to purchase interoperable communications equipment.

b

Pub. L. No. 111-5.

c

FEMA has identified 31 highest risk urban areas eligible for Urban Areas Security Initiative funding.
Page 48 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Two offices within Department of Justice, the Community Oriented 

Policing Services (COPS) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 

administer grants that allow funds to be directed towards public safety 

emergency communications (see table 7).

Table 7: Department of Justice Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable Expenditure

Program Description

Years funded 

(if available)

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant (OJP)

This grant program supports many components of the criminal justice system, 

from multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces to crime prevention. In fiscal 

year 2011, the program awarded $360 million in grants for 1,400 grantees. 

Fiscal years 

2006-2011

Interoperable Communications 

Technology Grant Program 

(COPS) 

Program provides funding for continued development of technologies and 

automated systems to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies 

increase interoperability. The program awarded approximately $250 million to 

eligible law enforcement agencies.

Fiscal years 

2003-2006

Law Enforcement Technology 

Program (COPS)

A noncompetitive program focused on the development of technologies to enable 

better response, investigation, and prevention of crime. The program provided 

$1.3 billion dollars grants to 18,000 local law enforcement agencies. 

Fiscal years 

1998-2010

National Institute of Justice 

Research Grants (OJP)

This program funded research in three areas: (1) enhancing the safety of criminal 

justice officers, (2) advancing use of geospatial technologies in law enforcement, 

and (3) modeling and simulation of technologies for virtual criminal justice 

training. 

n/a

Tribal Resources Grant Program 

(COPS) 

Program provides funding directly to federally-recognized tribal jurisdictions with 

established law enforcement agencies. It consists of two types of grants: (1) 

hiring grants and (2) equipment and training grants. 

n/a

Source: DHS and the Department of Justice.

Note: Not available is referenced as n/a in the table.

Six additional federal agencies administer grants that can fund public 

safety emergency communications, including the Departments of 

Agriculture (USDA), Transportation (DOT), Health and Human Services 

(HHS), Education, Interior, and the U.S. Navy (see table 8).

Department of Justice

Other Agency Programs
Page 49 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Table 8: Other Grants with Emergency Communications as an Allowable Expenditure

Program Description

Years funded (if 

available)

Broadband Initiatives Program 

(USDA) 

This program was funded by ARRA with the purpose of awarding grants 

and loans to facilitate broadband deployment in rural communities. This 

one-time program provided $3.5 billion in loans and grants for 320 projects. 

Fiscal years 2009-

2010

Communications and Networking 

(U.S. Navy)

This program provides funding for institutions and individuals’ research and 

development of antennas, radio communications and wireless networking 

relevant to naval applications. 

n/a

Enhanced 911 Grant Program 

(DOT)

This program provided grants to help 911 call centers implement nextgeneration technologies, such as the receipt of video or text messages 

from wireless callers or other features that could improve emergency 

response or enhance safety. The program provided more than $40 million 

in grants.

n/a

Hospital Preparedness Program 

(HHS)

The program supports the ability for hospitals and health care systems to 

prepare for and respond to bioterrorism and other public health 

emergencies. All awardees are required to equip participating healthcare 

entities with communication devices. 

n/a

Public Health Emergency 

Response Grant Program (HHS) 

The purpose of this grant was to support and enhance the state and local 

public health infrastructure that is critical to public health preparedness and 

response in the event of an influenza pandemic. Sixty-two entities, 

including the 50 states, 4 municipalities, and 8 territories and freely 

associated states were awarded this one-time grant. 

n/a

Readiness and Emergency 

Management for Schools 

(Education)

Program provides funds to local educational agencies to establish an 

emergency management process that focuses on reviewing and 

strengthening emergency management plans.a

n/a

 

Rural Development Community 

Connect Grant Program (USDA)

The program provides financial assistance to provide broadband service in 

rural communities without broadband. The grants establish broadband 

service for critical facilities, such as fire or police stations, while also 

providing service to residents and businesses. 

n/a

Rural Development Community 

Facilities Programs (USDA)

This program provides grants and loans to rural public safety agencies by 

financing needed equipment, improvements, and services. 

n/a

Rural Fire Assistance Outreach 

(Interior) 

This program supports increasing local firefighter safety and enhancing fire 

protection capabilities of rural fire departments by providing basic wildland 

firefighting supplies and equipment.

n/a

State Health Information 

Exchange Cooperative 

Agreement Program (HHS)

This program provided funding to facilitate and expand the secure, 

electronic movement and use of health information among organizations 

according to nationally recognized standards that promote interoperability. 

n/a

Source: DHS and other funding agencies.

Note: Not available is referenced as n/a in the table.

a

The term “local educational agency” means a public board of education or other public authority 

legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a 

service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, 

school district, or other political subdivision of a state, or of or for a combination of school districts or 

counties that is recognized in a state as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or 

secondary schools.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 50 GAO-12-343 12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 51 GAO-12-343 12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 52 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 53 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Footnote 43, cited in the 

letter, became footnote 

47 due to editing.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 54 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 55 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Sally Moino, Assistant Director; 

Namita Bhatia-Sabharwal; Dave Hooper; Eric Hudson; Josh Ormond; 

Bonnie Pignatiello Leer; Ellen Ramachandran; Andrew Stavisky; Hai 

Tran; and Mindi Weisenbloom made significant contributions to this 

report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products

Page 56 GAO-12-343 Implementation of a Public Safety Broadband Network

Emergency Communications: National Communications System Provides 

Programs for Priority Calling, but Planning for New Initiatives and 

Performance Measurement Could Be Strengthened. GAO-09-822. 

Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2009.

Emergency Communications: Vulnerabilities Remain and Limited 

Collaboration and Monitoring Hamper Federal Efforts. GAO-09-604. 

Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2009.

First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications 

Interoperability. GAO-07-301. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2007.

Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental 

Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable 

Communications. GAO-04-740. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.

Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications 

Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration. GAO-04-494. Washington, D.C.: 

April 16, 2004.

Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 

Communications for First Responders. GAO-04-231T. Washington, D.C.: 

November 6, 2003.

Related GAO Products

(543283)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.