A Critical Infrastructure Network (CIN) could serve public safety,
utilities and remote rural areas with one network.
Once in a while a significant new enterprise can emerge when need, availability and required resources align. Right now there appears to be just such a situation in the wireless arena – a 
window of opportunity that could be exploited to create a major advance in our national interests.
What I am proposing is the design and deployment of a Critical Infrastructure Network (CIN), which will meet the collective wireless broadband needs of the public safety community, the electric power smart grid and remote rural areas that currently have minimal, if any, access to broadband Internet service. Each of these three user constituencies is facing an urgent need for enhanced broadband, and each is in line to receive some sort of federal help in meeting those needs. When one considers what is required and the costs, the concept of a single network, the CIN, serving all three seems irresistible.
HOW IT WORKS
The proposed CIN will operate on the combined 700 MHz spectrum consisting of the public safety broadband block and the commercial D block, totaling about 22 MHz. This is not really much of a departure from current plans for this spectrum. The original FCC plan was to have a single nationwide commercial D-block operator join forces with the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST) to build a Shared Wideband Network (SWBN) that would provide services to both commercial customers and state and local public safety entities. Nationwide common frequency and air interface standards for the SWBN would allow public safety personnel from different agencies to communicate and share data with one another. The hope was that bringing in a commercial D-block operator would provide private capital to build the network, something cash-strapped state and local governments couldn’t afford to do on their own.
Unfortunately, the FCC’s auction of the 700 MHz D-block was a bust, for reasons that have been widely discussed. The FCC is considering a re-auction of some sort in order to salvage its idea of a public/private SWBN partnership, but current economic conditions suggest that this might be a tough sell. With the SWBN on hold, and bolstered by federal stimulus funding, some public safety agencies are beginning to look at other alternatives for broadband services. Lacking a mandate for standardization, this means that a lot of money will be invested in systems that will fail once again to deliver on the promise of nationwide compatibility.
To address this deficiency, some have proposed federal funding for public safety broadband networks with common air interface standards using the PSST spectrum. But even greater benefits can be derived from expanding the concept to encompass other critical needs. In fact, the CIN makes even more operational sense than the public/private SWBN because the very high reliability and security needed by public safety users, and achieved only at significant added network cost, are more suitable for critical infrastructure applications like the smart grid than for ordinary commercial users.
Availability of a highly reliable wireless broadband network will significantly reduce the cost and time needed to build the smart grid. In fact, the Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) has recently petitioned the FCC to allocate 30 MHz of spectrum in the 1800 MHz band for a nationwide wireless network dedicated largely to the needs of the smart grid. The UTC is requesting that the spectrum be granted to the utility industry, which includes both public and private enterprises, at no cost. However, even if the FCC eventually grants this request, there remains the question of how such a network would be financed. Experts have estimated that construction of the nationwide SWBN built to the reliability and coverage requirements specified by the PSST would cost around $20 billion over five years. That’s for a network operating in the 700 MHz band; because of lower coverage from each site in rural areas, the costs for a similar network in the 1800 MHz band would likely be significantly higher.
One way or another, through subsidies or utility rate hikes, taxpayers will end up paying for the network proposed by the UTC. In fact, because it is at the heart of the national goal of energy independence, the federal government is prepared to invest heavily in construction of the smart grid. But if we are going to be spending this sort of money for public safety wireless broadband (and we will, either on a unified common network or a patchwork of local networks), why would we want to spend at least that much again just so utilities don’t have to share?
ADDRESSING RURAL AREAS
Besides public safety and the smart grid, the CIN could provide broadband Internet access to rural areas, a service that is also very much in the current spotlight for federal funding. In much of rural America, once you leave the immediate vicinity of local telephone exchanges (that is, close enough for wire-borne DSL service), affordable Internet access is usually limited to dial-up speeds well below 100 kbps. With commerce and education becoming more and more dependent upon broadband Internet access, areas without such service will be left behind – the so-called “digital divide.” Federal agencies are currently providing funding for “rural” wireless broadband projects, but most of those, operating on 2.5 GHz, can efficiently serve only cities and towns. For service to truly rural areas, 700 MHz will work much better. At the same time, the requirements of public safety and the smart grid will dictate that coverage of the CIN extend to remote areas. Except when needed for rare emergency situations, excess CIN capacity in such areas could be made available for public broadband Internet access.
So there it is: Three different national interest requirements for broadband wireless communications, each targeted for federal funding, that could be satisfied with a single CIN for which spectrum (in just about the optimal frequency band) is already allocated. Need, availability and resources are all in position. The opportunity is there. Can we seize it?
Drucker is president of Drucker Associates.
He may be contacted at edrucker@drucker-associates.com.